Conocophillips Co. v. Henry, 04-CV-820-TCK-SAJ.
| Decision Date | 04 October 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 04-CV-820-TCK-SAJ.,04-CV-820-TCK-SAJ. |
| Citation | 520 F.Supp.2d 1282 |
| Parties | CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY, Plaintiff, Norris, DP Manufacturing, Inc., Tulsa Winch, Inc., Ramsey Winch, Inc., Auto Crane Company, Intervening Plaintiffs, v. C. Brad HENRY, Governor of the State of Oklahoma, W.A. Drew Edmondson, Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma, and Their Agents and Successors, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Oklahoma |
Christopher S. Thrutchley, William Kirk Turner, Newton O'Connor Turner & Ketchum PC, Tulsa, OK, for Intervening Plaintiffs.
Sherry Abbott Todd, Office of the Attorney General, Oklahoma City, OK, for Defendants.
Before the Court are Defendants' Objections to Jurisdiction and Motion to Dismiss Temporary Restraining Order (Does. 91 and 92); Plaintiff ConocoPhillips Company's Motion and Brief in Support of Request for Permanent Injunctive and Declaratory Relief (Doc. 93); and Intervenors Norris, DP Manufacturing, Inc., Tulsa Winch, Inc., Auto Crane Company, and Ramsey Winch, Inc.'s Motion and Brief in Support of Request for Permanent Injunctive and Declaratory Relief (Doc. 94). Also before the Court are briefs of amici curiae. Amicus briefs were filed on behalf of Plaintiff's by Securitas Security Services, USA ("Security Services"); Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. ("Halliburton"); and the Oklahoma State Chamber of Commerce (the "State Chamber" ).1 Amicus briefs were filed on behalf of Defendants by the National Rifle Association ("NRA") and various Oklahoma citizens.2
At issue in this litigation are two Oklahoma laws that make it a crime for any "person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity to maintain, establish, or enforce any policy or rule that has the effect of prohibiting any person, except a convicted felon, from transporting and storing firearms in a locked motor vehicle, or from transporting and storing firearms locked in or locked to a motor vehicle on any property set aside for any motor vehicle." See OKLA. STAT. tit. 21, §§ 1289.7a; 1290.22(B).3 Generally, the challenged laws grant Oklahoma citizens the right to transport and store firearms in their locked vehicles on private property, even when a private property owner would like to prevent them from doing so. These laws are referred to by their opponents as "forced entry" laws because they force a private property owner to allow entry of firearms onto their property.4 In contrast they are referred to by their proponents as laws that protect an individual's right to transport firearms.5 In this lawsuit, corporations with policies prohibiting firearms on company property have brought a pre-enforcement challenge to the laws pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, and the Supremacy Clause, arguing that the laws violate the U.S. and Oklahoma Constitutions and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief preventing their enforcement. This Court is the first to address the constitutionality of these types of laws.6
Plaintiff ConocoPhillips Company ("ConocoPhillips") is a Delaware corporation "that operates buildings and facilities [in the Northern District of Oklahoma] that are held open to ConocoPhillips' employees, customers, vendors, and other visitors for the purpose of conducting company business." (Compl. in Intervention ¶ 6.)7 In addition to the buildings themselves, ConocoPhillips "owns and controls numerous parking lots in this district." (Id.) ConocoPhillips has a policy that prohibits possession of firearms on property owned or controlled by the company, including all parking facilities. (Id. ¶ 10.) The policy provides:
The use or possession of contraband is prohibited on Company property. The use or possession of contraband is also prohibited with respect to employees, who, although not on Company property, are on Company business. For purposes of this policy, contraband includes, but is not limited to: Firearms, including shotguns, rifles, handguns (including those legally possessed) ... or any other object, which in the judgment of the Company, may be considered a weapon or firearm, and for which no exceptions apply....
(Id. at Ex. B.) ConocoPhillips alleges that, in response to the challenged laws, it has been forced to begin the process of changing its policies to avoid liability for noncompliance. (Id. ¶ 10.)
Intervening Plaintiff's Norris, a Dover Resources Company ("Norris"), DP Manufacturing, Inc. ("DP"), and Tulsa Winch, Inc. ("Tulsa Winch") are corporations with substantial business operations in Oklahoma. (Compl. of Norris, DP, and Tulsa Winch ¶¶ 11-16, Ex. B to Mot. to Intervene as Additional Pls.) These businesses, like ConocoPhillips, have established and enforced policies prohibiting employees from possessing weapons on company property, including parking lots. Intervening Plaintiff's Ramsey Winch, Inc. ("Ramsey Winch") and Auto Crane Company ("Auto Crane") are also employers that do business and own property in Oklahoma and that have policies prohibiting firearms on their business premises. (Compl. of Ramsey Winch and Auto Crane ¶ 8, attached as Ex. B to Mot. to Intervene as Add'l Pls.; see also Auto Crane Weapons Policy, attached as Ex. A. to Mot. to Intervene as Add'l Pls.) Norris, DP, Tulsa Winch, Ramsey Winch, and Auto Crane are collectively referred to as Intervening Plaintiffs.8
Defendants are C. Brad Henry, Governor of the State of Oklahoma ("Governor Henry"), and W.A. Drew Edmondson, Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma ("Attorney General Edmondson") (collectively "Defendants"). Governor Henry is sued in his official capacity based on his duty to faithfully execute the laws of Oklahoma. See OKLA. CONST. art. 6, § 8. Attorney General Edmondson is sued in his official capacity based on his duty to prosecute and defend all actions and proceedings, civil and criminal, in which the State is an interested party. See OKLA. STAT. tit. 74, § 18b. (See ConocoPhillips Compl. in Intervention ¶¶ 3, 4.)
One of the challenged laws is contained in the Oklahoma Firearms Act of 1971, OKLA. STAT. tit. 21, § 1289.1 et seq. ("OFA"). The legislative findings supporting the OFA state that "[the OFA] is necessary for the safe and lawful use of firearms to curb and prevent crime wherein weapons are used by enacting legislation having the purpose Of controlling the use of firearms, and of prevention of their use, without unnecessarily denying their lawful use in defense of life, home and property ... including their use and transportation for lawful purposes." OKLA. STAT. tit. 21, § 1289.2.9
The other challenged law is contained in the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act of 1995, OKLA. STAT. tit. 21, § 1290.1 et seq. ("OSDA"). The general purpose of the OSDA is to set forth exceptions to the Oklahoma law prohibiting the carrying of "concealed handguns." See OKLA. STAT. tit. 21, § 1290.4.10 The OFA and OSDA are both contained in Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes, which is the criminal code.
On March 31, 2004, Governor Henry signed into law House Bill 2122, see KB. 2122, 49th Leg., 2d Reg. Sess. (Okla.2004) which added the following section to the OFA:
PROHIBITING PERSONS FROM TRANSPORTING, STORING FIREARMS IN LOCKED VEHICLE UNLAWFUL
No person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity shall be permitted to establish any policy or rule that has the effect of prohibiting any person, except a convicted felon, from transporting and storing firearms in a locked vehicle on any property set aside for any vehicle.
OKLA. STAT. tit. 21, § 1289.7a (Supp.2004) (amended 2005). Section 1289.7a immediately follows Section 1289.7, which is entitled "Firearms in Motor Vehicles-Exceptions." See OKLA. STAT. tit. 21, § 1289.7. Section 1289.7 provides that any person except a convicted felon may transport in a motor vehicle an "open and unloaded" rifle, shotgun, or pistol. Id.11
In addition to amending the OFA, House Bill 2122 also amended a provision of the OSDA entitled "Business Owner's Rights" by adding a new subsection (B). See OKLA. STAT. tit. 21, § 1290.22(B). Subsection (B) sets forth an "exception" to a property owner's general right to control the possession of weapons on his property. Section 1290.22 provides:
BUSINESS OWNER'S RIGHTS12
A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, nothing contained in any provision of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act, Section 1290.1 et seq. of this title, shall be construed to limit, restrict or prohibit in any manner the existing rights of any person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity to control the possession of weapons on any property owned or controlled by the person or business entity.
B. No person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity shall be permitted to establish any policy or rule that has the effect of prohibiting any person, except a convicted felon, from transporting and storing firearms in a locked vehicle on any property set aside for any vehicle.
OKLA. STAT. tit. 21, § 1290.22 (Supp.2004) (footnote added). The relief originally sought in this lawsuit was to enjoin enforcement of the 2004 Amendments to the OFA and OSDA.
On June 9, 2005, while this lawsuit was pending. Governor Henry signed into law House Bill 1243, see H.B. 1243, 50th Leg., 1st Reg. Sess. (Okla.2005), which revised § 3289.7a. These revisions provide:
PROHIBITING PERSONS FROM TRANSPORTING, STORING FIREARMS IN LOCKED VEHICLE UNLAWFUL
A. No person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity shall maintain, establish, or enforce any policy or rule that has the effect of prohibiting any person, except a convicted felon, from transporting and storing firearms in a locked motor vehicle, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
SWEPI, LP v. Mora Cnty.
...particularized injury sufficient to establish standing on its substantive due-process claims. See ConocoPhillips Co. v. Henry, 520 F.Supp.2d 1282, 1298 (N.D.Okla.2007) (Kern, J.) (finding that plaintiffs' deprivation of its right to exclude others from its property was a sufficient injury t......
-
Ramsey Winch Inc. v. Henry
...ability to comply with the general duty clause, thereby thwarting Congress' overall intent in passing the OSH Act. See ConocoPhillips, 520 F.Supp.2d at 1330. In support of its ruling, the district court relied on various studies and scholarly works outlining the growing problem of workplace......
-
MONKS v. CITY of RANCHO PALOS VERDES, B201280.
...to a categorical taking, also known as a Lucas taking, total taking, or per se taking. (See ConocoPhillips Co. v. Henry (N.D.Okla.2007) 520 F.Supp.2d 1282, 1306; Lucas, supra, 505 U.S. at pp. 1030-1031, 112 S.Ct. at p. 2901; Lingle, supra, 544 U.S. at p. 538, 125 S.Ct. at p. 2081.) In short......
-
Monks v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes
...law applicable to a categorical taking, also known as a Lucas taking, total taking, or per se taking. (See ConocoPhillips Co. v. Henry (N.D.Okla. 2007) 520 F.Supp.2d 1282, 1306; Lucas, supra, 505 U.S. at pp. 1030-1031 ; Lingle, supra, 544 U.S. at p. 538 .) In short, we must determine whethe......
-
Florida Governor Signs Law Preventing Employers From Prohibiting Firearms On Their Parking Lots
...on any property set aside for any motor vehicle. A pre-enforcement challenge to the law was brought in ConocoPhillips Co. v. Henry, 520 F. Supp. 2d 1282 (N.D. Okla. 2007), by companies with policies prohibiting firearms on company property. The court, the first to address this type of law, ......
-
PRIVATIZATION, PUBLIC COMMONS, AND THE TAKINGSIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW.
...obligation to protect the public interests that are in competition with private interests. See, e.g., ConocoPhillips Co. v. Henry, 520 F. Supp. 2d 1282, 1312 (N.D. Okla. 2007), rev'd sub nam., Ramsey Winch Inc. v. Henry, 555 F.3d 1199 (10th Cir. 2009) (articulating a test that includes cons......
-
Georgia's "bring Your Gun to Work" Law May Not Have the Firepower to Trouble Georgia Employers After All
...(1966). [32] R. Robin McDonald, Shoob Rejects Gun Group's Bid to Bring Guns in Airport, Fulton County Daily Rep., Aug. 12, 2008. [33] 520 F. Supp. 2d 1282 (N.D. Okla. 2007), rev'd sub nom. Ramsey Winch Inc. v. Henry, 555 F.3d 1199 (10th Cir. 2009). [34] Id. at 1328. [35] Id. [36] 555 F.3d 1......