They should fire the people who fired him.
So if he got fired over the incident can we assume it's because his place of employment is a gun free zone?
The next natural questions are, will they change their policy or will he continue to work in disobedience of their policy, or will he disarm to keep his job?
General Motors got a free security guard in the bargain, yet still managed to muss things up. Glad they un-mussed it up.
Absolutely the right decision. I have a bit of sympathy for the employer in these cases, not because I support anti-gun sentiment but because they’re stuck between a horde of liability lawyers salivating at the prospect of a successful class action lawsuit and a public that is strongly in favor of the shooter. You can’t go wrong backing your employee but it might just break you. And I think that’s wrong.
He never lost his job .........
He was sent home from work and the MSM of course jumped on the event to assume he was fired..............
GM's HR dept. is already on record as stating this guy was not fired.................
Sheesh, talk about MSM BS............
We are witnessing a Fin de Cycle at the Washington Post.
Can you image such a story there, ten years ago? Under the new ownership of Jeff Bezos, and the inclusing of the Eugene Volokh and The Volokh Conspiracy, The post is coming to respect the Second Amendment.
That was heresy at the Post a mere decade ago.
Yet here it is, naming a black concealed carry permit holder as a hero, and excoriating the corporate “interests” who fired him.
What will the progressives who look to the Post for moral leadership do?
Looks like GM just wants the issue to go away. If the company drags its feet and keeps the manager(s) who fired him, that says they really prefer to back managers who make bad decisions over heroes who make good ones. Divest, divest, divest!