Posted on 09/16/2010 4:52:49 AM PDT by marktwain
"Woman Fired For Carrying Gun On The Job," the WSBTV.com headline tells us.
"Jamie Lunsford said the company violated her rights by firing her after they discovered she had a gun in her car while on business."
So she wasn't actually "carrying," was she? Still, how did her employer discover that she had a gun in her car? Apparently she disclosed it to security guards while visiting a federal Reserve Bank on company business, and they "had no problem with it."
Should have kept the lips zipped, lady, but done is done. She jumped through all the hoops, obtained a permit, kept her firearm secured in her car (per employer policy), and was open and candid with security--so what's the problem?
The company she worked six years for, Iron Mountain, Inc., acknowledges Georgia law provides for employees keeping their firearms in cars parked in company lots, but maintains it "does not...permit an employee to carry a firearm while conducting company business."
Further, we're told there was another employee in the car with Ms. Lunsford, and Iron Mountain has "a zero tolerance policy on any action that could endanger employees or customers."
If I may:
Georgia law also does not prohibit an employee from carrying a firearm while on company business.
Where in the files Iron Mountain compiled when they developed their policy do they have empirical evidence to justify the assertion that an employee having a secured firearm in their personal vehicle endangers anyone, and have they had their risk management department assess that data compared to protective benefits of having the means of self-defense on hand? Particularly for women, who are at a physical disadvantage against most violent and predatory offenders?
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
i’d kinda like to know why my office can say employees cannot carry while working, but any non-employee with a CPL can carry in my building.
And I would kinda like to know why it is that if you take a gun into an Academy store for maintenance and it is carried openly it must be carried by an employee to the sporting goods department but if I go in just shopping, I can carry legally (I have a Texas issued Concealed Carry license)anywhere in and around the store without notification of any store employee.
Stupid rules!
I’m waiting for the first lawsuit from someone with a carry permit who is a victim or witness of a mass shooting because they were not permitted to carry.
Businesses are forcibly endangering people and to that end must be held responsible.
The Constitution as written makes no limitation on the 2nd amendment.
But property rights have been used to prevent the 2nd amendment from applying to people.
The question involves so called “private “ property rights versus the second amendment.
The question is: “When does private property “ take on the nuances of public property ( you know, the argument that environmentalists use to restrict private property rights, say for protected species.)
If human beings were declared a protected species, capable of protecting themselves, this would become a non issue.
Buahahahahahahahaa!
All we need is an insurance company that would insure against occupiers liabilty for the presence of parking lot guns.Maybe the NRA needs its own Insurance Company?Surely it would be a very low rate.
All state government property and federal property in Vermont, as well as schools,prohibit the presence of firearms, in a state where the only laws that regulate the usage of firearms are hunting laws.
But gays have regularly make “presentations” to schools on life style choices, without the true data on the health effects involved.The point being that we as a people are now ruled by political correctness unrelated to true function, not law.
But no one protects schools in Vermont, and schools have emergency police interventions in case of an incident. Any crazy with a gun would have absolutely free reign before any police arrive , when seconds count. Thats a tragedy waiting to happen in Vermont, with most police in rural areas at least 30 minutes away.A Jihadist could walk in and massacre dozens with impunity....dumb and dumber.
The solitary citizen with a firearm is the best protection, but is laughable in the extreme to watch the government perigrinations to remove deadly force from the hands of the people, outside of their homes.And this when our nation is now engaged in demographic warfare promoted by the federal government in relation to illegal aliens and Muslim extremists waiting to go off as ticking time bombs all over the country.That reality is what government refuses to acknowledge at every level. The government cannot cope.When that happens, the people must.
The massacres awaiting all over the nation will be used by government to take all firearms from the people, just as happened in Australia.The conditions for crisis are being created as we speak.And leftist liberal fascists will leave no stone unturned to disable the people, and subjugate them utterly. That is the plan.
The firearms issue is therefore not just a firearms issue. It goes to the very essence of whether we as a people will remain free, and the people must seize their freedoms, and deny government any right to take them.No one need be shy about that, politically correct or not.We need to have the attitude that political correctness is not in any way an acceptable form of “rule.”
Teachers who have attempted to found shooting clubs in High School have been fired or shuffled off all across our nation.That needs to change ASAP.Every High School and University in the country should have a mandated shooting club,based on the authority of the 2nd amendment, where faculty and staff are required to be trained in the safe use of firearms, they should have to qualify annually. That would go a long way to getting the nation back on track.
Was it a company car? If so they may have an argument, but if she was driving her personal vehicle while on company business and had it stored there per allowed policy then she needs to sue and hopefully win.
The author makes good points, but should add two more: “Were employees *told*, prior to this, that it was forbidden for them to take guns on company business?”
That is, unless it is a standing, written policy of the company, she has additional grounds to sue, as she could call it a “fickle policy”, invented on the spur of the moment, solely to fire her.
Second, allegedly the “zero tolerance policy on any action that could endanger employees or customers”, specifies an *action*.
Possession of a gun is not an “action”. A gun, by itself, presents no endangerment *at all* to an employee or customer, unless somebody *does* something with it.
Therefore she was not in violation of their zero tolerance policy.
Heh heh heh heh. You should have seen the look on the assistant drones face. I bought my wife a .410 pump at Wally World. Policy dictates that someone from management carries it out of the store. When the assistant drone explained it to me, I looked at the guy who just sold it to me, winked, and then told her, “That’s silly. You have to carry an unloaded shotgun, without any ammo, out of the store for me.” She looked at me like I was stoopid. So I told her, “But there’s nothing you can do about the loaded .45 in the small of my back.”
Light bulb moment. She went from smug, to spanked, to realization, to po’ed in just a few steps.
That was the Visa moment: Priceless. LOL
she evidently p!zzed somebody off...but then again, in our nanny-doogooder society at large, maybe not...
bump that...
Permiting an employer to disarm me is a rule I would very quietly not obey.
The way I see it, fascist employers can make any oppressive and disrespectful decision they want to make and employees can decide whether to subvert those rules or not. The more corporate rules governing people’s personal lives, the more likely subervision. These rules are born of elitism which sets the workers apart from the rule makers. That management style - the owners versus the owned - does not enhance professialism and creativity.
The risk of an employer making fascist rules that infringe upon pepole’s self respect and personal freedoms goes both ways. The employee might lose their job if they get caught acting free and the employer has created a subversive working culture of dishonesty, disloyality, mistrust, resentment and disrespect that will harm their bottom line. That kind of culture is could be seen operating among the people of the Soviet Union.
forgot to add, the hypocracy of non-’discriminatory’ employment for ‘lifestyle choices’ is carved in stone...as is the tenent of God given skin color, so whether you argue that her pistol is a ‘choice’ or a God given Right, she is covered either way by the rule of [fiat] ‘law’ and should have slam dunk grounds for a payday...
“..gun into an Academy store for maintenance and it is carried openly it must be carried by an employee..”
Didn’t know (don’t think) Academy does maintenance on firearms (thinking of Gander, maybe). I’ve carried concealed to the gun dept. and then asked if I could see if the pistol fit in a holster, to which they asked if I had CHL. When I replied “yes”, they said okay. You cannot go galavanting thru the store “open carry”. Like it or not, that’s the law.
Nope. My Academy mounts and bore sights scopes. That maintenance.
laws have developed to criminalize all conduct.
make it impossible to obey all law and all mankind becomes a slave to the political effete elites.
One place the company provided lockers for employees to lock/store their weapons while on shift (it was a controlled access area) and places were weapons were forbidden.
Place #1 was pretty sketchy after dark, we would walk women out to their cars and I carried a .38 snubby in my pocket if I had an after hours call-out.
I left my carry piece in the car at place #2, parked in front of the window by my desk. You have to decide, it seems, what you are willing t accept in terms of limits on the worksite. Some place have such restrictions it is just not worth working there. As always, YMMV.
>>The massacres awaiting all over the nation will be used by government to take all firearms from the people, just as happened in Australia.The conditions for crisis are being created as we speak.And leftist liberal fascists will leave no stone unturned to disable the people, and subjugate them utterly. That is the plan.<<
If the people surrender their most efficient means of self defense they deserve to be massacred.
You couldn’t have said it better.
It's all about insurance and liability.
1) If they allow you to carry, and you are involved in a shooting on company property, they can be sued.
2) If they forbid you to carry, and you are involved in a shooting on company property, they can disavow responsibility since you were acting in violation of policy.
3) If they become aware that you are carrying in violation of policy, and do nothing, this can be deemed by tort lawyers as allowing carry, and they can be sued if some other employee is involved in a shooting. Therefore they must act against you.
4) If you are killed because you were unarmed, the company is just out the cost of recruiting and training your replacement.
Be thankful you didn't wind up like that guy in Costco as a result of your remark. It is NEVER a good idea to reveal that you are armed to somebody who may be hostile to the idea.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.