T1B

I seem to remember a big debate on this board a few years back with users in here split in not the usual right/left lines when I posted this story ...

RACK the the 10th Circuit for getting it right:


Guns-in-vehicle law ruled valid
The appeals court overturns a Tulsa judge's order on firearms at a job site.

By ROBERT BOCZKIEWICZ
World Correspondent

DENVER — Oklahoma's law requiring employers to allow workers to have guns in their locked vehicles at work is valid, an appeals court decided Wednesday.

The decision by the Denver-based court overturns a court order by a judge in Tulsa who in 2007 barred enforcement of the law.

A panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided 3-0 that U.S. District Judge Terrence Kern erred in concluding that the law is pre-empted by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act.

The appellate judges said Kern's ruling "interferes with Oklahoma's police powers and essentially promulgates a court-made safety standard — a standard that OSHA (the Occupational Safety and Health Administration) has explicitly refrained from implementing on its own. Such action is beyond the province of federal courts."

The law sparked a national dispute over gun rights, pitting some employers and gun-control advocates against workers and the National Rifle Association.

"We're pleased with the court's decision," said Charlie Price, a spokesman for Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson. "It was our opinion that the law is constitutional, and the court agreed with us today."

The law was passed in two stages in 2004 and 2005 by legislators who were incensed that the Weyerhauser Corp. fired eight workers at a timber mill in southeastern Oklahoma because they had guns in their vehicles at the mill in violation of company policy.

Over the years, a changing lineup of employers, including the Whirlpool Corp., which later dropped out, and more recently ConocoPhillips, challenged the law, starting with a 2004 lawsuit. Kern issued his permanent injunction in response to the challenges.

Gov. Brad Henry and Edmondson, the defendants in the lawsuit, appealed Kern's ruling.

ConocoPhillips spokesman Rich Johnson said Wednesday that "the safety of our employees is a top priority of ConocoPhillips, and we are disappointed with today's decision."

He said the company has not had time to determine what its next step will be.

In an unusual step, Edmondson had an attorney for the National Rifle Association, instead of one of his own lawyers, argue the case before the appeals court in November. The court had allowed the NRA to submit arguments as a "friend of the court."

Price said the NRA "provided great help."

The court allowed the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and other safety and business groups to submit arguments as friends of the court in support of Kern's ruling.

Among the employers' arguments against the law were that it violated their constitutional due-process right to exclude people from company property and that the law constituted a "taking" of their property.

The appellate judges disagreed with those arguments but concluded that Kern's basis for blocking the law — preemption by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act — was wrong.

Kern had held that gun-related workplace violence was a "recognized hazard" under the act and that the state law impermissibly interfered with employers' ability to comply with the act.

"We disagree," the appellate judges wrote in a 23-page decision. "OSHA is aware of the controversy surrounding firearms in the workplace and has consciously decided not to adopt a standard" banning firearms from the workplace.

The law does not conflict with any OSHA standard, the judges wrote.

"We understand (the) plaintiffs may disagree with the wisdom" of the law, the judges said. "Our task, however, is not to second-guess the Oklahoma legislature, but rather to interpret the Congressional intent behind the OSH Act and its general duty clause."

Edmondson's spokesman said the attorney general thinks last year's U.S. Supreme Court decision that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a gun for private use "may have weighed in our favor in today's case."

It was the first Supreme Court decision to directly address whether the right to keep and bear arms is a right of individuals or a collective right that applies only to state-regulated militias.

RadioFan wrote:RACK the the 10th Circuit for getting it right.

I look forward to reading about you being murdered in the workplace by someone who had their stapler stolen.

Right to bear arms vs right to get shot. I want my guns!

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:I look forward to reading about you being murdered in the workplace by someone who had their stapler stolen.

The law obviously won't stop nutjubs from bringing weapons into workplaces, but at least I'll be able to keep a firearm in my vehicle if said nutjub follows me out to the parking lot.

