Tampa Woman Sues Employer Over Gun Rules
- Thread starter steve4102
- Start date
If an employer has an employee killed in a robbery, they have to pay to recruit and onboard another employee. If am employer allows carry and the robber gets shot, they can have hundreds of thousands of dollars in litigation and liability. I doubt she will find a job in her line of work in which she will be allowed to carry.
I'll be as loyal to the company as the company will be to me. It's not uncommon for companies to require unpaid overtime, have people working through vacation, have them pay expenses without reimbursement, etc. despite their own policies. Do they really expect that employees will follow their policies to the letter, when they can't manage to do it themselves?
How do you know she was "running her mouth"?
One of my coworkers 10-15 years ago (a good friend at the time) talked me through the process of getting a carry permit and buying my first handgun. A few years later, he was fired. A few weeks later, I found myself shut in a room with a private investigator defending myself against several accusations. One of which was that I carried a firearm. It wasn't as if I was running around blabbing to everyone about it. I sincerely did not know how easy it was to get a carry permit, until I saw a revolver in my friend's truck, and he told me how to get one.
wayneinFL,
About 25 years ago same sort of thing happened to me too. I took it with a grain of salt but, what did I learn? You don't talk about FightClub.
In using the term character flaw, Its probably not fare to her. But, I formed that opinion based on what she said and someone I know who has an inferiority complex.
About 25 years ago same sort of thing happened to me too. I took it with a grain of salt but, what did I learn? You don't talk about FightClub.
In using the term character flaw, Its probably not fare to her. But, I formed that opinion based on what she said and someone I know who has an inferiority complex.
Double Naught Spy
New member
First and foremost, she was breaking the rules.
Well, she said she never openly displayed it. So she was either so careless as to having her gun get spotted or she let somebody know she carried her gun at work and they dropped the dime on her. Either way, she screwed up on multiple levels.
Again, dumb enough to get caught - dumb enough to get fired, and deservedly so, LOL.
Notice how she wasn't concerned about her constitutional rights before she got fired?
Loose lips; sink ships !!
There are two facts that beyond conjecture;
1) Not only has she violated her companies rules and condition of employment. She now wants to sue her company to prove preserve what??
2) The revelation started with her in one way or another. I personally have never understood why someone would want to share personal information with others. Some even get posted on Facebook. ...
As far as expressing her Constitutional rights, she should have left this one, in the parking lot ....
Be Private/Protective and;
Be Safe !!!
There are two facts that beyond conjecture;
1) Not only has she violated her companies rules and condition of employment. She now wants to sue her company to prove preserve what??
2) The revelation started with her in one way or another. I personally have never understood why someone would want to share personal information with others. Some even get posted on Facebook. ...
As far as expressing her Constitutional rights, she should have left this one, in the parking lot ....
Be Private/Protective and;
Be Safe !!!
How many people know you carry? Three people in the entire world knew I carried. Two were people who carried at work, and advised me on what gun to buy, what kind of holster, etc. The other was my wife, and I figured she was going to figure out sooner or later.
I don't think Facebook and Twitter even existed at the time. And it still bit me in the behind.
Not excusing her actions of course. She carried to protect herself at work, against the company's policy. Your right to be safe stops at your employer's front door. She screwed up.
But I just don't want people to think they are the person who can do it and not get caught, because they can do it secretly. Someone knows you carry, and the only way two people can keep a secret is if one of them is dead.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Obeying the rules and lying to employers over basic human rights is an interesting debate.
During the Depression, members of my family:
1. Had to lie about their religion and fake church membership to get a job. The employer would only hire one type.
2. One had to register as political party X to get a job while he was not at all sympatico to them.
Were they immoral? They could have lived on the street.
Eventually there were legislative solutions and court decisions to keep employers' paws out of your basic rights.
I have also said that carry is a basic right and employers should not have control over such except for technical issues (gun in the MRI).
