General Categories > Newsworthy

NFOA on KFAB

<< < (3/3)

armed and humorous:
AAllen:

Good points, and information I hadn't heard previously (assuming you're right).  I have to say though that there probably aren't too many property owners that would care whether you have bare arms or not (as opposed to bearing arms).  :)  Maybe some restaurants with signs, "No shirt, no shoes, no service!"  :)

JTH:

--- Quote from: armed and humorous on January 14, 2012, 10:31:54 AM ---jthhapkido:

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with here.  I don't deny that many companies have policies for disciplinary action, and those policies "might" make it more difficult for them to fire you for having a gun and try to justify it for some other reason.
--- End quote ---

Point being, they have to follow their own internal rules.  As such, if they don't, you have a much easier time showing in court that they violated the law.

You said this law didn't have teeth, and people could be fired easily.  My point is that in most cases, people _can't_ be fired easily, as it normally requires a paper trail and a succession of issues.  If someone is fired without that, it makes it easier for the employee to bring them to court for this issue. 

Yes, there are of course companies/employers who will feel strongly enough about this to do it anyway. However, that will be in the minority, in my opinion, based on what I said above. 

Similar to the number of places where calling in police dogs is a normal thing.  Small chances.

Useful thing about this law---it would not take a civil lawsuit by the fired employee to have this law applied.  Matter of fact, I believe that is part of the point of this law---it is not a civil case situation anymore.

armed and humorous:
As AAllen said, this discussion has gotten off the original track, so I'll just add one final comment.  All I'm trying to say about this law is that a person shouldn't put absolute faith in it as far as being fired from their job.  Regardless of what you think about employers, unless you have a contract, they can fire you for whatever reason they want, and not have to justify it unless you file some kind of action against them (whether you try to get criminal charges filed or go through a civil court, and I'm not really sure what the procedure would be in this case).  It's not like a speeding ticket where the cops are going to be watching for a violation.  Personally, I think it would be hard to prove an illegal firing under this bill, unless the employer was stupid enough to admit the real reason, or too stupid to come up with a legal reason.

I'm not sure what bill you read, but as I read the bill, it would require a civil suit by a fired employee in order to recover their job and/or any damages resulting from a violation of the law in this case.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page