Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 8/3/2005 5:46:52 AM EDT
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/03/national/03guns.html

Gun Organization Takes On an Energy Giant

By RALPH BLUMENTHAL
Published: August 3, 2005

HOUSTON, Aug. 2 - The National Rifle Association and ConocoPhillips, one of the nation's largest energy companies, headed toward a showdown over gun control on private property on Tuesday, with the rifle association vowing to put up hundreds of billboards casting the oil giant as an enemy of gun owners.

"We didn't seek this fight, and we're not running away from it if it means taking on one of the largest corporations in the world," Wayne LaPierre, the rifle association's executive vice president, said in a phone interview from Washington after returning from Oklahoma, where he had announced the boycott on Monday night.

The association is focusing its wrath on ConocoPhillips because the company joined a federal lawsuit to block an Oklahoma law that allows employees to keep guns in cars parked in company lots. The law was enacted after 12 workers were fired from a Weyerhaeuser paper mill in southeast Oklahoma in 2002.

ConocoPhillips - the largest company based in Houston and the largest oil refiner in the country, with assets of $97 billion - did not respond in detail. A spokesman, Jeffrey Callender, said the company had been "in touch with the N.R.A. throughout the process" and "at this point was continuing to maintain its stance."

ConocoPhillips also issued a short statement saying that it supported the Second Amendment and the right of law-abiding citizens to own guns.

"Our primary concern is the safety of all our employees," the company said, adding, "We are simply trying to provide a safe and secure working environment for our employees by keeping guns out of our facilities, including our company parking lots."

The Williams Companies, another major energy company, and Halliburton have also joined the lawsuit, but ConocoPhillips was selected because of its size, Mr. LaPierre said.

Whirlpool had originally brought the lawsuit, but a spokesman, Stephen Duthie, said it dropped out after assurances from the state attorney general that the law would not affect the company's authority to keep guns off its property; Mr. Duthie said the rifle association had not influenced that decision.

Halliburton, the energy services giant whose subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root employed six of the fired workers, said Tuesday that it continued to side with ConocoPhillips against the Oklahoma law.

"It is our view that firearms should not be permitted on premises where Halliburton conducts business and that the law should not require the company to allow them," said a spokeswoman, Cathy Mann.

Another company, the Nordam Group, a maker of aircraft components, also has submitted briefs in support of the lawsuit. The chief executive, Ken Lackey, called guns on a work site "improper and dangerous" and said that as a former N.R.A. member he was unconcerned about pressure from the organization.

The companies involved in the lawsuit say that with about 17 killings a week in American workplaces, it was sound policy and within their rights as property owners to ban weapons from their parking lots.

Mr. LaPierre said that "nobody is proposing you be allowed to walk into a nuclear plant with a gun," but that workers had a constitutional right to keep legal weapons secured in their cars when they went to work.

The rifle association, which says 90 million Americans own guns, is asking its 4 million members and others not to patronize Conoco or Phillips 66 gas stations.

Just last month, it canceled plans to hold its 2007 national convention in Columbus, Ohio, after that city enacted a ban on assault weapons.

The dispute in Oklahoma stems from a crackdown at Weyerhaeuser against employee drug abuse. A company spokesman, Bruce Amundson, said trained dogs sniffing in the parking lot of the paper mill in Valliant found a dozen cars with rifles, shotguns, handguns and some automatic weapons, violations of a new policy banning weapons in cars. The gun owners, including contract workers for Kellogg Brown & Root, were fired.

Some sued in federal court, claiming in part that the gun policy had not been spelled out. They lost but are appealing to the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.

In response to the firings, Oklahoma lawmakers passed a bill that would bar property owners from restricting those without felony records from keeping firearms in a locked vehicle. But that measure, to take effect in November, has now been blocked by the companies' lawsuit.
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 5:49:14 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 5:52:00 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/3/2005 5:54:11 AM EDT by pattymcn]
Tag. Patty

*ETA*

The rifle association, which says 90 million Americans own guns, is asking its 4 million members and others not to patronize Conoco or Phillips 66 gas stations.


Only 66 stations? Geese I would have thought in Oregon, Washington and Montana alone there would be more than that. Don't you all have Conoco stations?
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 5:55:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Beer_Slayer:
where were they when it happened at AOL a few years ago.

