lrunge
Silver Member
Sorry if you couldn't read the SHRM article. Below are the first 2 paragraphs and the last one.
10/24/07 2:56 PM
Court Strikes Down State Law Prohibiting Workplace Gun Policies
"An Oklahoma federal court ruled that a state law barring employers from prohibiting weapons on workplace property was invalid because it was pre-empted by federal law. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma concluded that the law ran afoul of the Occupational Safety and Health Act's (OSH Act) å*µeneral duty clause, which requires an employer to å��urnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm.
This decision å*µives Oklahoma employers relief from the 舛atch-22 position of having to choose between violating state or federal law, Julie Elgar, SHRMç—´ Georgia state legislative director and an attorney at Ford and Harrison LLP in Atlanta told SHRM Online in an Oct. 23 interview. It also gives employers in states with similar laws a weapon to challenge the laws, she said. And, in states in which the legislature has fought over but ultimately failed to pass such laws, employers have legal ammunition when the issue comes up again, as it is likely to do in Georgia. çš„tç—´ a strong weapon to have in your arsenal, Elgar noted. "
Last para.
摘mployers who want the right to have a non-gun policy must be active citizens, Elgar recommended. 典hey need to go through SHRM or otherwise to let elected officials know that they oppose any bill prohibiting employers from establishing workplace weapons policies. 滴R needs to be a part of this. They should make sure that their voices are strong, Elgar concluded.
10/24/07 2:56 PM
Court Strikes Down State Law Prohibiting Workplace Gun Policies
"An Oklahoma federal court ruled that a state law barring employers from prohibiting weapons on workplace property was invalid because it was pre-empted by federal law. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma concluded that the law ran afoul of the Occupational Safety and Health Act's (OSH Act) å*µeneral duty clause, which requires an employer to å��urnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm.
This decision å*µives Oklahoma employers relief from the 舛atch-22 position of having to choose between violating state or federal law, Julie Elgar, SHRMç—´ Georgia state legislative director and an attorney at Ford and Harrison LLP in Atlanta told SHRM Online in an Oct. 23 interview. It also gives employers in states with similar laws a weapon to challenge the laws, she said. And, in states in which the legislature has fought over but ultimately failed to pass such laws, employers have legal ammunition when the issue comes up again, as it is likely to do in Georgia. çš„tç—´ a strong weapon to have in your arsenal, Elgar noted. "
Last para.
摘mployers who want the right to have a non-gun policy must be active citizens, Elgar recommended. 典hey need to go through SHRM or otherwise to let elected officials know that they oppose any bill prohibiting employers from establishing workplace weapons policies. 滴R needs to be a part of this. They should make sure that their voices are strong, Elgar concluded.
In the same vein a machine gun can simply be a small piece of sheet metal in a particular form, a drop in autosear, or one or more pieces of the fire control particular to a MG. In other words if you possessed a piece of sheetmetal that resembled an autosear w/o a Mother-May-I from the BATF they would very likely prosecute you for possessing an unregistered MG and illegal manufacture of same. Theres lots more gotchas/pitfalls/etc one can fall into. Its almost as if it were by design. 
