Big Win for Workers in 10th Circuit Court!

[Charles L. Cotton]

A three judge panel of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of workers today when it reversed the lower court ruling in the Oklahoma employer parking lot case. The plaintiffs filed suit to block the 2004 law enacted by the Oklahoma legislature prohibiting (criminalizing) employer rules against Oklahoma CHLs from storing firearms in locked cars in employer parking lots. Among other frivolous claims, the employers argued that the Oklahoma statute violated OSHA by prohibiting employers from maintaining a safe working environment.

Although there are other plaintiffs named, the real mover and shaker in this lawsuit was ConocoPhillips. It did so not only for itself, but on behalf of the entire petrochemical industry. They can seek an en banc hearing by the entire Court, but that would seem futile in view of OSHA's recent statement that it's rules have nothing to do with guns in parking lots.

This is a huge victory! It should help our employer parking lot bill and it should encourage other states to pass worker protection laws. We also must be vigilant to efforts by the Obama Administration to make administrative changes to OSHA regulations to render this decision moot.

Chas.

[jimlongley]

As the Brady bunch and their ilk are prone to say "It's an important first step."

I would like to see the OSHA ruling, is there text of that somewhere?

[Charles L. Cotton]

As the Brady bunch and their ilk are prone to say "It's an important first step."

I would like to see the OSHA ruling, is there text of that somewhere?

I'm not sure what OSHA ruling you mean Jim. OHSA didn't get involved in this case and in fact refused to do so on request. (See page 11 of the opinion.) Have I misunderstood your question?

Chas.

[tfrazier]

Wow. Oklahoma is actually ahead of Texas on gun rights for the moment. I hope our legislature will have the gumption to catch up ;), especially since I'm one of the poor saps who has to travel back and forth to work 'naked'.

Cheers for these judges, jeers to ConocoPhillips, and jeers to the Obama administration.

[gmckinl]

Gotta love Oklahoma.

[jimlongley]

As the Brady bunch and their ilk are prone to say "It's an important first step."

I would like to see the OSHA ruling, is there text of that somewhere?

I'm not sure what OSHA ruling you mean Jim. OHSA didn't get involved in this case and in fact refused to do so on request. (See page 11 of the opinion.) Have I misunderstood your question?

Chas.

I think you have. OSHA declined, which will be documented, along with their reasoning for declining. OSHA doesn't do anything without carefully documenting it, and that includes not doing something.

[sbb]

This begs the question, should the Texas legislature continue with pending legislation on this subject or should they spend their time attempting to pass other wanted pro gun bills. I was thinking along the lines of allowing CHL's to carry anywhere an off duty LEO can carry. What are your thoughts.

[Keith B]

This begs the question, should the Texas legislature continue with pending legislation on this subject or should they spend their time attempting to pass other wanted pro gun bills. I was thinking along the lines of allowing CHL's to carry anywhere an off duty LEO can carry. What are your thoughts.

Why would they not want to continue on this subject? While it helps our cause, it isn't a done deal as there are always folks who will not want it passed in their state. We need to continue contacting our Senators and Representatives on this and any other bills that have been filed to garner every bit of support we can muster!

[tfrazier]

Baby steps! As a former LEO myself, I don't think you'd get much support for CHL holders carrying anywhere a cop is allowed to carry. For instance, in a bar. The places I'm not allowed to carry, I don't show up in unless I have no other reasonable choice. Keeps me out of trouble. The parking lot legislation is a great step and winnable with enough support from constituents making their reps and senators aware of their opinions, in my view.

[JCole]

As the Brady bunch and their ilk are prone to say "It's an important first step."

I would like to see the OSHA ruling, is there text of that somewhere?

Is this what you're after?

http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/OSHAPa ... 162009.pdf

Not really a ruling, more like a Letter of Interpretation

[sbb]

While i totally agree on advancing our cause, if the Federal Appeals court has given its opinion on this matter and that opinion would in effect set precident on this issue, why continue to flog the horse after it has won the race? I may be way off base here but since the Texas legislature meets only once every two years it would seem to me that time could be devoted to other pro gun issues. This would also further our cause and just maybe get some legislation passed this session instead of in 2011.

[tfrazier]

The decision only affects the law in Oklahoma. It isn't a win for Texans because no such law has been passed here yet. Nothing has been 'won' yet...unless you live in Oklahoma.

[Keith B]

While i totally agree on advancing our cause, if the Federal Appeals court has given its opinion on this matter and that opinion would in effect set precident on this issue, why continue to flog the horse after it has won the race? I may be way off base here but since the Texas legislature meets only once every two years it would seem to me that time could be devoted to other pro gun issues. This would also further our cause and just maybe get some legislation passed this session instead of in 2011.

IIRC, precedence is pretty much a court of law factor. Until the time it would be passed and put in effect in Texas and then challenged (as in Oklahoma's case) then the precedence would not really be considered. The advantage from this is if we can get the legislators to pass the law and get it signed off on by the Governor, then businesses/lawyers would not be as willing to try to fight it since precedence has been set. Some of you legal types correct me if I am off base on this.

[jimlongley]

As the Brady bunch and their ilk are prone to say "It's an important first step."

I would like to see the OSHA ruling, is there text of that somewhere?

Is this what you're after?

http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/OSHAPa ... 162009.pdf

Not really a ruling, more like a Letter of Interpretation

Yes, that's exactly what I was looking for. It may be a "letter of interpretation" but the way OSHA operates, that one letter is as good as a ruling unless or until OSHA supercedes it.

What it does is take the "safety in the workplace" arguement down a peg, because any employer trying to fight the bill now has an OSHA statement to the effect that OSHA does not consider it an occupational hazard. We need to see to it that this document is at the very least readily available to our bills' authors if not to all of our legislators.

[Purplehood]

I for one, am happy to see a Federal Agency specifically stating that it is not going to try and trump State laws, or the Constitution, as was mentioned in the letter.