Maybe we are begining to see a turn around in the NRA.




I'm hoping. I'm sick of the "blued steel and walnut" only crowd.
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 5:55:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By pattymcn:
Tag. Patty

*ETA*

The rifle association, which says 90 million Americans own guns, is asking its 4 million members and others not to patronize Conoco or Phillips 66 gas stations.


Only 66 stations? Geese I would have thought in Oregon, Washington and Montana alone there would be more than that. Don't you all have Conoco stations?

Never seen one..........
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 5:56:43 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 5:56:59 AM EDT
I grew up in OKLA. Back in the day I worked for Williams. I can assure you that the policy is from a few and not the majority in Mgt. Obviously they are concerned about being sued if some idiot goes to the car for a carry piece and uses it.

They did have a female employee robbed at knifepoint infront of the building as the security guards looked on. Gun in car would have only been good had an employee driving by had seen what was happening.

I filled up my car yesterday. 30.00 Not with Phillips 666
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 5:57:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By pattymcn:
Tag. Patty

*ETA*

The rifle association, which says 90 million Americans own guns, is asking its 4 million members and others not to patronize Conoco or Phillips 66 gas stations.


Only 66 stations? Geese I would have thought in Oregon, Washington and Montana alone there would be more than that. Don't you all have Conoco stations?




Patty, darling, that the "Phillips 66" stations. You know, orange ball with 66 inside in blue?
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 5:58:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By vanilla_gorilla:

Originally Posted By pattymcn:
Tag. Patty

*ETA*

The rifle association, which says 90 million Americans own guns, is asking its 4 million members and others not to patronize Conoco or Phillips 66 gas stations.


Only 66 stations? Geese I would have thought in Oregon, Washington and Montana alone there would be more than that. Don't you all have Conoco stations?




Patty, darling, that the "Phillips 66" stations. You know, orange ball with 66 inside in blue?



It says Conoco OR Phillips 66. We used to have Phillips 66 stations but they're gone now, been gone for years. Conoco has just started creeping in. Giving Flying J some competition.

Patty

Link Posted: 8/3/2005 5:59:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By pattymcn:
Tag. Patty

*ETA*

The rifle association, which says 90 million Americans own guns, is asking its 4 million members and others not to patronize Conoco or Phillips 66 gas stations.


Only 66 stations? Geese I would have thought in Oregon, Washington and Montana alone there would be more than that. Don't you all have Conoco stations?



Phillips 66 is the name of the stations.
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 6:01:25 AM EDT

"It is our view that firearms should not be permitted on premises where Halliburton conducts business and that the law should not require the company to allow them," said a spokeswoman, Cathy Mann.




Anyone else see the hypocrasy/irony here?
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 6:02:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/3/2005 6:04:39 AM EDT by pattymcn]

Originally Posted By captainpooby:

"It is our view that firearms should not be permitted on premises where Halliburton conducts business and that the law should not require the company to allow them," said a spokeswoman, Cathy Mann.




Anyone else see the hypocrasy/irony here?



I did right away. Drives me nuts. Translation: If a company managed by the Vice President wants to allow fire arms on its premises a law should be in place to stop them. Patty
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 6:02:23 AM EDT
The name "Phillips 66" stems from the first Phillips Gas Stations set up on Route 66 in 1920's I believe.
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 6:05:13 AM EDT

"Our primary concern is the safety of all our employees," the company said, adding, "We are simply trying to provide a safe and secure working environment for our employees by keeping guns out of our facilities, including our company parking lots."



Damn, I get so tired of hearing that. Those policies have yet to stop a workplace shooting. All they do is insure that no one can stop the idiot doing the shooting.

Some guy has decided to commit murder, he gets to the gate and says "Oh shit, I can't do this, it's against company policy".........yeah, right.
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 6:05:18 AM EDT
Dammit, I'm a moron. It's the 76 gas stations with the orange ball isn't it?
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 6:08:03 AM EDT
This will probably go nowhere. I proposed the same law here in Michigan and the republicans didn't want to have anything to do with it. Unfortunately, "so called" property rights that are not even in the Constitution trump your Constitutional 2nd Amendment right.

