Sparky508
Newbie
I alway wondered what them little busses were carrying around. Who knew they were full of Marines?
Rangers lead the way.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Consequences of Carrying at Work
- Thread starter cbpeck
- Start date
I alway wondered what them little busses were carrying around. Who knew they were full of Marines?
Rangers lead the way.
SFCRetired
Regular Member
So sad. I tried to join the Marines 49 years ago. They said I wasn't qualified. I could read without moving my lips and could write, not to mention that my parents were married over two years before I was born!
)Twenty-one years, most of it Ordnance Corps in support of the HAWK missile system.
Highest compliment I was ever paid? A good Marine officer told me that I thought and acted like a good Marine gunny.
Back on topic: What your employer will do to you for carrying in violation of their policy also depends on the state you are in and whether or not you are union. Here, we are a "right to work" state and you can be terminated "for any or no reason, with or without notice". They justify this by saying that you have the option of voluntarily terminating your employment under the same conditions.
What I am waiting for (and hope it never happens) is for someone to shoot up a place that has a strict anti-gun policy and then have the victims file suit against the employer for failing to "provide a safe work environment" or other such grounds.
Until these employers/businesses are hit, and hit hard, in their pocketbooks, nothing is going to change.
cbpeck
Regular Member
What you said does help... I believe one could CC on private property where it was forbidden and still be acting lawfully because the property owner and/or employer does not write law.
If the employer were to trespass an employee for any reason and that employee later chose to return anyway they would then be guilty of illegal trespass under section (3) because the owner/employer had made it clear that the person was not permitted to enter the premises. Make sense?
Last edited:
Metalhead47
Regular Member
So sad. I tried to join the Marines 49 years ago. They said I wasn't qualified. I could read without moving my lips and could write, not to mention that my parents were married over two years before I was born!
Twenty-one years, most of it Ordnance Corps in support of the HAWK missile system.
Highest compliment I was ever paid? A good Marine officer told me that I thought and acted like a good Marine gunny.
Back on topic: What your employer will do to you for carrying in violation of their policy also depends on the state you are in and whether or not you are union. Here, we are a "right to work" state and you can be terminated "for any or no reason, with or without notice". They justify this by saying that you have the option of voluntarily terminating your employment under the same conditions.
What I am waiting for (and hope it never happens) is for someone to shoot up a place that has a strict anti-gun policy and then have the victims file suit against the employer for failing to "provide a safe work environment" or other such grounds.
Until these employers/businesses are hit, and hit hard, in their pocketbooks, nothing is going to change.
+1 durn right.
Even being union isn't always a protection. I am, and my SOP/emloyee handbook ranks having a weapon at work right up there with intentionally running over a little old lady. That is, a severe infraction punishable up to & including termination, no steps no nuthin.
Metalhead47
Regular Member
SFCRetired
Regular Member
Truer words were never spoken than those about the corpsmen.
One of the corpsmen with the Marines on a godforsaken island in the Pacific was a devout Seventh Day Adventist and conscientious objector who steadfastly refused to carry a weapon, but who wore his uniform with pride. His actions on that island, Iwo Jima, under murderous enemy fire, earned him this nation's highest award for valor, the Medal of Honor. His name? Desmond Doss. He, like so many of our WWII veterans, is gone now, but his name will forever stand as an example for those who follow in his steps.
amlevin
Regular Member
So why hasn't anyone ever sued the Post Office???? All one needs to do is file a claim for damages and after 2 years, if they haven't paid or denied, the Post Office can be sued in Federal Court.
Same question for Columbine High School and the local School District. Ditto for every other school/school district where their "No firearms" policies have resulted in deaths.
Metalhead47
Regular Member
likely because the victims, somewhat understandably, quickly fall into the "guns are bad" mentality and want MORE such policies. despite the proof that they don't work
tombrewster421
Regular Member
That just freaking sucks!:banghead:
skiingislife725
Regular Member
PavePusher
Regular Member
Because they were disarmed by law and by order. Don't get me started on that one.....
Metalhead47
Regular Member
yeah, that was kinda my point....
Lotta good locked doors & radios do against an armed fruitcake.
Jeff Hayes
Regular Member
In order to sue for damages and win it would have to be someone that was hurt that carried every where else they went. Even then how could you prove that you would not have been harmed, at best its only a maybe you would not have been harmed if you had been armed.
Dont get me wrong I think that if you disarm someone and they then get harmed you should be responsable but then again if Costco tells me no firearms I dont have to go there either. It would then be my choice to go unarmed, can anyone think of a place that you have to go that there is no other option that outlaws firearms, I cant.
John Hardin
Regular Member
There's a lawsuit against the post office underway right now. See the link to another forum thread above.
Last edited:
amlevin
Regular Member
That lawsuit is because the people don't get home delivery and are forced to "disarm" when collecting their mail.
What I wonder is why nobody has sued the Post Office after the Shootings by whacked out employees? THEY were able to get guns onto the premises and apparently the Post Office.
Jeff Hayes
Regular Member
You dont have to go to the Post Office to PU your mail it can be forwarded or you can get a private PO box.
Courts.
amlevin
Regular Member
You need to read the lawsuit. In the town they live in which is in Colorado, the Post Office DOES NOT provide delivery and anyone that wants mail HAS to go to the Post Office to pick it up. In the area in question, one would have to drive a lot farther to a private PO Box.
joeroket
Regular Member
That and the fact that the PO gives them all PO boxes for free because of the lack of home delivery.
joeroket
Regular Member
But with courts you can carry into them. At least you are capable of protecting yourself walking to and from the building. The PO doesn't even give you that ability.