Any person or company should be able to allow or prohibit firearms on their private property.

RadioFan wrote:The law obviously won't stop nutjubs from bringing weapons into workplaces, but at least I'll be able to keep a firearm in my vehicle if said nutjub follows me out to the parking lot.

Excellent! If there's a work dispute you idiots can go out to the parking lot at High Noon and settle your differences like real men... at 10 paces. It's been my experience that one less Neck in the country is a good thing. Have at it, tard.

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:Excellent! If there's a work dispute you idiots can go out to the parking lot at High Noon and settle your differences like real men... at 10 paces.

The law doesn't address that either. Keep swinging.

mvscal wrote:The contents of a vehicle are not the company's private property.

I didn't say they were. But the vehicle and its contents ARE ON the company's private property.

RadioFan wrote:Keep swinging.

Don't mind if I do.

Maybe CBS can televise these thinning of the herd events at halftime during March Madness games. Gus Johnson can do the play by play. It'll give him something to get really excited about for once, instead of having to fake it.

"Oh my God!!!! DOWN GOES WHITEY!!! DOWN GOES WHITEY"

mvscal wrote:

Mikey wrote:

mvscal wrote:The contents of a vehicle are not the company's private property.

I didn't say they were. But the vehicle and its contents ARE ON the company's private property.

So what?

Your powers of recall are amazing.



If you scroll up you'll see what I originally posted:

"Any person or company should be able to allow or prohibit firearms (edit...or anything else) on their private property."

Do you own a home? If so, don't you think you have the right to allow or prohibit anything or anybody from entering or carrying anything onto your property?

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:

RadioFan wrote:The law obviously won't stop nutjubs from bringing weapons into workplaces, but at least I'll be able to keep a firearm in my vehicle if said nutjub follows me out to the parking lot.

Excellent! If there's a work dispute you idiots can go out to the parking lot at High Noon and settle your differences like real men... at 10 paces. It's been my experience that one less Neck in the country is a good thing. Have at it, tard.

At least when a mental patient or disgruntled employee comes in the front door and starts blasting brains out, the employees near the back door can retrieve their gun from their vehicle and go back in and blast the motherfucker in the face to put an end to the rampage....and save peoples' lives.

Imagine the Columbine massacre....where the floor janitor had a handgun under the seat of his 1987 Ford Ranger...and he retrieved it and blasted those two freaks before anymore students were slaughtered. Would of been great .

But I suppose in Taxachussettes he would have been arrested for carrying a concealed weapon. He should have laid down like a bitch, closed his eyes, and said out loud "Guns are bad!" "Guns are bad!" while the kids got gunned down around him.

Shut the fuck up, already.

Mikey wrote:Do you own a home? If so, don't you think you have the right to allow or prohibit anything or anybody from entering or carrying anything onto your property?

If I give them permission to park on my property, the contents of their vehicle are none of my fukking business. All I can ask is they take reasonable measures to secure whatever is in the vehicle. I do believe that a company does have the right to ask that their employees not leave guns sitting out on the seat in plain view with the doors unlocked.

H4ever wrote:But I suppose in Taxachussettes he would have been arrested for carrying a concealed weapon. He should have laid down like a bitch, closed his eyes, and said out loud "Guns are bad!" "Guns are bad!" while the kids got gunned down around him.

Shut the fuck up, already.

Who is saying guns are bad, asshat? I just want to see more Okies dead is all. I never met one worth a shit. Come to think of it, no one from Nebraska ever amounted to anything either. I think you Necks should have a border war. For real. With live ammo and everything.

Mikey wrote:
"Any person or company should be able to allow or prohibit firearms (edit...or anything else) on their private property."

Do you own a home? If so, don't you think you have the right to allow or prohibit anything or anybody from entering or carrying anything onto your property?

Businesses DON'T have any such rights. Civil Rights Act of 1965 out front should have told you.

