Quard/Graphics Violence-Free Workplace

JerryD said:

The answer is easy DON'T ASK DON'T TELL

Click to expand...

lockman said:

For insurance reasons don't allow your employees to carry, but on the other hand to cover your butt do not prohibit them from carrying either. Insurance company satisfied and employee personal safety is addressed.

Click to expand...

Nutczak said:

Do they have these signs clearly posted outside of the building so any criminal thinking of injuring an employee can also follow their rules? <sarcasm off now>

Click to expand...

smithman said:

My employer bans guns on the premises, but the ATM guy carries, as well as cops who come in for safety fairs. The ban does not exempt anybody such as private security or police. Since they have decided to selectively enforce the policy by allowing ATM security and cops to carry, then they have no business telling me I can't carry, unless they change the wording on the ban. Is this a battle worth fighting? Sadly, no, I don't want to stake my job on it in this economy.

Click to expand...

JerryD said:

The answer is easy DON'T ASK DON'T TELL

Click to expand...

Krusty said:

IF my old memory serves correctly, Weyerhauser in Oklahoma fired several people that had firearms LOCKED in their vehicles on company property. I believe this case went to the Supreme Court and that the Court stated that a legally transported firearm in a locked vehicle was allowed. I generally do this myself.

Click to expand...

McX said:

i'd like to see our state laws and constitution amended to say: the citizens shall not be required to hold any steeeenkin permits!

Click to expand...

range rat said:

Weyerhauser in Oklahoma, I for got all about them.. Quad/Graphics has a plant in Oklahoma City!!! NOw I got something to work with, Thank You..

DISCUSSION

“We review the grant of summary judgment de novo and affirm only if the record, considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, establishes no genuine issue of material fact.”  Jones v. Denver Pub. Schs., 427 F.3d 1315, 1318 (10th Cir.2005) (citations omitted);  see Faustin v. City & County of Denver, 423 F.3d 1192, 1195 (10th Cir.2005).

On appeal, plaintiffs argue:  (1) Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, § 1290.22 (2002) (amended 2004), which authorized Weyco's firearms policy, is unconstitutional as applied to them and a 2004 amendment thereto, id. § 1290.22(B) (Supp.2006), retroactively applies to them and protects their right to have firearms in their vehicles;  (2) the district court erred in “determining a private property owner-employer may impose restrictions upon the lawful keeping and transportation of firearms in locked vehicles parked in” the employee parking lot which is also available for use by the public, thereby depriving the employees of an “inherent, constitutional, fundamental right to transport and keep firearms”;  (3) the district court “erred in speculating the Oklahoma Supreme Court would approve of the discharge of an at-will employee for the lawful exercise of his inherent, constitutional, and fundamental right to transport [and] keep” firearms in his vehicle;  (4) the district court erred in finding plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights were not violated because Weyco's search of plaintiffs' vehicles “was a governmental search ․ by reason of [the] crucial participation by” Sheriff Willeby;  and (5) the district court erred in denying plaintiffs' claims for false imprisonment and invasion of privacy.6  Appellants' Br. at 1-2.

1. Constitutionality of Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 1290.22 (2001)

 The Oklahoma Constitution provides as follows:

The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited;  but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons.

Okla. Const. art. 2, § 26.   Invoking that provision of the Oklahoma Constitution, plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of a section of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act, Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, §§ 1290.1-.26, titled “Business Owner's Rights,” which provides as follows:

Nothing contained in any provision of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act ․ shall be construed to limit, restrict or prohibit in any manner the existing rights of any person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity to control the possession of weapons on any property owned or controlled by the person or business entity.

Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, § 1290.22 (2002) (amended 2004).   In March 2004, some sixteen months after the plaintiffs were terminated, the Oklahoma legislature amended that section of the Self-Defense Act so it includes the following additional provision:

No person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity shall be permitted to establish any policy or rule that has the effect of prohibiting any person, except a convicted felon, from transporting and storing firearms in a locked vehicle on any property set aside for any vehicle.

Id. § 1290.22(B) (Supp.2006);  see also id. § 1289.7a (Supp.2004).   The effective date for the amendment was November 1, 2004, although its enforcement has been enjoined.7

In addition to the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act, plaintiffs in this case invoke the Oklahoma Firearms Act of 1971, Okla. Stat. Ann.tit. 21, §§ 1289.1-.26. In particular, plaintiffs rely upon § 1289.7, which provides, in relevant part, as follows:

Any person, except a convicted felon, may transport in a motor vehicle a rifle, shotgun or pistol, open and unloaded, at any time.   For purposes of this section “open” means the firearm is transported in plain view, in a case designed for carrying firearms, which case is wholly or partially visible, in a gun rack mounted in the vehicle, in an exterior locked compartment or a trunk of a vehicle.

Any person, except a convicted felon, may transport in a motor vehicle a rifle or shotgun concealed behind a seat of the vehicle or within the interior of the vehicle provided the rifle or shotgun is not clip, magazine or chamber loaded.

Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, § 1289.7 (2002).   A rifle or shotgun which is “clip or magazine loaded and not chamber loaded” may be transported “in an exterior locked compartment ․ or trunk” of a vehicle.   Id. § 1289.13. This provision was amended in 2004 to allow such loaded firearms also to be carried “in the interior compartment of the vehicle.”   Id. (Supp.2006).   The 2004 amendment to the Oklahoma Firearms Act also added § 1289.7a, which provides language identical to the 2004 amendment to the Self-Defense Act:

No person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity shall be permitted to establish any policy or rule that has the effect of prohibiting any person, except a convicted felon, from transporting and storing firearms in a locked vehicle on any property set aside for any vehicle.

Id. § 1289.7a(A) (Supp.2004) (amended 2005).   The effective dates for these amendments was July 1, 2004, and November 1, 2004, respectively.   The latter amendment has also been enjoined and is under constitutional attack.   A 2005 amendment has further modified that section so that it currently provides:

No person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity shall maintain, establish, or enforce any policy or rule that has the effect of prohibiting any person, except a convicted felon, from transporting and storing firearms in a locked motor vehicle, or from transporting and storing firearms locked in or locked to a motor vehicle on any property set aside for any motor vehicle.

Click to expand...