End of story...In this case, Republicans will not back a law that upholds the Constitution. And the Democrats would make a law banning the carry of guns.
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 6:09:24 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 6:10:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By lippo:
This will probably go nowhere. I proposed the same law here in Michigan and the republicans didn't want to have anything to do with it. Unfortunately, "so called" property rights that are not even in the Constitution trump your Constitutional 2nd Amendment right.

End of story...In this case, Republicans will not back a law that upholds the Constitution. And the Democrats would make a law banning the carry of guns.



Come on - that has got to be a state's rights issue alone. Read State's Charters. Patty
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 6:15:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By pattymcn:

Originally Posted By captainpooby:

"It is our view that firearms should not be permitted on premises where Halliburton conducts business and that the law should not require the company to allow them," said a spokeswoman, Cathy Mann.




Anyone else see the hypocrasy/irony here?



I did right away. Drives me nuts. Translation: If a company managed by the Vice President wants to allow fire arms on its premises a law should be in place to stop them. Patty




I am still under the impression, you cant drive, or even PUSH a vehicle......
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 6:15:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By pattymcn:
Tag. Patty

*ETA*

The rifle association, which says 90 million Americans own guns, is asking its 4 million members and others not to patronize Conoco or Phillips 66 gas stations.


Only 66 stations? Geese I would have thought in Oregon, Washington and Montana alone there would be more than that. Don't you all have Conoco stations?



It is also UNOCAL or Union 76. At least mt gas card is good at all of the above.
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 6:19:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/3/2005 6:19:31 AM EDT by metroplex]
Also don't use Motorcraft oils. Currently they are contracted to Conoco

Yes that's right, conoco isn't just about gasoline but also includes engine oil, ATF, gear oil, etc...
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 6:20:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/3/2005 6:21:11 AM EDT by captainpooby]
Here's a pic I found on the web of a Kellog Brown and Root facility.

Quick, go check the vehicles in the parking lot!!!! Someone might have a gun!!!!

Link Posted: 8/3/2005 6:21:11 AM EDT
Were the people whom were fired told BEFORE they were fired not to bring the weapon on private property? If so, then....If not

Also, I know that the most important thing to me about my CCW is the fact it is concealed and no one knows I have it. Why are people telling/ flauting it?

Link Posted: 8/3/2005 6:23:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AssaultRifler:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/03/national/03guns.html

The companies involved in the lawsuit say that with about 17 killings a week in American workplaces, it was sound policy and within their rights as property owners to ban weapons from their parking lots.



is the figure even remotely accurate??
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 6:24:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By pattymcn:

Originally Posted By lippo:
This will probably go nowhere. I proposed the same law here in Michigan and the republicans didn't want to have anything to do with it. Unfortunately, "so called" property rights that are not even in the Constitution trump your Constitutional 2nd Amendment right.

End of story...In this case, Republicans will not back a law that upholds the Constitution. And the Democrats would make a law banning the carry of guns.



Come on - that has got to be a state's rights issue alone. Read State's Charters. Patty



I was speaking in the context of the party as a whole and not an individual state. The republicans, as a whole, say they are really into "property rights" and the democrats, as a party, are really into trying to abolish the 2nd Amendment.

And my legislation that I wrote up was for Michgian state law. It wasn't for any other state.
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 6:26:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ZitiForBreakfast:
Were the people whom were fired told BEFORE they were fired not to bring the weapon on private property? If so, then....If not

Also, I know that the most important thing to me about my CCW is the fact it is concealed and no one knows I have it. Why are people telling/ flauting it?




I think this case was a violation of the 4th Amendment. How can this company, legally, "inspect" inside peoples vehicles with contacting the police and obtaining a search warrant? If it were me, I'd sue them for a violation of Rights. I wonder if the ACLU would have anything with a case like this?
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 6:28:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By torstin:
is the figure even remotely accurate??



Yes, if you count employees killed at work by non-employees. Like a clerk at the local stop and rob or the pizza delivery guy.
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 6:30:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/3/2005 6:33:53 AM EDT by captainpooby]

Originally Posted By torstin:

Originally Posted By AssaultRifler:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/03/national/03guns.html

The companies involved in the lawsuit say that with about 17 killings a week in American workplaces, it was sound policy and within their rights as property owners to ban weapons from their parking lots.



is the figure even remotely accurate??