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:

H4ever wrote:But I suppose in Taxachussettes he would have been arrested for carrying a concealed weapon. He should have laid down like a bitch, closed his eyes, and said out loud "Guns are bad!" "Guns are bad!" while the kids got gunned down around him.

Shut the fuck up, already.

Who is saying guns are bad, asshat? I just want to see more Okies dead is all. I never met one worth a shit. Come to think of it, no one from Nebraska ever amounted to anything either. I think you Necks should have a border war. For real. With live ammo and everything.

Asshat! I love this place! Next time you're in Boston ridin' the "T" and tripping on crack pipes, you might wish you had a gun after you take a gander at what's riding along with you. They got some "wicked" retarded chowderheads out there.,

Naw seriously, Oklahomans and Nebraskans like each other too much too have a border war. Now we might help Oklahoma against Texas in exchange for Oklahoma's help against Colorado, though.

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:

RadioFan wrote:Keep swinging.

Don't mind if I do.

Maybe CBS can televise these thinning of the herd events at halftime during March Madness games. Gus Johnson can do the play by play. It'll give him something to get really excited about for once, instead of having to fake it.

"Oh my God!!!! DOWN GOES WHITEY!!! DOWN GOES WHITEY"

Bwah! Goddamn, dude. Nice attempt at hijack, but nope. Unfortunately, you weren't around for the last fight over this topic. Mvscal was ripping DrDetroit a new one -- a rare thing on this board.

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:I just want to see more Okies dead is all. I never met one worth a shit.

As opposed to UConn basketball fans majoring in geography?

ucantbeseriouslythismyopicSTyle2 wrote:I just want to see more Okies dead is all. I never met one worth a shit. Come to think of it, no one from Nebraska ever amounted to anything either. I think you Necks should have a border war. For real.

Excellent.

No, seriously. Keep going. You're doing pretty well here.

RadioFan wrote:Bwah! Goddamn, dude. Nice attempt at hijack, but nope. Unfortunately, you weren't around for the last fight over this topic. Mvscal was ripping DrDetroit a new one -- a rare thing on this board.

It's tough to hijack a thread when its author has pussyfooted about the issue. No... I wasn't around for the last discussion on this topic, but who gives a fuck? You posted the thread... back it up with a cogent take, don't just B42 it.

So, genius... why exactly is more guns at the workplace a good thing? How did the 10th Circuit "get it right?" Give me a solid stance, not one that lends itself to a scenario that may or may not ever involve you. Give me a real reason why this is a good thing. Until then I will amuse myself with dead Okies, geographical ironies, and Gus Johnson takes.

H4ever wrote:Next time you're in Boston ridin' the "T" and tripping on crack pipes, you might wish you had a gun after you take a gander at what's riding along with you. They got some "wicked" retarded chowderheads out there.

Even when I served papers for a living in some of the roughest neighborhoods in WNY, I never felt the need or desire to carry a gun. The way I looked at it was that the folks I knew who did carry guns were giving themselves a way out if they got careless. My take was that if I didn't have a gun, I would not be careless to begin with.

That being said, I am a staunch believer in the right to keep and bear arms. Which means that I disagree with the Oklahoma law. However, were employers to decide of their own accord to ban guns from their property, I would not disagree with the right of employers to choose their own policy. I also do not see where someone should have the right to keep a gun in a vehicle on private property should the owner of said property not concur.

Yeah....vehicles are a real safe place to keep firearms.

Sincerely,
Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske

BSmack wrote: Even when I served papers for a living in some of the roughest neighborhoods in WNY, I never felt the need or desire to carry a gun. The way I looked at it was that the folks I knew who did carry guns were giving themselves a way out if they got careless. My take was that if I didn't have a gun, I would not be careless to begin with.

