 |
Bank manager, fired after carrying gun into work, files suit
Here's someone who wants to carry their 2nd Amendment rights too far. As an employee, did she not sign an employment agreement where she promised to follow company policy, including the one about handguns? If your WRITTEN word is no good, why bother?
Is the example being set by the leadership of our country picking and choosing which laws it wants to follow on which day starting to permeate society?
I personally feel no individual or business should have the right to deny ANYONE their constitutional rights.
She knew the rules before she got hired and she chose to disobey them so she got fired. Good luck in court. And the next job.
chaos, pure chaos, it isn't a matter of constitutional rights bank employees are provided with fire arms when the management thinks they should have them as a bank employee in my youth I carried a fire arm when on cash escort duty but it is rediculous that every employee should be armed, it puts the customers in jeopardy. where I come from bank tellers are behind bullet proof shields, this is the appropriate way to protect them
the policy in a hold up is don't risk your life give it to them and leave it to the police
The problem with your society is everyone is a constitutional lawyer, shouting rights rather than common sense
it's not a violation of rights . it's a term of employment . Either comply with them or work some place else.Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
The Bank has no rights?Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
a bank is an entity, admittently an artifical one, and an entity not necessarily forseen by the constitution. It can be argued that a corporation has rightsQuote:
The Bank has no rights?
Yep, that's a no-brainer, she violated the terms of employment and you don't have the right to carry a gun into anyone's business you want.
Hello cats:
Been living in a cave??? It's called DISCRETION.Quote:
Is the example being set by the leadership of our country picking and choosing which laws it wants to follow on which day starting to permeate society?
Lemme ask you this... Does the cop on the street have the "discretion" to write a ticket or NOT write a ticket depending on certain circumstances???? He DOES.... So, if the lowly cop on the street has DISCRETION to "pick and choose" which law he wants to enforce, why would you think the president doesn't have it???
excon
Sorry, but constitutional rights are constraints on the government, not private individuals or organizations. Just as I have the right to not permit guns in my home, a corporation can prohibit them in the workplace. If the employment agreement did not specify, that would be different. But since the policy was specific, then she knew she was violating the policy. It doesn't matter HOW she violated the policy, simply that she did. If I were Wells Fargo attorneys I would argue that this is not a constitutional issue but a matter of a corporation being able to exercise its rights. And they should win.Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
The president does not have the discretion to thwart the express will of Congress n the laws they pass. Again, be careful what you wish for, I'm sure you're tune will change if a right winger gets the office.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
P.S. The officer is not rewriting the law.
Hello again, Steve:
Uhhh, yes he is...Quote:
P.S. The officer is not rewriting the law.
Who, pray tell, passed the laws against speeding??? The Boy Scouts??? If the cop on the street lets a speeder go, he ABSOLUTELY IS thwarting the express will of congress..
The President DOES have at least as much authority as the cop on the street...
excon
Discretion as to how the law is applied has always been the bottom line. Be it a cop, or president, congress or ceo. They could have told the teller to take her gun home and never bring it back. They didn't. She got fired because that was their discretion.
Do you really think she has a right to carry a gun to work when she signed an agreement to follow the bank's rules, and not bring it to work? The only way her lawyer gets paid if they settle out of court, and why should they do that? The real issue is how much they want to pay their legal team to fight her, which is what she is probably counting on. Money may trump principle on this one so rights are moot.
The manager had a constitutional right to choose not to work for an organization whose policies she disagreed with. She did NOT have a right, once she agreed to employment, to violate the organizations policies.
Again, the right to bear arms does NOT enter into this. It's the same as the rules of this site. We require civility, refraining from personalities, etc. Posts that violate those rules are edited or removed. If you don't like those rules you have the option to not participate.
Except that the President Does NOT have the constitution power of prosecutorial discretion ,nor does the President have the power to disregard statutory obligations . Show me where in the Constitution is the President granted such powers . Here's a hint ;Article 1 Sec 8 gives Congress the power to make law. If an executive decision violates that law ,then the executive is violating that law. (ie dates that mandates in Obamacare become active ...ie deciding not to enforce immigration law) .Here is a guideline ..... When a law is passed that allows such discretion ,the President may feel free to act accordingly . Other than that ,he is bound by oath to the 'Take Care "Clause of Article II .
I have already sent you the links of the discretionary powers to implement the ACA written into the law so that ship has sailed. But here is a good an article explaining it as any.
Delaying Parts of Obamacare: 'Blatantly Illegal' or Routine Adjustment? - Simon Lazarus - The Atlantic
As to rights of the people under the constitution, it can be regulated by congress. Yet the congress is subject to the NRA, more than the will of the people it seems where the people overwhelmingly favor some type of restrictions. So congress does nothing. Wells Fargo acted in it's own interest and made its own rules, and enforced them at their discretion.
Now we see how the fired party fares in court. Taking bets who prevails?
Let's look at it from your side. Executive discretion frees Congress of responsibility for the laws they pass. It encourages them to make the laws vague and overbroad ,which in turn gives the President even more power to act (or not ) .This is very dangerous . It sets precedence for future executive over reach (and you may not like who's making the call the next time ) .What the emperor is doing is rewriting the law .You know it and I know it .
Hello again, tom:
What I KNOW is that congress has oversight. If the "emperor" is breaking the law, he's doing so WITH the APPROVAL of the Republican lead House of Representatives. That there's NO attempt whatsoever, to bring impeachment charges, or ANY charges on ANY administration official, tells me that you got NOTHING.Quote:
What the emperor is doing is rewriting the law .You know it and I know it .
excon
Your aim is off. Harry Reid has proven he will stymy any action by the House, so what's the point? Perhaps next year if the elections go the GOP's way.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Ok, this has gone too far afield. The issue here is the right of an employee to defy company policy. There is NO issue of selective prosecution here since no criminal act has been committed. The Manager is suing the bank claiming (falsely in my opinion) that her Constitutional rights were interfered with.