A total of 5,559 fatal work injuries were reported nationwide in 2003, a slight increase when compared with the revised total of 5,534 fatalities in 2002, according to data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI) collection on September 22.

<snip>

The number of workplace homicides also rose nationwide in 2003, which was the first increase in this category since 2000. The 631 workplace homicides recorded last year is still a 42 percent decline from the high of 1,080 workplace homicides recorded in 1994, BLS said.






www.doli.state.va.us/infocenter/publications/va_works/2004/nov_04related/blsreport_2003.htm

No, not even remotely.
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 6:30:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By captainpooby:
Here's a pic I found on the web of a Kellog Brown and Root facility.

Quick, go check the vehicles in the parking lot!!!! Someone might have a gun!!!!

www.defenselink.mil/news/Nov2004/2004112603b_72.jpg



Yup, looks exactly like the D-fac I eat at everyday.
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 6:35:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By s1rGr1nG0:

Originally Posted By captainpooby:
Here's a pic I found on the web of a Kellog Brown and Root facility.

Quick, go check the vehicles in the parking lot!!!! Someone might have a gun!!!!

www.defenselink.mil/news/Nov2004/2004112603b_72.jpg



Yup, looks exactly like the D-fac I eat at everyday.




You guys must have a buttload of workplace shootings. Keep your head down.
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 6:41:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 1shott:

Originally Posted By pattymcn:

Originally Posted By captainpooby:

"It is our view that firearms should not be permitted on premises where Halliburton conducts business and that the law should not require the company to allow them," said a spokeswoman, Cathy Mann.




Anyone else see the hypocrasy/irony here?



I did right away. Drives me nuts. Translation: If a company managed by the Vice President wants to allow fire arms on its premises a law should be in place to stop them. Patty




I am still under the impression, you cant drive, or even PUSH a vehicle......



Never under estimate my ability to drive you wild 1shott. Patty
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 6:45:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Beer_Slayer:
where were they when it happened at AOL a few years ago.

Maybe we are begining to see a turn around in the NRA.




Have you read an NRA magazine lately?
If you ewant, IM me your address and I'll send you one.
They are page after page of warnings that the anti-gun movement is about personal defense and tyrannical governments.
They have articles about how they want .50 cal's now, but hunting rifles and shotguns next.

So, not only are they fighting for us, they are trying to change the attitude of the O/U crowd, too.
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 6:46:45 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/3/2005 6:47:50 AM EDT by QuantumPion]
I find laws requiring private companies to allow guns on their property to be just as offensive as laws forbiding smoking in privately owned restaurants.

just because a bad law happens to support our agenda, doesn't mean it's a good law.
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 6:49:59 AM EDT

They have articles about how they want .50 cal's now, but hunting rifles and shotguns next.


It's always been about hunting rifles and shotguns with the NRA.
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 6:51:16 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/3/2005 6:52:07 AM EDT by racer934]

Originally Posted By QuantumPion:
I find laws requiring private companies to allow guns on their property to be just as offensive as laws forbiding smoking in privately owned restaurants.

just because a bad law happens to support our agenda, doesn't mean it's a good law.



Yup. The RTKBA is as important to me as property rights.

I have the right to not allow people on my property or put conditions on their entry.

An employee has the right to seek employment elsewhere if they don't like my work conditions or policies.
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 6:53:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Beer_Slayer:
The dispute in Oklahoma stems from a crackdown at Weyerhaeuser against employee drug abuse. A company spokesman, Bruce Amundson, said trained dogs sniffing in the parking lot of the paper mill in Valliant found a dozen cars with rifles, shotguns, handguns and some automatic weapons, violations of a new policy banning weapons in cars. The gun owners, including contract workers for Kellogg Brown & Root, were fired.

in this state your car is considered an extension of your home for such things. could this fall under illegal search?



Do you know the rest of that story? (there's always more that you aren't shown in hte media)
The policy was brand new, and had never been shown to employees. The HR dept. admitted it was a brand new policy. There is a story in one of the NRA magazines last month. Probably the legislative magazine.
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 6:56:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By metroplex:

They have articles about how they want .50 cal's now, but hunting rifles and shotguns next.


It's always been about hunting rifles and shotguns with the NRA.