That being said, I am a staunch believer in the right to keep and bear arms. Which means that I disagree with the Oklahoma law. However, were employers to decide of their own accord to ban guns from their property, I would not disagree with the right of employers to choose their own policy. I also do not see where someone should have the right to keep a gun in a vehicle on private property should the owner of said property not concur.

How exactly do you "not be careless"? You walked into the hood, knocked on doors to deliver bad news to folks who just might not like your pasty ass much. You know god damn well that what you were doing wasn't not being careless, it was praying that some hood rat wouldn't decide to keep it real upside your dome a time or two.

So, mr staunch believer, how exactly do you define "keep and bear arms"? Seems to me that it pretty much says that if you feel like it, you can pack. This right does not stop at your doorstep.

smackaholic wrote:How exactly do you "not be careless"? You walked into the hood, knocked on doors to deliver bad news to folks who just might not like your pasty ass much. You know god damn well that what you were doing wasn't not being careless, it was praying that some hood rat wouldn't decide to keep it real upside your dome a time or two.

Well, for starters, I didn't tell the people what I was giving them. My job was to deliver the document, not tell them what they were getting. So whenever possible, I would just casually say "I have a delivery for you." Another trick I used was a dictaphone. That way I didn't have to sit in my car after the delivery to write down the details for the Affidavit of Service whilst the person served stewed over the newly delivered bad news. And lastly, I wasn't a hardass with the people I was serving. Even the hard to find types who were obviously ducking me, I treated the same way I would have wanted to be treated myself. The way I saw it, I got paid the same money no matter how things went down. So why not make things as nice as possible?

BTW: Out of the hundreds of papers I served, the only time I ever felt even a tinge of fear was when I served a construction company that was, shall we say "organized". Not Cosa Nostra organized. No, these guys were Hells Angels organized. I was informed by the Lou Albano lookalike that I was serving that it would be unhealthy for me to leave that paper in his office. What he didn't know was that I had a description of him beforehand that I was able to match to him. So I walked back out of his office with the paper and as I was turning to walk down the stairwell, I dropped the Summons and Complaint right next to his office door, got the hell out and filled out the Affidavit of Service in a parking lot a few blocks away. In a supreme twist of irony, I now work with his daughter, and his son in-law is my boss. I even went to his wake a couple of years ago. It truly is a small world.

So, mr staunch believer, how exactly do you define "keep and bear arms"? Seems to me that it pretty much says that if you feel like it, you can pack. This right does not stop at your doorstep.

Your right stops at another person's doorstep. Or parking lot.

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:It's tough to hijack a thread when its author has pussyfooted about the issue.

My bad for not archiving the last thread on this.

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:No... I wasn't around for the last discussion on this topic

Obviously.

B42, huh? That's pretty pathetic, even for your myopic, clueless ass.

The point, dumbfuck, is what mvscal posted. It's a constitutional issue. Business has absolutely NO business deciding what or what I can, or can't have, in my vehicle, even if it is parked on their property. GET It?

I work in downtown Tulsa. The parking lot is 4 blocks away from my place of business. What right does my employer have to decide what I keep or don't keep in my vehicle?

Taking the logic to the extreme from the Tulsa judge, if OSHA determines that Black Sabbath is bad for your health, what's next? The Company determining what CDs I am "allowed" to have in my car?

Fuck that and Fuck you.

Now, obviously, if I take a gun out of my vehicle, or bring a gun into my place of employment, that's a different story. Likewise, I'm not keen on having 'Husker Fan start a "border war" with me in the parking lot. But I'll sure as hell defend his right to keep a gun in his vehicle.

Oklahoma has a conceal and carry law. It also has a "make my day law." Thankfully, "private business" now has no say whatsoever regarding either law. I'll take self-defense over some bullshit government "we'll protect you by banning your right to self-protection" any day.

Any questions? Or do I need to explain this argument any further?

I'll be happy to do so, given your expertise in geography and ignorance.

Fucking idiot.

RadioFan wrote:It's a constitutional issue.

