TexasCHLforum.com

Right to work states are states in which emoloyees cannot be required to join a union as a condition of employment.

At will states refer to thise which allow emoloyers to separate employees without cause (except for federally mandated reasons.) I believe Montana is the only state that requires cause after a probationary period. All other states are at will.

jbarn wrote:

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.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. If her choice of defense is a handgun, then she has that right according to our constitution and the Supreme Court has ruled the same way in recent cases. The question remains does an employer once they institute a no weapons policy then assume all liability for your safety from the moment you leave your car arriving at work to the moment you get back in your car leaving work since they have effectively removed a means of protection that the individual by law was allowed to carry.

I agree that she probably won't win, but I think most company's NO GUN policies are silly. I think mostly managers just fear having employees with guns anywhere near work.

Right2Carry wrote:

jbarn wrote:

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.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Yes, I know. It refers to the government not infringing her right. Not a private business. Just like there is a right to free speech, it is criminal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

If her choice of defense is a handgun, then she has that right according to our constitution and the Supreme Court has ruled the same way in recent cases.

The SC has not ruled that way for private business. Again, the Govt cannot restrict her, but a private business can. The bill of rights is to limit the government, not me. If I say you cannot carry your handgun in my house, you cannot carry in my house.

The question remains does an employer once they institute a no weapons policy then assume all liability for your safety from the moment you leave your car arriving at work to the moment you get back in your car leaving work since they have effectively removed a means of protection that the individual by law was allowed to carry.

That is not the question at all. There is no court case that even leads one to think that a business assumes "all liability for your safety", nor will they.

jbarn wrote:

Right2Carry wrote:

jbarn wrote:

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.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Yes, I know. It refers to the government not infringing her right. Not a private business. Just like there is a right to free speech, it is criminal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

If her choice of defense is a handgun, then she has that right according to our constitution and the Supreme Court has ruled the same way in recent cases.

The SC has not ruled that way for private business. Again, the Govt cannot restrict her, but a private business can. The bill of rights is to limit the government, not me. If I say you cannot carry your handgun in my house, you cannot carry in my house.

The question remains does an employer once they institute a no weapons policy then assume all liability for your safety from the moment you leave your car arriving at work to the moment you get back in your car leaving work since they have effectively removed a means of protection that the individual by law was allowed to carry.

That is not the question at all. There is no court case that even leads one to think that a business assumes "all liability for your safety", nor will they.

It is not criminal to yell "fire" in a theater if there is a fire.
This lady was the bank manager so she knew the rules. She took her chance and someone discovered her firearm.
She will probably not win her case but she did get some lawyer to take it and if it is on a contingency fee basis there may be a chance she will win.
Good reason to not use Wells Fargo.
The government does infringe your rights now, try going into a post office concealed.

rotor wrote:

jbarn wrote:

Right2Carry wrote:

jbarn wrote:

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.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Yes, I know. It refers to the government not infringing her right. Not a private business. Just like there is a right to free speech, it is criminal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

If her choice of defense is a handgun, then she has that right according to our constitution and the Supreme Court has ruled the same way in recent cases.

The SC has not ruled that way for private business. Again, the Govt cannot restrict her, but a private business can. The bill of rights is to limit the government, not me. If I say you cannot carry your handgun in my house, you cannot carry in my house.

The question remains does an employer once they institute a no weapons policy then assume all liability for your safety from the moment you leave your car arriving at work to the moment you get back in your car leaving work since they have effectively removed a means of protection that the individual by law was allowed to carry.

That is not the question at all. There is no court case that even leads one to think that a business assumes "all liability for your safety", nor will they.

It is not criminal to yell "fire" in a theater if there is a fire.

Yep, you got me.

The government does infringe your rights now, try going into a post office concealed.

, or Federal courthouse, or state courthouse, or school, or polling place, or.............................................................

MechAg94 wrote:I agree that she probably won't win, but I think most company's NO GUN policies are silly. I think mostly managers just fear having employees with guns anywhere near work.

I agree that's the common reason, but it's always seemed disingenuous to me... If a manager really thinks someone's that unstable or irresponsible, then why are they letting that person continue to work there?

I haven't read the entire thread, that being said, earlier someone alluded to the "Personnel Policy Handbook".