Cats, your comment about picking and choosing laws really doesn't apply to this. The bank has a right to enforce their policies. The manager doesn't understand that this isn't a constitutional issue.
That's only my opinion... which has no bearing on the legality of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
What is with all these Amendies (word I coined for certain people) who know how to quote the Constitution and the Amendments, and that's it? They don't seem to get that the Amendments are short for a reason - because they are designed to be interpreted in precendent cases that change as our society changes.
This gun case isn't exactly 'can't shout fire in a crowded theater' but there are plenty of situations where the right to carry is trumped by other law, such as on private property or more and more nowadays, in certain gov't buildings.
The English versus Legalese in the Bill of Rights is a topic for another thread. This gun case, as has been noted, is not about the right to carry but about the legality of an employment agreement violation being grounds for termination.Quote:
Originally Posted by joypulv
The way it is you comply with the reasonable directions of your employer or you seek employment elsewhere there is no case for doing your own thing just because you think you have a right to do so. I expect the termination occurred because the employer had formed the opinion the employee would not comply with the terms of the employment contract
I think it is all bound up together. A person cannot sign a contract that allows a company to lock them away in a cell after work each night. This would be a violation of the natural right to liberty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catsmine
A court would support a legally binding contract. The argument on the part of the plaintiff seems to be that placing a restriction to carry a firearm to work is the denial of a natural right. Perhaps of the same type as being locked away at night thus depriving one of liberty.
SCOTUS has a history of not seeing it this way. They have a history of finding that provisos and restrictions are consistent with the 2nd Amendment. The bottom line I guess is that so long as the contract isn't in violation of the legislation in relation to the 2nd Amendment then the plaintiff doesn't seem to have a case. Anyway, that's how I read it.
edit. Added a line left out.
While its true that one cannot sign away certain rights in a contract. Its not that bound together. Courts have consistently ruled in the favor of legally entered contracts over most rights. The Bill of Rights are constraints against the government. They were a reaction to the tyranny of the English during the lead up to the evolution. The Founding Fathers wanted to prevent the newly established government from curtailing the rights of the citizenry. There was no consideration of applying those rights to private contracts. For example, Indentured Servitude continued into the 19th century.
So, again, there is no 2nd Amendment issue in this case.
exactly . The key point in 2 active op here.Quote:
The Bill of Rights are constraints against the government.
The bank ownership did not give up their private property rights either ;and if they decide that there will be no guns on their property then there is nothing the employee can do to change that.
She can sue in court, which she is doing. That's her right to get redress, if not her job back.
She has no case . The bank can't prevent her from owning a gun ...having conceal and carry permit. But on their property ,the bank makes the rules . If I decide no on can be armed on my property ,there is nothing the government or courts can do to change it .
"For a man's house is his castle, et domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium (and each man's home is his safest refuge)." [Sir Edward Coke ' The Institutes of the Laws of England', 1628]
I agree, she can sue. But she won't win and she will be out thousands in attorney fees.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
I agree with Scott that she isnt going to win. The one thing that hasnt been brought up so far is that a bank is a multifacited business. It is a private enterprise but also a federal institution. That being said Banks must adhere to federal rules and regulations. They are a defacto federal building even though held by private hands such as an individual or investment team. Laws for federal buildings are much different then those that are truely privately owned and operated.
Which insane country heavily restricts firearms on military bases?
Fort Hood Press Center
In a country where gun laws are insane it is hard to know where insanity begins and where it ends. What isn't recognised is death is so permanent whilst firing a gun is a momentary thing
Keeping firearms in the armory has valid reasons, mostly maintenance. Not issuing them to security forces, particularly on that base, is naïve.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
all you are really saying is you will never keep a gun out of the hands of someone who wants to use it, so don't try
Drugs come into the country by the ton, they haven't managed to stop them... Guns can as well.
What makes you think security forces at Fort Hood don't carry guns? How do you stop a nut from getting a gun is still the question.
Have you spent much time on lage government and military installations in recent years Tal?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Bill Clinton signed legislation that prevented anyone but MP's carrying a weapon on them. Know where most of the MP's tend to be? At the gates...
Ft Hood is one of the larger bases we have... thats a LOT of literally unprotected space inside where some loon bent on murder will know he is free to do what they want knowing nobody but a scarce few MP's will have weapons to defend themselves.
I have been to Fort Hood several times and nobody walks in without being ID, not even the soldiers, so cut the crap and they have armed security, and a police force. All guns must be registered. When a sudden event breaks out they are as helpless as anybody when a NUT with a gun explodes. He probably bought a gun right down the road like that other nut before him.
Isn't that the risk of granting rights to bear arms to citizens with mental issues? We have already proved they can't be stopped until after they have done their deed. Go ahead make this about not enough guns. There are plenty of guns, some get into the wrong hands. I can PROVE that!!
Tal... "cut the crap" as you say... BOTH cases of mass shootings on Ft. Hood were done by ID card holders... who basically drive right in without a vehicle check that non-ID card holders would be subjected to...Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Neither of them had any prohibitions from owning guns... both of them were prohibited from carrying them onto the base.
Everyone else was basically unarmed and the shooters knew it.
Both knew full well they would have plenty of time to kill as many as they could before MP's would be called and have time to arrive and find them.
None of them could have pulled the same stunt outside the base were there are a LOT of conciel carry permit holders with guns.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:17 PM. |