That's funny. This is the first time you've actually mentioned that. Previously you intimated this was a workplace safety issue, the right to bear arms and protect oneself at work. Remember this:

RadioFan wrote:The law obviously won't stop nutjubs from bringing weapons into workplaces, but at least I'll be able to keep a firearm in my vehicle if said nutjub follows me out to the parking lot.

See... I know you were responding to my post, but you didn't "correct me" either. What are the chances that a “nutjob” would actually follow you to a parking lot and then try to kill you? Wouldn't this "nutjob" most likely have killed you and a bunch of your co-workers at the office? You know what... forget it. Let's move on.

RadioFan wrote:I work in downtown Tulsa. The parking lot is 4 blocks away from my place of business.

Great. So we can both agree that your gun is pretty fucking useless to you if someone walks into your building and starts blasting away, right? Even if you were parked a mere 2 minute walk from your "office", your gun would still be pretty fucking useless to you. If your number was called that day, you're pretty much dead.

RadioFan wrote:Likewise, I'm not keen on having 'Husker Fan start a "border war" with me in the parking lot.

That's funny, again you're intimating a workplace safety issue. You really think having a gun locked in your car is going to protect you somehow? If someone confronts you in the parking lot with a gun, you can probably consider yourself dead. If their intention is to shoot you dead where you stand, how does your gun locked in your car help you? Are you going to ask them to “wait right there while I go get my gun and we'll make this a fair fight"?

Now, before we proceed any further, I want to know... is this a really constitutional issue or are you really so delusional as to believe that having a gun locked in your car nowhere fucking near your person is somehow going to protect you "at work" or on a "job site" (I am using the words from your original link.) If you want to argue the constitutionality of this ruling, I'm actually on the same page as you. If you want to debate that having more guns at your place of business somehow makes it a safer environment... that's a topic I wouldn't mind tackling. Make up your mind.

Ask Suzanna Hupp how effective leaving one's weapon in their vehicle is when a nutcase decides to shoot up a cafe in Texas.

A law abiding responsible citizen and gun owner. Helplessly watching as a gunmen murdered 23 people, including her parents.

She left her weapon in her vehicle in accordance with the law, because she was a law abiding citizen.

On Wednesday, October 16, 1991, Hupp and her parents were having lunch at the Luby's in Killeen. She had left her handgun in her car to comply with Texas state law at the time which forbade carrying a concealed weapon. When George Hennard drove his truck into the cafeteria and opened fire on the patrons, Hupp instinctively reached into her purse for her weapon, but it was in her vehicle. Her father, Al Gratia, tried to rush Hennard and was shot in the chest. As the gunman reloaded, Hupp escaped through a broken window and believed that her mother, Ursula Gratia, was behind her. Hennard put a gun to her mother's head as she cradled her mortally wounded husband. Hupp's mother and father were killed along with twenty-one other persons. Hennard also wounded some twenty others. As a survivor of the Luby's massacre, Hupp testified across the country in support of concealed-handgun laws. She said that had there been a second chance to prevent the slaughter, she would have violated the Texas law and carried the handgun inside her purse into the restaurant[2].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzanna_Hupp

Tom, she was hot, too...

RadioFan wrote:The point, dumbfuck, is what mvscal posted. It's a constitutional issue. Business has absolutely NO business deciding what or what I can, or can't have, in my vehicle, even if it is parked on their property. GET It?

So you're proposing that I should just be able to bring a gun onto anybody's property no matter what their wishes on the matter happen to be?

What ever happened to constitutionally protected property rights?

BSmack wrote:

RadioFan wrote:The point, dumbfuck, is what mvscal posted. It's a constitutional issue. Business has absolutely NO business deciding what or what I can, or can't have, in my vehicle, even if it is parked on their property. GET It?

So you're proposing that I should just be able to bring a gun onto anybody's property no matter what their wishes on the matter happen to be?