Perhaps, this will happen some day. But I doubt it. Even the strongest pro-gun legislator gets a buck from a big business or two and they usually oppose such.
During the Depression, members of my family:
1. Had to lie about their religion and fake church membership to get a job. The employer would only hire one type.
2. One had to register as political party X to get a job while he was not at all sympatico to them.
Were they immoral? They could have lived on the street.
Eventually there were legislative solutions and court decisions to keep employers' paws out of your basic rights.
I have also said that carry is a basic right and employers should not have control over such except for technical issues (gun in the MRI).
Perhaps, this will happen some day. But I doubt it. Even the strongest pro-gun legislator gets a buck from a big business or two and they usually oppose such.
Glenn E. Meyer Wrote;
Agreed, it is an interesting debate and, as you pointed out legislation has pretty much forced employers to be fair and honest when it comes to the most basic of human rights. Discrimination for ones sex, race, religion, orientation, even a handicap, have been addressed. However, this debate hinges on another set of rights, those of personal property.
The simple fact is that your place of employment is someone else's property, the same as your own home is your property. I don't think any one could argue against the fact that each of us sets the rules for our own property and, has the right to enforce them. My house, my rules. Break the rules in my house? You won't be welcome any longer.
The argument over "constitutional rights" ends at my front door, would you seriously consider filing a lawsuit against me if I told you you had to leave your firearm in your car when you plan to enter my home ?
This is no different than a restaurant you plan to enter that has a "no firearms" policy, don't like the rules ? Take yourself elsewhere.
I cannot understand why this is such a difficult concept to grasp.
Agreed, it is an interesting debate and, as you pointed out legislation has pretty much forced employers to be fair and honest when it comes to the most basic of human rights. Discrimination for ones sex, race, religion, orientation, even a handicap, have been addressed. However, this debate hinges on another set of rights, those of personal property.
The simple fact is that your place of employment is someone else's property, the same as your own home is your property. I don't think any one could argue against the fact that each of us sets the rules for our own property and, has the right to enforce them. My house, my rules. Break the rules in my house? You won't be welcome any longer.
The argument over "constitutional rights" ends at my front door, would you seriously consider filing a lawsuit against me if I told you you had to leave your firearm in your car when you plan to enter my home ?
This is no different than a restaurant you plan to enter that has a "no firearms" policy, don't like the rules ? Take yourself elsewhere.
I cannot understand why this is such a difficult concept to grasp.
Last edited:
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
This is an old debate. It hinges on:
1. Is the right to self-protection one that trumps property rights?
2. Are the property rights of a business, where you hire the public and do business with the public, different from the property rights of your home where you live.
I would argue that the business is different from your home but this has been done quite bit and takes us off topic from the case in point.
If she wants to fight on an interpretation of basic rights under the Constitution, then the points have to be resolved.
If she knowingly broke the rules and they are supported by current law, she is out of luck or deliberately wanted to start the Constitutional fight.
The second is OK with me if that was her goal. I doubt it though.
1. Is the right to self-protection one that trumps property rights?
2. Are the property rights of a business, where you hire the public and do business with the public, different from the property rights of your home where you live.
I would argue that the business is different from your home but this has been done quite bit and takes us off topic from the case in point.
If she wants to fight on an interpretation of basic rights under the Constitution, then the points have to be resolved.
If she knowingly broke the rules and they are supported by current law, she is out of luck or deliberately wanted to start the Constitutional fight.
The second is OK with me if that was her goal. I doubt it though.
Glenn E. Meyer Wrote;
WayneinFL Wrote;
Yup.
I believe this is the only argument there is : Is a business different from a dwelling in the context of personal property and the owner's rights to set, and enforce rules?
Other than that, the lady in question has no other argument to offer,IMHO.
WayneinFL Wrote;
Yup.
I believe this is the only argument there is : Is a business different from a dwelling in the context of personal property and the owner's rights to set, and enforce rules?
Other than that, the lady in question has no other argument to offer,IMHO.
Last edited: