[cdswans]

I just caught the tail end of a news story that said, in a ruling by the U. S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, employers can't restrict an employees right to keep a gun in their locked motor vehicle while the motor vehicle is on company property. I searched for a link to back that up but didn't find one. The jist of the ruling was that an employees rights don't end at the employers property line.

I'm hearing more now and it's coming from the NRA news channel, Sirius Patriot 144. I'll search further and try to get a link.

That could have favorable implications for Drivers who desire to carry. I'm looking into it.

And I found it . .

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/artic...0_DENVER773048

"DENVER — Oklahoma’s law requiring employers to allow workers to have guns in their locked vehicles at work is valid, an appeals court decided Wednesday."

The text of the 23 page ruling hasn't been posted to the site I subscribe to.

[Windwalker]

I still don't see what that has to do with drivers that want to carry guns in their trucks.

And, after my own experience, I'll just sit in the truck and dial 9-1-1... They get paid to face up to "armed and dangerous"... I don't. I've slowed down a bit over the last 40 years. Also found out he had one hell of a LEFT HOOK.

[dobry4u]

I took a CCW class. It was taught by NRA folks. The MI State Police have people that give the class as well and I would imagine it was a little different perspective.

I think shooting targets is a lot of fun, but I really don't think I could shoot a person. Even if it was a matter of saving myself. I believe in everyone's right to own a gun, don't get me wrong, I just don't think I could do it, so I didn't invest in a hand gun. My oldest has an AK-47 and an AR-15 just to have and obviously doesn't share the same prospective ! :eek2:

[Mackman]

Originally Posted by Windwalker

I still don't see what that has to do with drivers that want to carry guns in their trucks.

And, after my own experience, I'll just sit in the truck and dial 9-1-1... They get paid to face up to "armed and dangerous"... I don't. I've slowed down a bit over the last 40 years. Also found out he had one hell of a LEFT HOOK.

Well i hope they get there in time to help you.

Seconds seem like minutes and minutes seem like hours.

[Mackman]

Originally Posted by dobry4u

I think shooting targets is a lot of fun, but I really don't think I could shoot a person. Even if it was a matter of saving myself.

When it comes down to it. You will do anything to save your life. Even if it means taking someone else's. Hopefully you or anyone else will never have to be in that position. But it does happen. I have my carry permit and the only time i really carry is when i go into Philly. Other then that it stays under my bed.

[Windwalker]

Originally Posted by Mackman

Well i hope they get there in time to help you.

Seconds seem like minutes and minutes seem like hours.

When they got there, I had him on the ground, face down, and spread out. I really don't know if he'll ever use his right arm or shoulder again. I think I tore about everything loose up there. But while I had both my arms and hands busy with his right shoulder, his left arm was free to swing. My right eye about swelled shut after that. The scabs are starting to peel off now, and the swelling has gone down a lot. Still tender, though.

First time I've ever faced a situation since I've been driving, and having a weapon of my own would have been no help at all.

[carlos64030]

All I have to say is, I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

[Mackman]

Originally Posted by carlos64030

All I have to say is, I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

Another good one is

I RATHER HAVE IT AND NOT NEED IT, THEN TO NEED IT AND NOT HAVE IT

[cdswans]

Originally Posted by Windwalker

I still don't see what that has to do with drivers that want to carry guns in their trucks.

It's more or less a "toe in the door" ruling.

Based on what I've heard, there are many significant components within the ruling. The two that I find most interesting are:

1. It was a unanimous ruling by a 3 judge panel. I didn't have to read the ruling to grasp the significance of this. It means a couple of things . . the ruling is well supported by case law which greatly diminishes the likelyhood of an appeal. It also sets a strong precedent for pending and future 2nd Amendment litigation.

2. Apparently there is language within the ruling that states the 2nd Amendment is no less important than the 1st. (I haven't read the ruling but I will just as soon as it's posted.) That's some pretty strong language in support for the 2nd Amendment and it comes on the heels of other favorable rulings including one by the U. S. Supreme Court.

If you were a gun enthusiast the significance to you would be much more apparent. That's why I directed the thread towards enthusiasts. The bottom line is there have been many successful efforts to place limits on those who embrace the 2nd Amendment. Here is an example of the second highest court in the land tearing one down. It's also a workplace issue. It affirms that my rights don't end at the bosses door. I am one step closer to a legal carry.

There are plenty of crazy people out here as it is. With the tanking economy, I expect the number will continue to grow and the degree of desperation will grow right along with it. To that end, I'm with Carlos and Mackman.

Most significant of all, perhaps, is that it is a successful defense of our Constitution itself. That is especially refreshing in light of current events at the hands of our current administration. Yahoo!

[GMAN]

Obama and the anti American socialist chickencrats plan on attacking the 2nd amendment during his administration. I heard something about them wanting to restrict our ability to purchase ammunition since they have had some legal losses recently. Since they have been unable to get rid of the 2nd amendment they plan on going after the ammunition which will make owning the gun useless.