What ever happened to constitutionally protected property rights?

Property rights aren't in jeopardy here. A property owner still has the right to ban you from his property. Once you have been given permission by said property owner to enter his property, you still retain your constitutional rights.

It's a pretty simple case, B and yes, one might have to look at the varying rights here and make an intelligent decision that best fills the spirit of the law.

Telling someone they can not keep a firearm in their vehicle is clearly a violation of the 2nd amendment in that it says that you do not have the right to self defense from the moment you leave your property on the way to work. That's a slam dunk. The private property rights you sight sound like the kind of weak bullshit TiVO would bring up.

smackaholic wrote:Telling someone they can not keep a firearm in their vehicle is clearly a violation of the 2nd amendment in that it says that you do not have the right to self defense from the moment you leave your property on the way to work.

Good to see someone actually has their thinking cap on here (sup not RadioFan?)... you forgot to add: The moment you leave work on your way home. And any stops you made along the way in either direction. And if/when you leave for lunch.

mvscal wrote:

Mikey wrote:

mvscal wrote:The contents of a vehicle are not the company's private property.

I didn't say they were. But the vehicle and its contents ARE ON the company's private property.

So what?

Apparently according to your cocksucking logic, it should be ok for you to leave a gun in the parking lot on a bar stool with a napkin over it.

This law is going to do a shit ton to protect those in the workplace. The guy who decides to go to his car to get his gun will now think twice before running in and shooting his coworkers before he commits suicide, because he'll be scared one of his coworkers will take the 5 minutes to go out to his car and grab his gun and spend another 10 minutes trying to find the shooter. And since an internet fucking pussy like you is supporting this law, I have great confidence you'd get off your ass to defend yourself.

You are a fucking idiot!

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:

smackaholic wrote:Telling someone they can not keep a firearm in their vehicle is clearly a violation of the 2nd amendment in that it says that you do not have the right to self defense from the moment you leave your property on the way to work.

Good to see someone actually has their thinking cap on here (sup not RadioFan?)... you forgot to add: The moment you leave work on your way home. And any stops you made along the way in either direction. And if/when you leave for lunch.

IF you are that big of a fucking pussy, stay the fuck home and curl into a fetal position and die.

Van wrote:Tom, she was hot, too...

Triple RACK to that Van. She was hot.

Earned a few to her as a young lad watching "Manic Monday" and "Walk Like and Egyptian". Those eyes.

I might have to get a few wacks nostalgic now. :D

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:

RadioFan wrote:It's a constitutional issue.

That's funny. This is the first time you've actually mentioned that.

No it isn't. I mentioned it plenty of times before, in the original thread, and most folks know that. Only you were off having geography lessons, obviously.

Like I said, sorry I didn't archive the orginal thread.

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:Previously you intimated this was a workplace safety issue, the right to bear arms

I did?

According to whom? ucantdoitwithgeographySTyle2?

Nice try, jackass.

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:See... I know you were responding to my post

Really mensa? Ya think?

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:but you didn't "correct me" either.

Oh yes, I did.

It's called entertaining the board, dumbfuck. I like to fight, especially with so-called "smackers" who don't even know their own country's state borders, i.e. YOU, idiot. Yeah, that border war, between Oklahoma and Nebraska, is about to be ON.

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:So we can both agree that your gun is pretty fucking useless to you if someone walks into your building and starts blasting away, right? Even if you were parked a mere 2 minute walk from your "office", your gun would still be pretty fucking useless to you. If your number was called that day, you're pretty much dead.

NOT the point. Jeebus, are you seriously this fucking dense?

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:Now, before we proceed any further, I want to know... is this a really constitutional issue or are you really so delusional as to believe that having a gun locked in your car nowhere fucking near your person is somehow going to protect you "at work" or on a "job site" (I am using the words from your original link.) If you want to argue the constitutionality of this ruling, I'm actually on the same page as you.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

Huge props. You finally got it.

