10th Circuit Gets Weyerhaeuser Wrong

[nagantfan]

Well, folks, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has given it to law-abiding gun owners in the pants, I'm sorry to say.

Here is the opinion:http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2006/02/05-7037.htm

I posted last month about seeing the case argued, and unfortunately, my read on the judges was right.

The opinion is not only wrong, it is pretty poorly done as well. You can tell that because there aren't many CASES cited in it. The court didn't have any case law to back up its ridiculous ruling, so it just made the law right up. They wouldn't have had to do so much ipse dixit-ing had they gone the other way.

I am particularly interested in seeing what the Oklahoma Supreme Court will do now. The Circuit's opinion states that it is "confident" Oklahoma's courts would not construe the "public policy" exception to the "at will" employment doctrine to include the legal possession of arms in a parking lot.

I'm not so sure....the reason why Weyerhaeuser's lawyers removed the case from Oklahoma's (rather populist, especially in rural areas) State court system was that they feared such a construction.

It's up to someone to get fired and bring a suit against an employer that cannot be gotten into federal court now. It'll take time, but it'll happen. I just hope it happens before too much caselaw comes down that the Oklahoma courts will be afraid to disturb it.

I am also very interested in seeing what this case will do to the Conoco-Phillips case currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma.

In that case the court has enjoined enforcement of an Oklahoma statute passed after (and specifically because) the guys at Weyerhaeuser got fired which made it crystal-freaking-clear that employers couldn't fire their people for having guns in their cars (another reason why the Circuit's "reasoning" about the "public policy" exception is suspect at best and disingenuous at worst).

Bad Day at Black Rock, Ladies and Gentlemen....

 

[bazilla]

IANAL, and I did not read far into the opinion, or do any kind of further research on the matter, before I saw what I think would be a serious limitation to any lawsuit here: constitutional (state or national) protections of the RKBA apply only to government agencies, not private persons, places, or entities. Now I know there were 4th amendment issues raised, but if the business owner had a rule against firearms on its property, the employees certainly couldn't hide behind the 2nd amendment to justify having the firearms in their vehicles.

It's up to someone to get fired and bring a suit against an employer that cannot be gotten into federal court now. It'll take time, but it'll happen. I just hope it happens before too much caselaw comes down that the Oklahoma courts will be afraid to disturb it.

Waste of time. Again, constitutional protections are supposed to protect citizens from governmental violation of fundamental rights. If you are wanting the government to step in, and guarantee "you" a right that intrudes on the rights of other private citizens, places, or entities, how is that any different than how lefties see the role of government?

 

[nagantfan]

You are correct to point out that the Second Amendment isn't directly relevant here.

The lawsuit was based on Oklahoma law, not the Second Amendment. The Oklahoma statutes at issue, particularly the one that has been enjoined, make very clear that the public policy of the State of Oklahoma is that you get to keep guns in your cars in parking lots.

Oklahoma's CCW act has exemptions all over it for guns in parking lots...places that you can't carry allows you to keep your piece in your car in the parking lot of that place.

Under Oklahoma law, unless you have a contract that says otherwise, you can be fired from your job for any reason (good or bad) or no reason. That's called the "At-Will" doctrine.

There is an exception to the "At-Will" doctrine: the "public policy" exception. A clear statutory policy, such as the one at issue in this case regarding guns and self-defense, is an exception to the "At-Wil" doctrine.

Other exceptions are things like racial discrimination (firing someone because he's black), sexual discrimination (not hiring someone because she's a woman, if there isn't a good reason, like an inability to engage in hard physical labor), etc.

 

[bazilla]

Thanks for clarifying the issues for me. I can see the value of a state policy excluding parking lots from business and property owners' right to exclude weapons on their premises. Across the border over here in AR, we have a AG opinion clarifying that parking lots are excluded for CCL from the restrictions that prohibit firearms on university and colleges campuses. I.e., I teach at a local college; I can carry, drive onto the campus to park, and remove my firearm and leave it in the car; I just cannot carry into the campus buildings.

So if Oklahoma law is trying to make a similar public policy exception for all parking lots, then I do hope that gets cleared up somehow.