An Oklahoma law prohibiting employers from banning guns in workers' locked vehicles in company parking lots survived arguments that the statute constitutes an illegal taking of property and is pre-empted by the federal Occupational Health and Safety Act, said an Oklahoma City University School of Law professor.

Assistant OCU law professor Michael O'Shea researches and writes about the "confrontational" parts of the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, leading him to follow the Oklahoma gun-law case closely.

O'Shea said OSHA requires employers to furnish workers with a place of employment free from "recognized hazards" that are causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm.

"The question was whether risk of gun violence in the workplace should be considered a recognized hazard, such that, to the extent the Oklahoma laws prevented an employer from preventing that hazard, that would be a kind of conflict that leads to federal pre-emption," he said.

A three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held Wednesday that the law is not pre-empted by the federal Occupational Health and Safety Act, reversing the decision of a federal district judge who permanently enjoined the law's enforcement.

"OSHA has not indicated in any way that employers should prohibit firearms from company parking lots," the Denver-based appeals court wrote.

Approved in 2004 and amended in 2005, the law was challenged by several Oklahoma businesses, including ConocoPhillips.

Numerous national organizations, from the National Rifle Association to the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, filed amicus briefs on both sides of the issue.

The initial law was passed after several Whirlpool employees were fired for storing firearms in their vehicles in company parking lots.

O'Shea said the 10th Circuit decision leaves open the question of what would happen if OSHA changed its standards and expressly adopted a policy concerning the presence of firearms in cars on company property or otherwise.

Although the lower court reasoned that the law thwarts the overall purpose and objective of OSHA, the appeals court disagreed.

"The OSH Act is not meant to interfere 'with states' exercise of police powers to protect their citizens,'" the judges said, quoting from a previous decision from the 3rd Circuit.