~ golf claps ~

So then what's your fucking problem?

Oh yeah, it's geography. And myopia. And possibly boredom. No big deal, as you obviously don't have any part of the institutional memory of this board.

It's pretty bad 'round these parts when Toddowen agrees with me, wouldn't you say?

This question is not as easy as the gun right people want to make you think. What if the car door is maybe not locked and someone goes in to that car and a gun accident happens? The company could rightly worry that they might somehow be sued because the accident happened on their property. Just food for thought.

Have a nice week!

smackaholic wrote:Telling someone they can not keep a firearm in their vehicle is clearly a violation of the 2nd amendment in that it says that you do not have the right to self defense from the moment you leave your property on the way to work. That's a slam dunk.

Not really. It's only a constitutional violation if the government forbids it. If a private employer forbids it, I don't see a constitutional issue here.

As you alluded, a private property owner has the right to forbid you from entering his property. What if the employer were to say, "Anyone who has a firearm in his/her vehicle at the workplace will be terminated?" Would that be within the employer's right?

Obviously, of course, that hypothetical branches off into yet another area of law, employment law. But assuming all employees were so-called "at will" employees, I think the employer would be justified.

RadioFan wrote:No it isn't. I mentioned it plenty of times before, in the original thread, and most folks know that.

I could give two shits what you posted in that thread or any other you've posted in. Ever. I only care what you've posted in this thread... which is a whole lot of nothing.

RadioFan wrote:So then what's your fucking problem?

The idiot author of this shit thread failed to articulate the real issue here. What I was looking for from you was identifying the irony that by not allowing someone a gun "at work" affects a heck of a lot more than someone's ability to protect themselves while at work. Which, as we both agree really doesn't afford you too much protection "on the job" anyway. Here's what you failed to point out: if someone is otherwise legally licensed to carry to and from work and any other stops he may have along the way, you're not JUST prohibiting them from having a gun at work... that's the point, you brain dead fuck. The ruling effectively handcuffed "law abiding citizens" from protecting themselves M-F or whatever the fuck their schedule is (I assume you work nights and weekends stocking shelves at the local A & P?) Do you understand? I doubt it, but hey, if you actually connected the dots and made that point in your original shit thread, bully for you. Just don't expect me to wade through four years of your shit posts to actually find it.

I can have a gun in my car when I goto Court since I park on city streets or in city or county owned lots.
I can have a gun in my car when I work at a County Jail, at least the 10 or 15 I have been to.
I can not have a gun in my car when I work in a State Prison if I want to park on the Prison grounds.
I can not have a gun in my car when I work at a privately run Prison if I want to park on the Prison grounds.
I can not have a gun in my car when I work at a State Hospital if I want to park on Hospital grounds.
I can not have a gun in my car when I work at a Federal Prison if I want to park on the Prison grounds.

The last four won't even let me bring a 6-pack. This ruling is stupid.

smackaholic wrote:The private property rights you sight sound like the kind of weak bullshit TiVO would bring up.

You wouldn't know Kelo from Thomas Cusack from City of Tigard from a hole in the ground.

Go fuck yourself you ignorant polehole.

Moving Sale wrote:I can have a gun in my car when I goto Court since I park on city streets or in city or county owned lots.
I can have a gun in my car when I work at a County Jail, at least the 10 or 15 I have been to.
I can not have a gun in my car when I work in a State Prison if I want to park on the Prison grounds.
I can not have a gun in my car when I work at a privately run Prison if I want to park on the Prison grounds.
I can not have a gun in my car when I work at a State Hospital if I want to park on Hospital grounds.
I can not have a gun in my car when I work at a Federal Prison if I want to park on the Prison grounds.
.

You'll never have a gun in your car because you're scared of guns, you fag.

Cuda wrote: You'll never have a gun in your car because you're scared of guns, you fag.

Nice try you moronic fuckhole.