I know what you mean. 5 years ago, that was true. I really don't get that impression anymore. It is really more like they are trying to corral the O/U'ers into our corner.
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 6:59:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/3/2005 7:00:05 AM EDT by Leisure_Shoot]

Originally Posted By QuantumPion:
I find laws requiring private companies to allow guns on their property to be just as offensive as laws forbiding smoking in privately owned restaurants.

just because a bad law happens to support our agenda, doesn't mean it's a good law.



I kind of agree. But one of the problems is that it puts the employee at risk while they are travelling to and from work, because they are not allowed to have a firearm at their destination.

Perhaps a better approach would be to specifically grant immunity from liability to employers who allow firearms.

Ohio grants immunity either way, and that is a problem in my book, because then the employer has no responsibility to provide protection for the workers, who have been disarmed by the employer.
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 7:14:14 AM EDT
What would be the advantage of having employees leave their guns in their cars? That seems less safe then with them. In Oregon you can have your gun anywhere except State or Federal Court Houses. If you can legally have a CWP you can carry your gun.

I can't think of anywhere other than a jail or prison where it would be unsafe for me to carry a gun.

Patty
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 7:24:45 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 7:29:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By racer934:

Originally Posted By QuantumPion:
I find laws requiring private companies to allow guns on their property to be just as offensive as laws forbiding smoking in privately owned restaurants.

just because a bad law happens to support our agenda, doesn't mean it's a good law.



Yup. The RTKBA is as important to me as property rights.

I have the right to not allow people on my property or put conditions on their entry.

An employee has the right to seek employment elsewhere if they don't like my work conditions or policies.



So do you have the right to fobid the posession of rap music in employee owned cars? Can you prohibit wheelchairs from your parking lot?

You are already severely curtailed in what you can or can't forbid on company property.
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 7:50:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By QuantumPion:
I find laws requiring private companies to allow guns on their property to be just as offensive as laws forbiding smoking in privately owned restaurants.

just because a bad law happens to support our agenda, doesn't mean it's a good law.



I disagree.

You can prevent them from bringing them IN the building. That's fine. But the parking lot, is, IMHO, a different beast.

Same with the sidewalk. Those are 'privately' owned, but for 'public' use. The parking lot is for the use of your employees, visitors, and customers. The sidewalk is for people passing through. You have no right to infringe upon their rights.

My point is that property laws are fine and dandy - but there's a limit. You can restrict what you want in the building - but in parking lots, walkways, etc, you can't.

Fence the lot and restrict access, and I might see it slightly differently. But until you are within the properties 'security perimeter' (per se), I don't think you have any right to restrict anything.
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 8:12:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By QuantumPion:
I find laws requiring private companies to allow guns on their property to be just as offensive as laws forbiding smoking in privately owned restaurants.

just because a bad law happens to support our agenda, doesn't mean it's a good law.



+1

We're quick to jump on .gov when they restrict/require that which we agree/disagree with. States and feds should butt out. If XYZ Corp decides it wants this rule, the employees decide whether to put up with it and we can decide if we want to patronize them or not.

No way would I clerk a 7/11 at 3 a.m. unarmed or deliver for Dominos unarmed, but some people will (or must). At some point, probably already happened, it will be impossible to swing your feet out of bed in the morning without violating some "law"
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 8:22:19 AM EDT
I've posted on this many times. I've worked for major companies that prohibit firearms at work, including the parking lots. Matter of fact, I've worked for Circle K/Tosco before they bought or got bought by Conoco. I usually kept my gun in my own vehicle because it is my personal property. It was locked in a vault and was nobody's business but mine. If the company wanted to provide me with a car, then they could dictate what I carried in it.

That said, I have carried my firearm on my person before in secured facilities in McDonnel Douglas/Boeing and Honeywell, against company policy. I figure my personal safety is worth more than a job. I have always been ready to kiss off said job if needed.

As stated before, it is about private property rights and my vehicle and my firearm are my private property and you have no right to invade them just because I'm parked in your PUBLIC lot.

Another issue stated before is that if your lot is publicly accesible (unsecured/gated) you have no expectation to be able to control the access or what is brought on your public lot by the public. Period. Stop. End of story. You want to control what goes on your property, put up a guard shack, man it, bring in trained K-9's and fence the place off. You want this expectation, it's gonna cost you some.
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 8:23:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

"Our primary concern is the safety of all our employees," the company said, adding, "We are simply trying to provide a safe and secure working environment for our employees by keeping guns out of our facilities, including our company parking lots."



Damn, I get so tired of hearing that. Those policies have yet to stop a workplace shooting. All they do is insure that no one can stop the idiot doing the shooting.

Some guy has decided to commit murder, he gets to the gate and says "Oh shit, I can't do this, it's against company policy".........yeah, right.



Its not even remotely about protecting employees. Upper management could give two shits about the employees. Its about $$$$$$$. Company doesn't want a lawsuit if someone shoots up the place. Want to say "we took every precaution and banned those nasty things." If Jane Doe the secretary gets raped, well, that doesn't effect the bottom line.
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 8:58:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By QuantumPion:
I find laws requiring private companies to allow guns on their property to be just as offensive as laws forbiding smoking in privately owned restaurants.

just because a bad law happens to support our agenda, doesn't mean it's a good law.



Actually, you don't realize it, but are pushing "your" agenda. I can show you in the Constitution, specifically in the Bill of Rights and in our Found Fathers papers that I have a Right to carry anywhere I want. But I'm pretty sure, YOU can not find one place in the Constitution or Bill of Rights or our Foudning Fathers papers where it says, YOU have the right to tell me I can not have the Right to defend myself. These "property rights" where you can tell anyone anything at any time is a selfish agenda. You DO have the right to tell someone that they are not welcome on your property, but if I have a CCW, as long as you don't know it, I have a Constitutional Right to protect myself.

This issue IS a delemia, because you CAN tell me not to come on your property, however, you CAN NOT tell me that I can't protect myself. So where's the compromise? I'd say, anyone that has a CCW should be able to carry it in their car. No matter where you have to park it. You don't want me to carry in the building, ok, but don't tell me I can't exercise my right in MY private property. And if you are going to tell me that I can not protect myself, YOU had better provide some level of protection for me. As long as this double standard remains, people will butt heads over it.
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 9:05:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

"Our primary concern is the safety of all our employees," the company said, adding, "We are simply trying to provide a safe and secure working environment for our employees by keeping guns out of our facilities, including our company parking lots."



Damn, I get so tired of hearing that. Those policies have yet to stop a workplace shooting. All they do is insure that no one can stop the idiot doing the shooting.

Some guy has decided to commit murder, he gets to the gate and says "Oh shit, I can't do this, it's against company policy".........yeah, right.




Shhh... you make too much sense. You know that isn't allowed anymore, right?

Link Posted: 8/3/2005 9:07:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By LaBelleRebel:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

"Our primary concern is the safety of all our employees," the company said, adding, "We are simply trying to provide a safe and secure working environment for our employees by keeping guns out of our facilities, including our company parking lots."



Damn, I get so tired of hearing that. Those policies have yet to stop a workplace shooting. All they do is insure that no one can stop the idiot doing the shooting.

Some guy has decided to commit murder, he gets to the gate and says "Oh shit, I can't do this, it's against company policy".........yeah, right.




Shhh... you make too much sense. You know that isn't allowed anymore, right?





+1
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 9:14:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By QuantumPion:
I find laws requiring private companies to allow guns on their property to be just as offensive as laws forbiding smoking in privately owned restaurants.

just because a bad law happens to support our agenda, doesn't mean it's a good law.



THANK YOU!

I'm glad someone else sees the conflict here.
The 2nd Amendment has no more or less power
than the 4th or 5th Amendments.
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 9:16:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By captainpooby:

"It is our view that firearms should not be permitted on premises where Halliburton conducts business and that the law should not require the company to allow them," said a spokeswoman, Cathy Mann.




Anyone else see the hypocrasy/irony here?



No why don't you point it out to us.
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 9:17:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By lippo:
This issue IS a delemia, because you CAN tell me not to come on your property, however, you CAN NOT tell me that I can't protect myself.



But I can tell you that you cannot bring your
private property onto my private property
unless you follow the rules that I set.

If the company has laid out a policy that no
guns are to be on the property, then you have
agreed to abide by that policy. When you get
fired, you should have no legal recourse.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top