Check out some similar questions!

Catsmine · Feb 22, 2014, 07:39 PM

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?

smoothy · Feb 22, 2014, 07:43 PM

I personally feel no individual or business should have the right to deny ANYONE their constitutional rights.

talaniman · Feb 22, 2014, 08:22 PM

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.

paraclete · Feb 22, 2014, 10:43 PM

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

tomder55 · Feb 23, 2014, 03:14 AM

Originally Posted by smoothy

I personally feel no individual or business should have the right to deny ANYONE their constitutional rights.

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

Catsmine · Feb 23, 2014, 04:15 AM

Originally Posted by smoothy

I personally feel no individual or business should have the right to deny ANYONE their constitutional rights.

The Bank has no rights?

paraclete · Feb 23, 2014, 04:49 AM

The Bank has no rights?

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 rights

speechlesstx · Feb 23, 2014, 05:04 AM

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.

excon · Feb 23, 2014, 06:29 AM

Hello cats:

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?

Been living in a cave??? It's called DISCRETION.

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

ScottGem · Feb 23, 2014, 06:47 AM

Originally Posted by smoothy

I personally feel no individual or business should have the right to deny ANYONE their constitutional rights.

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.

speechlesstx · Feb 23, 2014, 07:05 AM

Originally Posted by excon

Hello cats:
Been living in a cave??? It's called DISCRETION.

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

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.

P.S. The officer is not rewriting the law.

excon · Feb 23, 2014, 07:35 AM

Hello again, Steve:

P.S. The officer is not rewriting the law.

Uhhh, yes he is...

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

talaniman · Feb 23, 2014, 08:33 AM

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.

ScottGem · Feb 23, 2014, 09:55 AM

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.

tomder55 · Feb 23, 2014, 10:15 AM

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 .

talaniman · Feb 23, 2014, 10:44 AM

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?

tomder55 · Feb 23, 2014, 11:25 AM

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 .

excon · Feb 23, 2014, 12:01 PM

Hello again, tom:

What the emperor is doing is rewriting the law .You know it and I know it .

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.

excon

Catsmine · Feb 23, 2014, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by excon

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.

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.

ScottGem · Feb 23, 2014, 12:24 PM

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.