Boycott Conoco-Phillips
10.15.05“Across the country, we’re going to make ConocoPhillips the example of what happens when a corporation takes away your Second Amendment rights, If you are a corporation that’s anti-gun, anti-gun owner, or anti-Second Amendment, we will spare no effort or expense to work against you, to protect the rights of your law-abiding employees. Their rights are worth more than your money!”
NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre spoke to a crowd of supporters at a rally in Ibedel, Oklahoma. The Weyerhaeuser Corporation recently fired several of it’s factory employees for keeping a firearm in their locked vehicles, on the company parking lot.
So now it’s our job as 2A loving patriots, to boycott the filthy anti-2A corporation.
Is that even legal to fire someone for that, they have the right to bear arms so if they have a liscense for the gun cant the employees just sue them for several millions.
# October 16th, 2005 at 4:44 pmAs I understand it an employer can fire an employee for pretty much any reason as long as it doesn’t violate any discrimination/whistleblower/etc. statutes.
Conversely, an employee can leave at any time (persuant to contractual obligations).
I suspect there is nothing illegal about firing a worker for having a firearm in their (locked) car. Whether it’s ethical or even morally acceptable to do so, well, that’s another question entirely, isn’t it?
# October 17th, 2005 at 4:44 amCan we get a list of what Conoco-Phillips owns?
# October 17th, 2005 at 9:10 amHello
# October 17th, 2005 at 4:11 pmHow did the company know who to fire?
Do U.S. employers have the right to search private vehicles parked on their car parks? Does it stop at searching employees cars? What about visitors to the company sites - are they subject to search without warrant?
Sorry about the endless questions, just trying to reconcile what I’ve just read with “Land of the Free” & 2A rights (which we really need over here, but will need a revolution to achieve).
Please comment!
Hi Bryn,
In all honesty, I’m unsure how the empoyers knew who to fire. My only guess would be that the employess were talkin to fellow workers, and might have mentioned that they had firearms in their vehicles.
I’m pretty sure that an empolyer does Not have the right to search a vehicle on their lot, but it could depend on certain contracts that employee’s might have signed.
But I strongly believe that however it happened, it was completely unethical to fire these people on such a rediculous rule.
And I truley do feel for you and yours, who’re unable to defend themselves via use of firearms. You’re welcome to come on over to these parts, though!
# October 17th, 2005 at 6:41 pmThere was a search of employee vehicles at the Weyerhaeuser, Valiant OK parking lot aided by the local Sheriff’s Dept. supposedly looking for illegal narcotics. They used sniffer jobs and challenged anyone who had a positive result. Of course sniffer dogs also react to powder residue, hence the 12 positive results. By-the-way NO drugs were found.
# October 17th, 2005 at 7:17 pmThe 4th amendment’s security “against unreasonable searches and seizures” is meant to keep the Government from ransacking and grabbing your stuff.
I tend to side with the rights of private business and property owners on this one. I think an employer has a right to say what employees can and can’t bring onto their private property, same as I think employers should be able to hire only Christians, only women, or only heterosexuals if they think that’s what’s best for their business.
Now, should they have terminated those people? I don’t think so. I think they should have just asked them not to bring firearms on company property. Unless maybe the employees were already in violation of their employment contract?
The company I work for has one big client that made all of us at our company sign statements saying that we understood that our cars, backpacks, briefcases, etc. could be subject to searches at any time we were on their company’s private property.
Second amendment is the same thing: it’s there to keep the Government from “infringing” on your right to bear arms. If I invite you over to my house and you come to the door with a rifle, I think it’s my right as a property owner and the father of a small child to ask you to leave it in your truck, or not to bring it onto my property at all, and I’m not infringing on your 2nd amendment rights.
# October 18th, 2005 at 1:14 amMan, that’s weird… I didnt’ realize that was in Valiant. I ‘ve worked in that very Weyerhauser factory. It’s a papermill, every now they “shut down” the plant for maitenence on all the machines. My wife’s uncle owns a co. that employs ironworkers/steelworkers and we traveled to OK, NC, SC, TN and here in KY working at papermills on “shutdowns”. It’s been a couple of years, but I’ve been there.
Pretty wild to read about here on the site…
# October 18th, 2005 at 6:46 amReal Clear Politics
Check out this article. John Stossel tells it like it is.
# October 19th, 2005 at 10:54 pmI think the company grossly over reacted. According to the article I read on this incident there was no notice to employees that there had been a change in policy. Storage of firearms in employee vehicles had been allowed in the past. The firearms were unloaded and safely locked away. There was no criminal intent, the employees were merely planning on deer hunting after work.
# November 15th, 2005 at 4:08 amMy brother works for a large corporation that officially allows deer hunting on it’s timberland on weekends during deer season by both it’s employees and the public. It has been doing this for many years with no problem. In comparison to this, an empty deer rifle safely locked away in an employee’s vehicle appears to be a very poor excuse to fire the employee. At the very least employees should have received a warning…..AHEAD OF TIME!!
You cannot expect employees to follow rules if you do not let them know what the rules are. I side with the employees on this one. I do not plan on being a customer of any of these corporations that mistreated their employees and bash our constitutional rights.
This is in response to all of you NRA, backwoods, inbred, gun-loving wierdos: If somebody with whom I worked brought a gun to work (whether it was a handgun or a deer-hunting rifle) I would want them to get shit-canned! I wouldn’t want a co-worker bringing a gun to work the same way I wouldn’t want a child bringing a gun to school. There is intent there. By the way…I work for ConocoPhillips. We sign an employment agreement that states we will not bring firearms on the premises of our jobsite. It is the employees decision to sign the contract before employment begins; therefore, he/she knows what’s at stake if they violate the policy. Besides…what the hell do you need guns for nowadays since there is no frontier to tame? You’re all idiots.
# November 22nd, 2005 at 7:41 amWow, what an ignorant douche. You really think the only use that a firearm has is to “tame the frontier” ??? hah!
Why don’t you pull your head out of your ass and try to gain an understanding on “how the world really works”.
You’ve obviously never been in a life threatening situation, like a cracked out maniac with a gun, you’ve obviously never been the victim of rape, you obviously have never had an intruder break into your house late at night and make you wonder if you are going to live to see the morning, you obviously don’t have any family that you could give a rats ass about, the most you know about guns you’ve probably learned from hollywood.
An armed criminals favorite victim is a mindless, unsuspecting fool very much like yourself. And their least favorite victim? An armed citizen.
Now allow me to point you to a couple places to learn about what use a gun has besides “taming the wild frontier”, you ignorant tool.
1) 40 reasons to ban guns
2) Armed Citizens
3) A Human Right
# November 22nd, 2005 at 8:09 amWow, I must admit I agree with Jimbo. I’m glad to be Canadian where we are still free but our society is less gun crazy. And I don’t think we suffer for it. I hope Martin (our prime minister, in case y’ll don’t know) goes through with his proposed plan to ban all handguns in this country. And I’m proud of our gun control. Moreover, I don’t understand why people need guns. Spare me the self defense, constitutional rights, etc - the truth is that they are wepons. Which are ultimately used to hurt and intimidate others, regardless of whether it’s justified or in self defense,etc. Why not make weapons unavailable and more difficult to obtain if it helps most people feel safer in their communities (like I do)? And I feel better about working for ConocoPhillips now….I have an interview with them this week.
# December 11th, 2005 at 6:41 pmSpoken like somebody who has never had a 250 pound rapist with a baseball bat in their bedroom in the middle of the night. You don’t think self defense and constitutional rights are a good enough reason??? Then I’m glad you’re not in my country.
p.s. - yer canadian. yer not southern. don’t attempt to say y’all, cos you might fail.
# December 11th, 2005 at 7:46 pmJen, ignorance is bliss huh?
After the UK banned handguns, firearm related crime and associated violent crime rose exponentially to the extent now Scotland, England And Wales are 1,2,3 on the 20 most dangerous Western Societies to live in. In fact you’re 4 times more likely to be embroiled in a violent crime in Scotland and 3 times more likely in England/Wales than in the good old USA.
And conversely as US states have increased the access to concealed-carry permits, violent crime rates have dropped, hmmm. 
You’re obviously somewhat ignorant in your understanding of firearms, and draw some erroneous immature conclusions. Suffice to say self-defense here IS a constitutional right not a privilege to be bestowed or removed by a benevolent government or dictator. The right to defend oneself is base, and inalienable. It should never be subject to approval of method or means by another.
You may want to consider if a ban in Canada succeeds who will then surrender their arms. Law abiding licensed citizens or the criminal element who already fought the existing laws and illegally procure firearms. Jen, it ain’t rocket science my dear.
The fact that the US shares a common border with Canada basically means anyone who wants to procure an illegal firearm has the largest producer to the South, it will garner a massive new criminal gun trade between our countries.
Just remember when after the ban is imposed (assuming) the victims of the gun crime will rest happy in their graves knowing they were killed with an illegally procured weapon and that you are proud of the results and “feel” safe in your community.
An armed society is a polite society.
# December 11th, 2005 at 7:56 pmBoth of their heads are stuck up their asses, and its not for the warmth.
# December 13th, 2005 at 7:23 amJen- Do you actually worry about that kind of crap when applying for a job? You actually waste what little cognitive process you may encounter fretting that someone in your company has brought a gun to work? Is this a product of you canuks being totally helpless frenchies? I think you need to put your frontal lobe to better use and actually build a better country instead of getting on AMERICAN internet and talkin trash about stuff that you have absolutley no grasp on, ie. constitutional rights and self defense. And double what Chad said about bein a dirty french canuk and trying to use OUR language. Keep it on your side of the fence.
# December 13th, 2005 at 12:24 pmYou guys are really funny! It’s not like I insulted any of you based on presumed stereotypes. Some people just can’t debate intelligently without taking things personally and getting angry. What did I ever do to you? Moreover, why do so many of you have such a problem with french? Obviously an armed society isn’t the most tolerant society either! Seems like a dangerous combination to me.
The US has a reputation in Canada for lack of tolerance, do you think this is warrented? Is it true that many of you have a problem with gay people? Just wondering. We also hear about abortion and gay marriage being hotly debated topics in parts of the US, while we freely allow both. Actually, abortion is covered under health care. We’ve also decriminialized marijuana, is the penealty for pocession of small amounts a serious offence in the US?
Anyway, I wouldn’t throw hateful insults at you guys. How can you hate someome you don’t even know who has committed no offense against you? I also wouldn’t tell you not to ever come to Canada, but I I would assure you would feel welcome here (but I am not sure if you guys would like it).
And, and by the way, I just got a job offer “on your side of the fence” with a hefty bonus for agreeing to go. I’m planning to accept, unless I get a better conuter-offer. I’m sure some work in the US will be probably be worth it if I’m getting 6 figures for it. Now, if I can just figure out how to deal with all the “250 pound rapists who could show up my bedroom at night with baseball bats”. Oh right, I won’t have to.
# January 23rd, 2006 at 10:00 pmYes a small amount of marijuana is preatty serious offense considering it increases illegal immigration and gets innocent people killed. It would be preatty ironic if a rapist did show up, maybe you would learn.
# January 24th, 2006 at 5:53 pmJen I don’t think you answered a single point I made. You’re not trying to avoid intelligent debate now are you?
COME ON JEN answer some of my points, let’s debate.
I see your latest post as an attempt at prevarication or maybe trying to raise some ire, hoping for a shouting match? It is nothing but a litany of idiotic leftist social ideas paraded as if they’re the correct and progressive social model — masqueraded as tolerance — it isn’t. Thankfully those childish self-serving detrimental Liberal mantras don’t hold much truck in the US, some of us STILL like to exercise a great deal of common sense here.
BUT that may seem to be contagious, congratulations on your new CONSERVATIVE Government… look’s like maybe you’re heading in the right direction after all.
By the way no one likes the French, not even the French.
# January 25th, 2006 at 12:21 amToday My friend told me a story about when he was living in Burkina Faso. 10 years ago, the Dutch embassy in the capital Ouagadougou (try saying that) was attacked, for no apparent reason by a group of anti-government rioters. The rioters seized the embassy. but then left a few days later, having spared most of the Dutch diplomats’ lives.
Needless to say, this sent the Dutch diplomatic community into a panic. While they desperately tried to get out of Burkina Faso, the American embassy inquired into the incident. They discovered that the rioters had mistaken the Dutch flag for the French flag, and were actually looking to take revenge on their former French colonizers.
I’m not sure what exactly the rioters’ grievance was, but given the shape of Burkina Faso nowadays, the French probably deserved whatever was coming to them. Just goes to show: nobody likes the French.
# January 25th, 2006 at 4:10 pmI’m glad that I don’t work for Conoco-Phillips or Weyerhauser. They may be entitled to set the rules for what is brought onto their property. However, legally possessed firearms, secured in an employees vehicle is not the same as illegal drugs or other contraband that is not legal to possess. I will do my best to avoid contributing to the profits of both companies.
# November 28th, 2006 at 3:57 pm