Tampa Woman Sues Employer Over Gun Rules

[Double Naught Spy]

character flaw and or traits, She was running her mouth. Someone dropped a dime.

First and foremost, she was breaking the rules.

How do you know she was "running her mouth"?

Well, she said she never openly displayed it. So she was either so careless as to having her gun get spotted or she let somebody know she carried her gun at work and they dropped the dime on her. Either way, she screwed up on multiple levels.

Again, dumb enough to get caught - dumb enough to get fired, and deservedly so, LOL.

Notice how she wasn't concerned about her constitutional rights before she got fired?

[Pahoo]

There are two facts that beyond conjecture;

1) Not only has she violated her companies rules and condition of employment. She now wants to sue her company to prove preserve what??

2) The revelation started with her in one way or another. I personally have never understood why someone would want to share personal information with others. Some even get posted on Facebook. ...

As far as expressing her Constitutional rights, she should have left this one, in the parking lot ....

Be Private/Protective and;
Be Safe !!!

[wayneinFL]

The revelation started with her in one way or another. I personally have never understood why someone would want to share personal information with others.

How many people know you carry? Three people in the entire world knew I carried. Two were people who carried at work, and advised me on what gun to buy, what kind of holster, etc. The other was my wife, and I figured she was going to figure out sooner or later.

I don't think Facebook and Twitter even existed at the time. And it still bit me in the behind.

Not excusing her actions of course. She carried to protect herself at work, against the company's policy. Your right to be safe stops at your employer's front door. She screwed up.

But I just don't want people to think they are the person who can do it and not get caught, because they can do it secretly. Someone knows you carry, and the only way two people can keep a secret is if one of them is dead.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Obeying the rules and lying to employers over basic human rights is an interesting debate.

During the Depression, members of my family:

1. Had to lie about their religion and fake church membership to get a job. The employer would only hire one type.

2. One had to register as political party X to get a job while he was not at all sympatico to them.

Were they immoral? They could have lived on the street.

Eventually there were legislative solutions and court decisions to keep employers' paws out of your basic rights.

I have also said that carry is a basic right and employers should not have control over such except for technical issues (gun in the MRI).

Perhaps, this will happen some day. But I doubt it. Even the strongest pro-gun legislator gets a buck from a big business or two and they usually oppose such.

[OuTcAsT]

Glenn E. Meyer Wrote;

Eventually there were legislative solutions and court decisions to keep employers' paws out of your basic rights.

Agreed, it is an interesting debate and, as you pointed out legislation has pretty much forced employers to be fair and honest when it comes to the most basic of human rights. Discrimination for ones sex, race, religion, orientation, even a handicap, have been addressed. However, this debate hinges on another set of rights, those of personal property.

The simple fact is that your place of employment is someone else's property, the same as your own home is your property. I don't think any one could argue against the fact that each of us sets the rules for our own property and, has the right to enforce them. My house, my rules. Break the rules in my house? You won't be welcome any longer.

The argument over "constitutional rights" ends at my front door, would you seriously consider filing a lawsuit against me if I told you you had to leave your firearm in your car when you plan to enter my home ?

This is no different than a restaurant you plan to enter that has a "no firearms" policy, don't like the rules ? Take yourself elsewhere.

I cannot understand why this is such a difficult concept to grasp.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

This is an old debate. It hinges on:

1. Is the right to self-protection one that trumps property rights?
2. Are the property rights of a business, where you hire the public and do business with the public, different from the property rights of your home where you live.

I would argue that the business is different from your home but this has been done quite bit and takes us off topic from the case in point.

If she wants to fight on an interpretation of basic rights under the Constitution, then the points have to be resolved.

If she knowingly broke the rules and they are supported by current law, she is out of luck or deliberately wanted to start the Constitutional fight.

The second is OK with me if that was her goal. I doubt it though.

[wayneinFL]

Agreed, it is an interesting debate and, as you pointed out legislation has pretty much forced employers to be fair and honest when it comes to the most basic of human rights. Discrimination for ones sex, race, religion, orientation, even a handicap, have been addressed. However, this debate hinges on another set of rights, those of personal property.

Discrimination hinged upon personal property rights as well. Personal property rights were an argument to keep blacks out of white owned businesses for a long, long time.

[OuTcAsT]

Glenn E. Meyer Wrote;

I would argue that the business is different from your home but this has been done quite bit and takes us off topic from the case in point.

WayneinFL Wrote;

Personal property rights were an argument to keep blacks out of white owned businesses for a long, long time.

Yup.

I believe this is the only argument there is : Is a business different from a dwelling in the context of personal property and the owner's rights to set, and enforce rules?

Other than that, the lady in question has no other argument to offer,IMHO.