Check out some similar questions!

smoothy · Feb 23, 2014, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by tomder55

it's not a violation of rights . it's a term of employment . Either comply with them or work some place else.

That's only my opinion... which has no bearing on the legality of it.

joypulv · Feb 23, 2014, 03:21 PM

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.

Catsmine · Feb 23, 2014, 05:48 PM

Originally Posted by joypulv

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.

paraclete · Feb 23, 2014, 05:53 PM

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

Tuttyd · Feb 23, 2014, 06:18 PM

Originally Posted by Catsmine

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.

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.

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.

ScottGem · Feb 24, 2014, 05:31 AM

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.

tomder55 · Feb 24, 2014, 06:27 AM

The Bill of Rights are constraints against the government.

exactly . The key point in 2 active op here.
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.

talaniman · Feb 24, 2014, 06:33 AM

She can sue in court, which she is doing. That's her right to get redress, if not her job back.

tomder55 · Feb 24, 2014, 06:46 AM

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]

ScottGem · Feb 24, 2014, 07:16 AM

Originally Posted by talaniman

She can sue in court, which she is doing. That's her right to get redress, if not her job back.

I agree, she can sue. But she won't win and she will be out thousands in attorney fees.

cdad · Feb 26, 2014, 08:22 PM

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.

tomder55 · Apr 2, 2014, 03:54 PM

Which insane country heavily restricts firearms on military bases?
Fort Hood Press Center

paraclete · Apr 2, 2014, 08:04 PM

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

Catsmine · Apr 3, 2014, 01:35 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

Which insane country heavily restricts firearms on military bases?
Fort Hood Press Center

Keeping firearms in the armory has valid reasons, mostly maintenance. Not issuing them to security forces, particularly on that base, is naïve.

paraclete · Apr 3, 2014, 02:50 AM

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

smoothy · Apr 3, 2014, 04:59 AM

Drugs come into the country by the ton, they haven't managed to stop them... Guns can as well.

talaniman · Apr 3, 2014, 05:13 AM

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.

smoothy · Apr 3, 2014, 05:19 AM

Originally Posted by talaniman

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?

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.

talaniman · Apr 3, 2014, 05:43 AM

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!!

smoothy · Apr 3, 2014, 05:51 AM

Originally Posted by talaniman

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...

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.