TexasCHLforum.com

Sounds like she talked to much to the wrong person/people. Violating company policy and then suing because you got fired for it is a waste of money and time. Her time would be better spent looking for another job instead of a looking to make a fast buck at taxpayer expense.

Distinguished Rick wrote:Sounds like she talked to much to the wrong person/people. Violating company policy and then suing because you got fired for it is a waste of money and time. Her time would be better spent looking for another job instead of a looking to make a fast buck at taxpayer expense.

How would it be at taxpayers expense? Didn't she work at a private bank?

It is not possible in my work place/requirements to carry. I've looked at other options as this woman might have, and found the tactical pen my only real option. Bought Focused Impact Vol. 1 from Michael Janich which is easy to understand and practical. I hope others in this woman's position might find other good options ... or better work places.

Oldgringo wrote:Wells Fargo is posted in the 30.06 site. That said, tear 'em a new one, Ivette!

I have been fortunate to not have ever been to one. Been banking at Wells Fargo for 18 years.

puma guy wrote:

WildBill wrote:

jbarn wrote:

Ros has now filed a lawsuit against the bank, alleging that being fired violated her constitutional right to bear arms.

It is sad to me people have no idea how the constitution works.

I would think that Ros' attorney does. Or maybe he has another angle?

IANAL but recent Federal Court rulings verify the 2nd Amendment applies to an individual, for the purpose self defense.

Of course, but it prevents the government from restricting the rights in the bill of rights, not private companies.

That is true JBarn, but there also some civil rights that employers have been required to respect. It will be interesting to see how far this lawsuit gets.

jbarn wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:Wells Fargo is posted in the 30.06 site. That said, tear 'em a new one, Ivette!

I have been fortunate to not have ever been to one. Been banking at Wells Fargo for 18 years.

Actually, only three W-F locations popped up when I did the search....and that is interesting. I know there are more than three W-F's in Texas. Oh well, I don't care.

jbarn wrote:

puma guy wrote:

WildBill wrote:

jbarn wrote:

Ros has now filed a lawsuit against the bank, alleging that being fired violated her constitutional right to bear arms.

It is sad to me people have no idea how the constitution works.

I would think that Ros' attorney does. Or maybe he has another angle?

IANAL but recent Federal Court rulings verify the 2nd Amendment applies to an individual, for the purpose self defense.

Of course, but it prevents the government from restricting the rights in the bill of rights, not private companies.

I am fully aware of that and the first part of my post was not making any suggestion otherwise, but rather to set up my postulation in the conclusion. To be clear I was saying he may be trying to sue the company for violating her rights based on the new rulings, which is novel, but not out of the question. You posed the question about another angle. If indeed that's the basis for the suit she's going lose on that one, too.

WildBill wrote:

jbarn wrote:

Ros has now filed a lawsuit against the bank, alleging that being fired violated her constitutional right to bear arms.

It is sad to me people have no idea how the constitution works.

I would think that Ros' attorney does. Or maybe he has another angle?

I may be a little cynical but I bet his angle is to try for a settlement and his fees paid by the bank.

srothstein wrote:

WildBill wrote:

jbarn wrote:

Ros has now filed a lawsuit against the bank, alleging that being fired violated her constitutional right to bear arms.

It is sad to me people have no idea how the constitution works.

I would think that Ros' attorney does. Or maybe he has another angle?

I may be a little cynical but I bet his angle is to try for a settlement and his fees paid by the bank.

Five will get you ten that he ain't doing it pro bono.

She gambled and lost. She knew it was against policy and wore it anyway hoping to protect herself. Can't blame her for trying, but don't turn around and sue.

I read a post under the article by someone who worked at a federal credit union and was told because it was a federal bank they could not carry. What?!

I don't know what angle the attorney will use but I hope somehow he wins the case for her. Where does her ability to protect hersel start and end? How does a person protect themselves when they leave their desk till they get to their car? I know rapes and muggings never happen from the time an employee leaves the building and then arrives at their car.

Then there is knowing the policy, taking the job anyway, then making a choice to violate the policy. Doesn't look good for her.

C-dub wrote:That is true JBarn, but there also some civil rights that employers have been required to respect. It will be interesting to see how far this lawsuit gets.

Discrimination lawsuits are generally based upon alleged discrimination against someone in a "protected class", where "protected class" is a term of art based upon race, religion, gender, national orientation. A moving target, depending upon the state, is including sexual preference.

Under none of these circumstances are gun owners or concealed carry licensees members of such a defined "protected class". Thus, we do not count.

Although I have a tendency to agree that the employer makes the rules for the employees and (particularly in a "right to work" State like TX) if you don't like it you can leave, I have a quibble with "no weapons" policies overall.

Of course the first part of the quibble, with concealed being concealed and all that, is the rationale presented if you try to discuss the policy with "them"; that you might be safe and all, but someone else might take your weapon and commit mayhem. Almost everyone in TX carries a pocket knife, but I can't recall the last time I heard of someone using theirs to commit mayhem, much less taking someone else's to do it, and concealed being concealed, ideally, means that no one else knows you have it. In a truly wonderful world, the fact that you carried a gun at work every day would not become apparent unless and until the day you needed it.

The second part is the way the clauses are phrased, and I have argued this with corporate level HR (in a past job) and even got an admission that the phraseology was "clumsy" but they never fixed the employee manual. Most of the ones I have seen go something like "No Guns, knives, or other dangerous weapons . . ." and my argument was with the vague "other dangerous weapons" in general, because what I see as dangerous might not bear any resemblance to what you see as dangerous, and with "dangerous" specifically because I do not see a gun as dangerous in and of itself, it is the person wielding it in an improper or criminal manner that is the danger, not the implement itself.

I hope against hope that she prevails, although, as in my case, it might not be a pleasant place to work after that, and they will find, as with me, the first possible excuse to get rid of her for some other reason.

Right2Carry wrote:I don't know what angle the attorney will use but I hope somehow he wins the case for her. Where does her ability to protect hersel start and end? How does a person protect themselves when they leave their desk till they get to their car? I know rapes and muggings never happen from the time an employee leaves the building and then arrives at their car.

Then there is knowing the policy, taking the job anyway, then making a choice to violate the policy. Doesn't look good for her.

One does not lose the right or ability to defend oneself by the absence of a firearm. A no firearm policy does not equate to a no self defense policy. That is why these arguments fail.

Life is full of risk-benefit analysis. She analyzed the benefit and the risk. She chose to take a risk, she knew the potential consequences.