Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Arms and the strife in Mexico | Main | Illinois Gun Owners Lobby Day »

Win in 10th Circuit

Posted by David Hardy · 19 February 2009 09:02 AM

A District Court in Oklahoma struck down its law allowing employees to have firearms in locked cars on company lots -- grounds were that OSHA's general duty to keep a workplace safe overrode the State law. The 10th Circuit just reversed the ruling and upheld the State law.

I can't find the opinion on the 10th Circuit website, will link as soon as I can.

UPDATE: Joe Huffman found it, in pdf, here.

6 Comments | Leave a comment

Joe Huffman | February 19, 2009 9:43 AM | Reply

Do you mean this one?

Joe Huffman | February 19, 2009 11:47 AM | Reply

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

bill-tb | February 19, 2009 5:17 PM | Reply

So NRA was the lawyer for the state?

Looks like another step. Great job to all involved.

Hartley | February 20, 2009 8:32 AM | Reply

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.

Tim Weaver | February 20, 2009 9:32 AM | Reply

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."

bill-tb | February 20, 2009 5:10 PM | Reply

As I see it, since the Second Amendment is now an enumerated right in the eyes of the Supreme Court, I doubt some government agency would be able to deny the right to self defense with just a rule.


For instance, could they form a rule on free speech in the work place parking lot ...


If I read Heller right, an enumerated rights test of constitutionality is much higher threshold than general.

Leave a comment