TexasCHLforum.com

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/02/23/iv ... files-suit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The article doesn't say how they discovered that she brought a gun to work. I expect her to lose, but it would be very interesting if she wins and how far up the chain that win makes it.

Should be interesting. Should generate a lot of differing opinions on this forum also.

I expect her to lose also, but will follow the case.

I think it's interesting that the article states that the plaintiff Ros is a single mother of three.

Maybe single mothers have a greater right to protect themselves. [Flame Suit On]

jmra wrote:Should be interesting. Should generate a lot of differing opinions on this forum also.

That it will! At least I hope so.

I respect a business' right to have and enforce whatever policies they think are needed for their workforce. I also respect the employees' right to defend themselves and to bear tools appropriate to that end. Workplace policies are often opposed to employees bearing any sort of tool suitable to defense. It is up to each worker to choose their course of action in relation to workplace policy, understanding the potential consequences of their choices.

Not saying I agree so don't shoot the messenger, but personnel policy manuals are normally pretty clear on the subject of guns at work. That policy is usually included in a list of violations that are grounds for immediate termination. I wish her luck, but I'm not optimistic.

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.

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?

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. The spokesman for the bank says the carry was against company policy. If it is indeed that's true and has been communicated properly to all employees I think she'll lose the case, but maybe his angle is to challenge the denial of the right by the company policy.

This thread's title is a bit misleading. I thought it meant an employee was fired merely for owning a gun. The "at work" part changes things.

Dave2 wrote:This thread's title is a bit misleading. I thought it meant an employee was fired merely for owning a gun. The "at work" part changes things.

That would have helped. I didn't try it in the title, but it might not have fit.

"!" Why?

Distinguished Rick wrote:"!" Why?

Because I think it is a pointless endevour. An employer can prohibit someone from bringing a gun inside their business. I wish it weren't so, but I can understand and respect that right. So, the exclamation mark is to show shock or surprise that someone would even attempt to sue for this reason.

That's why when it is necessary to go to the office (I am one of the fortunate few who are able to work from home), the gun stays in the car while i conduct my business. Then it's back in it's holster and I'm on my way home. But if it's concealed, unless she told someone, it would be no one else's business.

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