Federal Court shoots down law that stopped employers from banning guns in locked cars
Well, given that I think that bans make it easier for multiple victim public shootings to happen, I think that they got the argument backwards. I wonder what evidence was provided by the state and whether the state will appeal.
The Tulsa World a federal court struck a pro-gun State measure. OK passed a law forbidding employers to ban guns in locked cars in their parking lots. ConocoPhillips and some others sued in federal court to strike it. The federal district court bought their argument that the state law conflicted with the federal 1970 Occupational Health and Safety Act, which requires employers to minimize workplace risks.
UPDATE: Let me make something clear here. I think that it should be up to the property owner to decide how their property is used, but given that the federal government regulates all sorts of aspects of work place safety, I am not sure why these gun free zones should be treated any differently.
UPDATE: Let me make something clear here. I think that it should be up to the property owner to decide how their property is used, but given that the federal government regulates all sorts of aspects of work place safety, I am not sure why these gun free zones should be treated any differently.
Labels: courts, GunFreeZone
posted by John Lott at 11:04 PM
2 Comments:
I actually side with Conoco on this one, but I don't agree their argument is valid.
As a private property owner, Concoco et al should have their rights respected. If they say "no guns" then that's that...as unwise a policy as I agree it is.
However, they do not have the authority to arbitrarily search your car, so I wonder what ultimate benefit they believe their misguided policy will deliver.
(Having said that, they could include a clause in an employment contract that accepts arbitrary searches, with penalties for refusal...I can't imagine signing such an unconscionable contract myself...)
I think their OSHA argument is BS simply because OSHA relates to the _workplace_, not the interior of private vehicles.
So...right legal result, wrong reasoning.
-dk
Thanks for the comment. I agree that the government shouldn't regulate these things, but there is the point: They are using Federal rules to ban guns. Should Federal rules be used that way? No. Unfortunately, the Federal government regulates all sorts of private property issues that they shouldn't regulate.
Part of my point was simply a logical one about how the case was argued. Part of my note would say that if states force certain safety features, why let them do just the ones that I oppose. Get rid of of them generally.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home