Attorney Noel Flasterstein, left, is representing Ivette Ros in a suit
Employers have rights, too.
Should have concealed it better, and kept it concealed.
“What ‘they’ don’t know, can’t hurt me.”
The bank is not a government. They also have the right to deny guns on their own property. One’s right does not trumps another’s property rights
>> “I feel naked when I don’t have my gun.”
Gun-grabbers are perverts!
This of course is an issue that has come up many times over the years from pizza delivery men to cab drivers to convenience store clerks. There isn’t a publicly traded company of ANY significant size outside the firearms industry that allows employees to carry a weapon on the
premises. It stems from the fear....and it’s a logical
fear....that if the employee uses the gun for any reason and
anyone other than a criminal is harmed the company is liable. And in America with all the lawyers one can bet that
such an occurrence would cost a company money. The problem is that the legal system has given employers a pass on the issue. They have stated that to avoid such a liability an
company may disarm their employees. But the courts and legislatures refuse to address the other half of the issue.
That being when an entity refuses to allow citizens to protect themselves they need to accept the responsibility for that defense. That means that a company that disarms it’s employees needs to be held financially and if necessary
criminally liable for not taking ALL the available steps
to protect those employees while they are working. Right now companies get to have their cake and eat it also...and
that isn’t right. We need to be pushing legislatures HARD to make them hold employers liable for the safety of the
people they employ if they insist on them being disarmed.
That is where our efforts need to go. Once a major company has to shell out millions because they disarmed employees and someone then went postal and killed a few they will
RAPIDLY reevaluate their position on the matter.
Private property wins; the bank is within their legal rights. However, there may be many customers who will close their accounts in protest. I certainly would. One of my bank’s managers carries, and that (plus not taking TARP) is an added incentive to keep my money there.
Arguments that it is private property are compelling, but how can that argument be rationalized when some bakeries have been shut down because they refuse to bake cakes for gay weddings. Or that it is illegal for a company to refuse to service to blacks?
Yet, a company can deny Constitutional Rights if they are not politically correct Constitutional rights because they are a private company?
Courts have already come down on the issue of where a private company’s rights end... and it all seems to hinge on political correctness or special interests. (Which kind of throws the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Under the Law concept on its head.)
I just hope her last official act at work was to screw up the account(s) of the little brown-shirt who ratted her out.
Attorney Noel Flasterstein, left, is representing Ivette Ros in a suit
