ConocoPhillips v. Henry District Ct. Decision

This is a discussion on ConocoPhillips v. Henry District Ct. Decision within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; I don't know if anyone has been following this case but there was an interesting ruling by the District Court that could have some far ...

View Poll Results: Do you think the 2nd Ammendment trumps Federal Safety Laws (OSH 1970)?

Voters
84. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    79 94.05%
  • No

    3 3.57%
  • It depends

    2 2.38%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 17

Thread: ConocoPhillips v. Henry District Ct. Decision

  1. #1
    VIP Member Array matiki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    N.W.
    Posts
    2,917

    ConocoPhillips v. Henry District Ct. Decision

    I don't know if anyone has been following this case but there was an interesting ruling by the District Court that could have some far reaching impact (and not for the good, IMHO).

    In summary, ConocoPhillips sued because OK passed a law allowing workers to transport and store guns in a locked vehicle on company property (provided they had been appropriately registered and licensed/etc.).

    ConocoPhillips raised two objections to the law:

    1. It violated their property rights.

    2. It prevented them from meeting the requirements of the OSH Act of 1970.

    The court rejected claim #1 and accepted claim #2, overturning the law effective immediately.

    "Wise people learn when they can; fools learn when they must." - The Duke of Wellington

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member Array matiki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    N.W.
    Posts
    2,917
    I should have added, here's the case information:


    ConocoPhillips Company v. Henry
    U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma
    No. 04-CV-820-TCK-SAJ, 2007


    And for the record, I was the first NO vote and it was an ACCIDENT. Ugh.
    "Wise people learn when they can; fools learn when they must." - The Duke of Wellington

  4. #3
    Senior Member Array AirForceShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    1,155
    An Amendment always trumps law.
    No law can violate the Constitution.

    AFS
    Gun control is hitting what you aim at

  5. #4
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    State appeals federal ruling on workplace gun bans

    by Marie Price
    The Journal Record November 7, 2007

    OKLAHOMA CITY – Oklahoma has appealed an October federal court ruling that blocked enforcement of a 2004 state law that would restrict employers’ right to ban guns in the workplace. In October, U.S. District Judge Terence Kern handed down a permanent injunction, saying the 2004 statute conflicts with federal laws that protect workers on the job, including the Occupational Health and Safety Act of 1970.

    Kern’s decision was appealed to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals by Gov. Brad Henry and Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson, who were sued in their capacities as state officials in October 2004 by Whirlpool. That company has since pulled out of the lawsuit, which is now headed up by ConocoPhillips as chief plaintiff.

    Other challengers include Tulsa Winch Inc., DP Manufacturing Inc., Norris, Ramsey Winch Inc. and Auto Crane Co.

    In late October 2004, before the law was scheduled to go into effect, U.S. District Judge Sven Holmes issued a temporary restraining order stalling the statute while the court case continued. Holmes said the Oklahoma statute conflicts with several federal laws. In a November hearing that year, Holmes said the Oklahoma law could affect the enforcement of some 25 federal laws. He extended the temporary restraining order as arguments in the case continued.

    Additional amendments were approved in 2005, giving employers immunity from liability if a firearm in an employee’s vehicle is used by a third person to injure or kill someone at work. In his decision last month, Kern concluded that the Oklahoma law does not amount to an unconstitutional taking of property rights or deprivation of a fundamental right, but is pre-empted by the federal occupational safety law.

    The federal law requires employers to abate workplace hazards that could lead to death or serious bodily harm and encourages businesses to prevent gun-related workplace injuries.

    Kern said the Oklahoma law criminally prohibits an effective method of cutting down such injuries “and cannot coexist with federal obligations and objectives.”

    “The court has serious concerns about these criminal laws, which deprive Oklahoma property owners of the right to exclude those individuals carrying and transporting firearms in their vehicles,” Kern said. However, Kern said the court’s protection of Oklahoma citizens’ property rights is limited by U.S. Supreme Court decisions interpreting due process and the takings clause of the U.S. Constitution.


    I coppied this from an Okla shooters forum

    Michael

  6. #5
    VIP Member Array Sig 210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southwestern OK
    Posts
    2,017
    "provided they had been appropriately registered and licensed/etc.)."

    There is no registration or licensing required in OK.

  7. #6
    VIP Member Array matiki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    N.W.
    Posts
    2,917
    Quote Originally Posted by Sig 210 View Post
    "provided they had been appropriately registered and licensed/etc.)."

    There is no registration or licensing required in OK.
    I got it from radio news... I wouldn't know. Not my choice of words anyways. We don't have to register our guns here either, but we do have to be licensed to carry.
    "Wise people learn when they can; fools learn when they must." - The Duke of Wellington

  8. #7
    VIP Member Array matiki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    N.W.
    Posts
    2,917
    Quote Originally Posted by AirForceShooter View Post
    An Amendment always trumps law.
    No law can violate the Constitution.

    AFS
    If only we could get our elected officials and members of the court to agree with us.
    "Wise people learn when they can; fools learn when they must." - The Duke of Wellington

  9. #8
    Senior Member Array press1280's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    750
    Somewhat torn on this issue. While I believe its common sense NOT to restrict legal firearms at work or anywhere else, it is the company's personal property. That's why they can restrict someone's free speech (like telling employees they must speak English on the job). However,by restricting firearms and having no armed security,metal detectors or otherwise, they could be partially liable, just as someone who is injuired while doing their job improperly gets workman's compensation.
    "The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree..."
    Nunn v. State GA 1848

  10. #9
    VIP Member Array MitchellCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    I don't post here anymore...Sorry
    Posts
    2,333
    Quote Originally Posted by AirForceShooter View Post
    An Amendment always trumps law.
    No law can violate the Constitution.

    AFS
    The Constitution protects you from government action, not from a private party action.

    How is an employer setting the rules for his company which exclude firearms from the premises different from your neighbor telling you he does not allow firearms on his property?

    If the government can tell an employer that he has to allow firearms on company property, it can tell you that you must allow Reverend Al has the right to come onto your property for a protest.

    After all, if we are going to force a private land owner to honor the second amendment, we can do the same for the first amendment as well - private property rights be dammed.

  11. #10
    VIP Member
    Array archer51's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    21,345
    Before I can answer I would have to know how the OSH act is worded. If Conoco want to prohibit guns in the workplace, since it is there building, that is their right. BUT it also prohibits having it in your vehicle, which I think is wrong.

  12. #11
    VIP Member Array matiki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    N.W.
    Posts
    2,917
    Quote Originally Posted by MitchellCT View Post
    The Constitution protects you from government action, not from a private party action.

    How is an employer setting the rules for his company which exclude firearms from the premises different from your neighbor telling you he does not allow firearms on his property?

    If the government can tell an employer that he has to allow firearms on company property, it can tell you that you must allow Reverend Al has the right to come onto your property for a protest.

    After all, if we are going to force a private land owner to honor the second amendment, we can do the same for the first amendment as well - private property rights be dammed.
    I agree completely... that said, this particular court has rejected the property rights claim, and asserted the right of the federal government to require the company to keep their property "safe".

    I'm not upset with the outcome of this case, so much as I am upset with the reason for the outcome. They flatly rejected the property owners rights while supporting federal legislation that tells the property owner what they need to do.
    "Wise people learn when they can; fools learn when they must." - The Duke of Wellington

  13. #12
    Member Array Maverick7340's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    199
    The law came about because an employer made all employees to let them search their vehicles for firearms. If you didn't let them search your car, you were fired. If you let them and they found a firearm you were fired. Many employees were fired that day.

    It's not about bringing a firearm into the building. It's about letting employees keep a firearm in their vehicle in the company parking lot.

    The companies don't want employees to be able to do that. So you can't defend yourself to and from work.
    Courage is being scared to death - but saddling up anyway.

    John Wayne

  14. #13
    Senior Member Array AirForceShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    1,155
    The question I ansswered was does the 2A trump mOSHA. Not the constitutionality of Conoco restricting the ability of their employees to bring a gun to work.

    AFS
    Gun control is hitting what you aim at

  15. #14
    VIP Member Array David in FL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    2,342
    Quote Originally Posted by AirForceShooter View Post
    The question I ansswered was does the 2A trump mOSHA. Not the constitutionality of Conoco restricting the ability of their employees to bring a gun to work.

    AFS
    + 1. Big difference.

  16. #15
    Member Array joffe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    165
    Government safety mandates are unconstitutional. The 2nd amendment obviously trumps a law that by the Founders' standards is a corrupt sign of government bloat.

    However, it does not trump private property. I realise that's not what the poll is about, just wanted it out there. If the company doesn't like your guns, you're free to not work there. They're also free to fire folks who insist on having their guns on their property if they don't want them to.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Henry Arms Ar-7 ??
    By born2die in forum Defensive Rifles & Shotgun Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: January 17th, 2008, 10:46 PM
  2. District Attorneys across the US wants to extend DC BAN
    By ibez in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: January 13th, 2008, 11:29 PM
  3. District of Columbia
    By rlkraatz in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: January 8th, 2008, 07:53 PM
  4. NRA calling for boycott of ConocoPhillips
    By ArmyCop in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: August 16th, 2005, 07:49 AM

Search tags for this page

conoco gun case oklahoma
,

conoco phillips co. v. herny

,
conoco phillips guns case
,

conoco phillips is trying to overturn oklahoma's law that allows employees to keep guns in vehicles on company property.

,
conoco phillips supreme court ruling gun in car
,

conocophillips co v henry

,

conocophillips co. v. henry

,
conocophillips gun in car on company property
,
conocophillips v. c. brad henry 10th circuit
,

conocophillips v. henry

,
conocophillips v. henry decision
,
gun law, june 2008, conoco phillips
Click on a term to search for related topics.