I worked for a major corporation and the PPH was adhered to, ah, unless management, at their discretion decided, nah, not in this or that or the other case.

PPH rules aren't engraved in stone...

Abraham wrote:I haven't read the entire thread, that being said, earlier someone alluded to the "Personnel Policy Handbook".

I worked for a major corporation and the PPH was adhered to, ah, unless management, at their discretion decided, nah, not in this or that or the other case.

PPH rules aren't engraved in stone...

Management has a lot of discretion. When they want to do something, they tout the policy. When they don't, they use their prerogative as management.

Recently we had a guy falsify this time card. In most cases he would be gone immediately. At the time we were short handed and, miraculous he got to stay.

WildBill wrote:

Abraham wrote:I haven't read the entire thread, that being said, earlier someone alluded to the "Personnel Policy Handbook".

I worked for a major corporation and the PPH was adhered to, ah, unless management, at their discretion decided, nah, not in this or that or the other case.

PPH rules aren't engraved in stone...

Management has a lot of discretion. When they want to do something, they tout the policy. When they don't, they use their prerogative as management.

Recently we had a guy falsify this time card. In most cases he would be gone immediately. At the time we were short handed and, miraculous he got to stay.

Uh,...er,...Bill, it's miraculously - the adverb or verb modifier.

Now that we got that out of the way, I agree. Over my 50 years in harness, I've seen the "rules" applied at the pleasure of management more than a few times.

Oldgringo wrote:

WildBill wrote:

Abraham wrote:I haven't read the entire thread, that being said, earlier someone alluded to the "Personnel Policy Handbook".

I worked for a major corporation and the PPH was adhered to, ah, unless management, at their discretion decided, nah, not in this or that or the other case.

PPH rules aren't engraved in stone...

Management has a lot of discretion. When they want to do something, they tout the policy. When they don't, they use their prerogative as management.

Recently we had a guy falsify this time card. In most cases he would be gone immediately. At the time we were short handed and, miraculous he got to stay.

Uh,...er,...Bill, it's miraculously - the adverb or verb modifier.

Now that we got that out of the way, I agree. Over my 50 years in harness, I've seen the "rules" applied at the pleasure of management more than a few times.

Give me a break, I've had a long day. At least I spelled prerogative correctly.

Please don't report me to the "Word Use That Drives You Up The Wall" thread.

WildBill wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:

WildBill wrote:

Abraham wrote:I haven't read the entire thread, that being said, earlier someone alluded to the "Personnel Policy Handbook".

I worked for a major corporation and the PPH was adhered to, ah, unless management, at their discretion decided, nah, not in this or that or the other case.

PPH rules aren't engraved in stone...

Management has a lot of discretion. When they want to do something, they tout the policy. When they don't, they use their prerogative as management.

Recently we had a guy falsify this time card. In most cases he would be gone immediately. At the time we were short handed and, miraculous he got to stay.

Uh,...er,...Bill, it's miraculously - the adverb or verb modifier.

Now that we got that out of the way, I agree. Over my 50 years in harness, I've seen the "rules" applied at the pleasure of management more than a few times.

Give me a break, I've had a long day. At least I spelled prerogative correctly.

Please don't report me to the "Word Use That Drives You Up The Wall" thread.

Take a break...

My employer has a no guns policy. Rest assured if I am terminating or disciplining an employee I take appropriate measures to ensure my survival as have my peers in other divisions.

Anygunanywhere

anygunanywhere,

"My employer has a no guns policy. Rest assured if I am terminating or disciplining an employee I take appropriate measures to ensure my survival as have my peers in other divisions."

What percentage would you speculate carry at your workplace, (if such specultion is possible) not including you...?

Abraham wrote:anygunanywhere,

"My employer has a no guns policy. Rest assured if I am terminating or disciplining an employee I take appropriate measures to ensure my survival as have my peers in other divisions."

What percentage would you speculate carry at your workplace, (if such specultion is possible) not including you...?

I cannot speculate. I truthfully have no idea. I know of only a few out of many who take appropriate measures and I have known all of them for over 34 years and trust them implicitly. I never said I carry. I said I take appropriate measures to protect myself.

And as of today I have 123 days until I retire.

Anygunanywhere