Skip to comments.Bank manager, fired after carrying gun into work, files suit
Posted on 02/22/2014 10:51:12 PM PST by Daffynition
TAMPA 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.
Its just something about having it versus not having it, she said. I feel naked when I dont have my gun.
Her employer didnt feel the same way. Carrying the gun got her fired, she said.
(Excerpt) Read more at tbo.com ...
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
There is the rub.
>> I feel naked when I dont have my gun.
Gun-grabbers are perverts!
Maybe she should have been upfront and tried to get company policy changed.
I saw that. :)
Asking permission is usually better received than going behind the back. If we were talking about the FedMob and not her employer it would be another matter. But they're supposed to be our employees and they've destroyed almost all cause for respect.
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.
I feel this woman’s plight. Having worked in a situation for decades, where employees were not allow to carry, one is faced with the risk of being *found out*. Even if the work place is dangerous, in a high crime area, frequently under lock-down due to suspicious goings-on....one is left to the cops to be a heartbeat away....and we know how that works.
Hi Pollster1, I hope you are well.
Oklahoma went open carry 15 months ago. The week after the law went into effect, I noticed that the “No Weapons” sign was taken off of my bank’s front door. I asked if they had replaced the glass, and forgotten to put the restriction on the door. They told me “No, we feel much safer if we allow firearms.”
Guess which bank gets my deposits.
I’ve got an account in a Nevada institution, also. Behind closed doors I have compared “carry” handguns with the female bank manager. They have the prohibition on their door. Her attitude, and belief, is that if the bad guys carry surreptitiously, she will too.
It can when they find out. As she discovered.
LOL...I had to do a banking transaction at Wells Fargo [not my usual bank]....the employees were the rudest, most inefficient business people I have ever encountered....I mean, they make the DMV look like high achievers in a five-star hotel! I would never ever, do business with them again, or heaven forbid use their *services*. My *encounter* with them had me so riled up....if I was carrying...I would have been tempted to shoot the place up. Instead, left an *ear full* with the branch manager, which was pretty satisfying in itself. Meh.
Those are strong arguments you make, but the Constitutionally correct solution is to allow bakeries and other to refuse service.
My wife did that. Her company (she's now retired) didn't even allow guns to be locked up in a car on its property. My wife started parking on the street and when asked why, she told them she didn't want to break the rules and get fired for protecting herself. her boss was a good guy and liked her, so he helped push to at least allow employees to secure their weapons in their cars.