Win in 10th Circuit

Do you mean this one?

Actually Phil showed it to me. But I'll take the credit and buy him lunch sometime.

So NRA was the lawyer for the state?

Looks like another step. Great job to all involved.

Interesting, and the court's logic was quite clear. I note, however, that they have identified, in graphic detail, how the gun-grabbers could affect such cases in the future, by getting OSHA to establish and promulgate some sort of onerous "guidelines" about employee firearm possession.

As I read one section, it says that since OSHA takes NO position on firearms at the workplace (no regulations, requirements, etc.), that the law cannot be seen as violating OSHA requirements, even the general safety clause.

Is this a correct interpretation?

So, if OSHA does, in fact, write/create such rules/regs, etc., then the 10th's decision loses one of its arguments, no?

The section to which I refer is this:

"OSHA has not, however, promulgated any mandatory standards regarding workplace violence.

Because the absence of any specific OSHA standard on workplace violence is undisputed, the district court correctly recognized that the only possible area of OSH Act preemption was under the general duty clause and the OSH Act’s overarching purpose. Thus, in finding preemption, the district court held that gun related workplace violence was a “recognized hazard” under the general duty clause, and, therefore, an employer that allows firearms in the company parking lot may violate the OSH Act. We disagree. OSHA has not indicated in any way that employers should prohibit firearms from company parking lots. OSHA’s website, guidelines, and citation history do not speak at all to any such prohibition. In fact, OSHA declined a request to promulgate a standard banning firearms from the workplace."