This was trending yesterday on Memeorandum, and is an interesting bit of food for thought
(Tampa Bay Tribune) Ivette Ros grew up in a house where her father kept guns. For her, it was a natural step to get a concealed weapons permit and then to carry a 9 mm handgun.
The 37-year-old Tampa resident is a single mother of three children and said she carries the gun for safety.
“It’s just something about having it versus not having it,†she said. “I feel naked when I don’t have my gun.â€
Her employer didn’t feel the same way. Carrying the gun got her fired, she said.
Ros has filed a lawsuit in circuit court against Wells Fargo Bank, which she said fired her last year from her job as manager at the bank’s Oldsmar branch. Her lawsuit says the firing violated her constitutional right to carry arms and asks for monetary damages and attorney fees.
She usually leaves it in her car, but sometimes has it concealed on her or in her purse. She has a legal concealed carry permit. Someone at work saw it and complained. Wells Fargo’s rules are very clear that there are to be no weapons on property.
My take is that she has no case. Wells Fargo, as a private business, has every right to set the terms of employment and to restrict weapons on property. Surely Ms. Ros was informed of the weapons policy when she started working there, and as the manager, should have been well aware of the policy, as she would have needed to enforce it.
The 2nd Amendment is about restrictions on the Government, not private businesses on private property. She could have asked the company for a waiver. She could have simply left it in her vehicle at all times. She chose to bring it into the bank, apparently many times, in violation of the rules of the company. This is her personal responsibility, her actions, and she is the one to pay for it.
Flastertein disagrees. He says the concealed weapons permit gave Ros the right to carry her gun into work.
“She’s a good person who elected to defend herself as she is constitutionally permitted,†Flasterstein said. “The second amendment is not a privilege. It’s a freakin’ right.â€
Flastertein is her lawyer. He’s correct that it is a Right. One that, again, restricts Government, not a private company. Most companies restrict freedom of speech when it comes to discussing the company. Most now have social media policies. These are the terms of working for that company. Don’t like it? Work somewhere else. Go start you own business.
Call me cynical, but I’m betting she and her lawyer are looking for a settlement.
(reposted here due to PEBOK error.)
Just one small clarification that was mentioned in the article but not stated in the post.
Florida has a statutory exemption for people with a permit to carry a weapon onto the property and leave the weapon in a locked vehicle. So by law this woman could have a weapon in her car while she worked inside the bank.
I agree that the bank or a business has the legal ability to say “no weapons on your person or in the building while you work,†but saying “no weapons on the property (including parking lots) is a stretch. Such a restriction would mean that the employer would effectively be saying the employee could not carry a weapon off the company property as part of their commute to work.
The issue one day will be that a person who has a permit but restricted from bringing the weapon into the actual workplace will be harmed in a robbery or an incident of workplace violence. Is the company then responsible as they created a situation where the employee was at greater risk?
Teach do YOU allow your workers the right to carry weapons of any type at work?
http://crooksandliars.com/2014/02/not-satire-blind-man-gets-guns-back-after
From Seminole Ct FL, a blind man with a history of violence gets his guns back after standing his ground and shooting and killing his friend.
From Seminole Ct FL……
From Jeffery’s mind….. people who have their property taken as part of a crime investigation and trial should never get their property back a jury declares them not guilt.
g2 thinks violent criminals who have killed a guy, and are blind, should have guns.
Jeffery thinks that those who are legally blind should not have the right to defend themselves.
Tell me Jeffery, under what theory of law should the judge not have returned the weapons after a jury found the guy not guilty?