Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'In the News' started by Malum Prohibitum, Oct 9, 2007.
Conoco Phillips pleased to have federal judge disarm you
From one of the comments, "No guns, no money"....I agree, business want to applaud that decision, then everyone that disagrees with it shouldn't give then a cent. In this case, Conoco Phillips.
Does anyone know of a website that lists business's that are/aren't pro-gun?
I have no problem going out of my way or even spending a little more to help the greater good.
This is my new favorite quote. I think I might have to update my signature.
This might affect SB 43, here in Georgia. Keep in mind this was a federal judge, not an Oklahoma state court. I would have to read the opinion to see whether it is based in federal law that would apply in Georgia as well.
The Fed Judge based the injunction on the OSHA law.
Federal law . . . (and I guess I should have read my own post, second from the top . . .)
Clayton Cramer is taking the position that it appears the federal judge is not only ruling that companies may ban guns from their parking lots, but that OSHA requires them to do so.
http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/200 ... 5822049868
Sure made it safer at Brown Trucking Co.
https://www.georgiapacking.org/forum/vie ... php?t=6376
I'm sure we can use the resources of the Brady Bunch, the Violence Policy Center(?), and there's probably a website about 'buying blue'. I like the idea of using their own research against them.
Conoco phillips brands O' products, (translation= stuff not to buy anymore)
http://bp1.blogger.com/_Ll5chfz1qFU/Rwj ... +08.55.jpg
Court Rejects "Forced Entry" Of Guns At Work
Posted October 12, 2007 | 09:49 AM (EST)
What do you call a law that forces employers to accept guns on their property, when doing so makes it impossible to provide a safe workplace under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)?
What do you call a law that could force guns onto the private property of a homeowner who doesn't want them?
In Oklahoma, they call it "unenforceable."
Last Thursday, October 4, Judge Terence Kern of the Federal District Court in Tulsa, Oklahoma, issued a 93-page injunction [pdf document] that rejected the gun lobby's fiercest effort yet to force guns into America's workplaces. Notably, the court's opinion cited the Brady Center report on this critical subject - Forced Entry: The National Rifle Association's Campaign To Force Businesses To Accept Guns At Work - no fewer than five times.
Under the "forced entry" statutes that Judge Kern rejected (Okla. Stat. Â§Â§21-1289.7 and 1290.22(B)), someone who kept a gun in their car would have the right to take their weapon almost anywhere there was a parking lot - courthouses, mental health facilities, day care centers, and almost every private business. Even some homeowners in Oklahoma may not have been able to prevent a guest from driving onto their property with a firearm in his or her automobile. (See pp. 61-62 of the opinion [pdf document].)
Does that make sense to you? Should a guest be able to tell you what you can do on the property that you bought and paid for? Somehow it does to the NRA. Yet to most Americans [see table 8.2] with a more traditional understanding of private property, the Oklahoma law was completely irrational. That helps explain why the NRA's attempts to pass similar laws have failed in Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Texas and nine other states over the last two years.
As it happens, however, Judge Kern didn't reject the Oklahoma "forced entry" law because it contradicted a basic understanding of private property. Instead, Judge Kern found it impossible for an Oklahoma employer to simultaneously follow the state's bizarre "forced entry" gun law and fulfill its general duty under OSHA "to protect [ ] employees from recognized hazards that are likely to cause death or serious bodily injury." The court rightly concluded that an employer's general duty "extends to the hazard of gun-related workplace violence" and that such violence "is a 'hazard' that is likely to cause death or serious bodily injury to employees."
The evidence is clearly on the court's side. And it's just common sense.
Due to the court's decision, working families in Oklahoma can rest easier knowing that now business owners have control over their property again, and that they can punch their time-clocks without worrying about how many of their co-workers have a semi-automatic firearm out in the parking lot because the law said it was OK.
It's not OK, and now they have the right to say so.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-helm ... 68192.html
You are a braver man then me, subjecting yourself to the drivel at HuffPost
Reversed on Appeal!
(See pp. 61-62 of the opinion [pdf document].)
I've always been of the opinion that my car is my property. Kind of like a mobile embassy of me. The ground it sits on may belong to someone else, but the interior of the car is mine.
Glad to see an appeals court agree
I'm still not buying gas from Conoco Phillips
A good discussion is here: