In October 2002, Weyerhaeuser Corporation hired a security company to bring in four dogs to search for drugs and guns in its parking lot. The dogs did not find any drugs but focused on several vehicles containing guns. The company then ordered the owners of the vehicles to open their cars so that they could be hand searched. Weyerhaeuser said the weapons violated a new company policy that extended a longtime workplace gun ban to the parking area, and it terminated four Weyerhaeuser employees and eight others who worked for subcontractors, all of whom had stored guns in their vehicles in violation of the policy. The company claimed that it had told workers about the new policy in writing and at team meetings, but the terminated workers claimed they were never told about the rule. The employees immediately sued for wrongful termination. What arguments can the employees make in their wrongful-termination suit? What arguments will Weyerhaeuser make in response? Will the employees succeed? The firings outraged many in the rural community in the foothills of the Ouachita Mountains, where carrying a firearm in one’s car is commonplace, especially during deer hunting season. As a result, the Oklahoma legislature overwhelmingly passed a law stating that “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 or storing firearms in a locked vehicle on any property set aside for any vehicle.” Before the law became effective, however, several prominent companies with Oklahoma operations, including the Williams Companies and ConocoPhillips, sued to stop it. A federal court enjoined the state of Oklahoma from enforcing the law. The plaintiffs asserted that the statute violates their property rights and due process rights, is unconstitutionally vague, and is inconsistent with federal laws regulating firearms. They also argue that the statute will impair their ability to guarantee workplace safety by prohibiting weapons on their property. What arguments will the state of Oklahoma make in response? Which party should prevail? [Susan Warren, In Oklahoma, a Ban on Guns Pits State Against Big Firms, Wall St. J., Nov. 26, 2004, at A1; ConocoPhillips Co. v. Henry, 520 F. Supp. 2d 1282 (10th Cir. 2007).]