Post by: Huntbear on September 25, 2012, 08:33:15 AM
http://www.guns.com/indiana-man-filing-lawsuit-fired-ar-15-11051.html (http://www.guns.com/indiana-man-filing-lawsuit-fired-ar-15-11051.html)
Post by: woodswalker on September 25, 2012, 08:50:44 AM
Seems a couple O' rules got lost. Just gives the Anti's more reason/excuses that they cannot trust a gunowner to be SAFE with a firearm.
Post by: NW-GSP on September 25, 2012, 08:55:19 AM
Post by: csaaphill on September 27, 2012, 12:10:15 AM
Whats the difference if he was showing off a .270 or 30-06 or something?
My point is what does it matter if he was showing it off or not? The only real issue here is that the gun fired by mistake. Which in this case he was lucky no one got hurt. I hope he gets his job back and all the back pay. Seems like in todays political climate someone who owns a AR-15 or mac 90 is going to be under more scrutiny than a 9mm pistol or 12 guage shotgun.
I actually just recently stoped a anti gun or anti semi automatic statement at work although they mainly ignored me and moved on to a different subjeect, but when one stated that there was only one reason for someone to own a ar or mac I stepped in and said I shot a deer iwth only a 5 round clip a few years ago with a Mac 90 that I owned at the time. I got it under Clintions semi auto ban and if Obama wins I will probably buy another one just for that same purpose to own one before they get banned. I wouldn't be so quick to judge just because the firearm is a AR-15 doesn't mean he or anyone can't show it off without getting fired.
As for going off accidently who knows what happened still shouldn't get him fired or judged an idiot prematuraly.
Just my :twocents:
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 27, 2012, 10:18:13 AM
Post by: Bob33 on September 27, 2012, 10:23:49 AM
"Jordan was off-duty at the time and the two men were not on company property. "
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 27, 2012, 10:28:04 AM
He may have violated some criminal code, but his company had no business addressing this. It was a personal matter, not a corporate one.
"Jordan was off-duty at the time and the two men were not on company property. "
I agree, it just doesn't make me feel any safer knowing he's got a loaded AR or any other firearm, given his history.
Post by: Heredoggydoggy on September 27, 2012, 10:34:56 AM
Post by: Bob33 on September 27, 2012, 10:43:54 AM
Would a company fire an employee for domestic violence that occurred on his own time, off company property?
As unfortunate as these situations are, the company has no right to intervene in personal matters unless they can be proved to have a direct impact on the company.
Post by: Gringo31 on September 27, 2012, 11:16:47 AM
Some companies feel that you being their employee means that you are representing them. If you do something stupid, it "can" make the company look stupid........and they hate looking stupid.
Post by: Atroxus on September 27, 2012, 11:34:52 AM
Would a company fire an employee for driving recklessly on his own time, off company property?
Would a company fire an employee for domestic violence that occurred on his own time, off company property?
As unfortunate as these situations are, the company has no right to intervene in personal matters unless they can be proved to have a direct impact on the company.
Actually some can and do fire for criminal offenses and/or "immoral" behavior while off the clock. In this case the reason they used was explicitly exempted by the state laws though. If they were smart they would have left the car in the trunk thing out of the equation and said that in light of the negligent discharge they could not longer trust him in a position where he was armed, and fired him for that. :twocents:
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 27, 2012, 11:46:00 AM
Would a company fire an employee for driving recklessly on his own time, off company property?
Would a company fire an employee for domestic violence that occurred on his own time, off company property?
As unfortunate as these situations are, the company has no right to intervene in personal matters unless they can be proved to have a direct impact on the company.
Actually some can and do fire for criminal offenses and/or "immoral" behavior while off the clock. In this case the reason they used was explicitly exempted by the state laws though. If they were smart they would have left the car in the trunk thing out of the equation and said that in light of the negligent discharge they could not longer trust him in a position where he was armed, and fired him for that. :twocents:
Yep.
Post by: Austrian Hunter on September 27, 2012, 11:53:39 AM
Post by: carpsniperg2 on September 27, 2012, 11:56:33 AM
It all depends on the companies policy. If he agreed to the policy by accepting employment he has to play by the company rules. If he broke the rules so be it. I agree, its f'up but the firm has the right to let him go if there was a policy in place.
I agree 100% and would have said the same thing. It is jacked up but many comapines do have those rules. Hell I know even in my small town of atleast 5 jobs here that you can't have one with you or in your car why it is parked at work.
Post by: Bob33 on September 27, 2012, 12:00:57 PM
Post by: carpsniperg2 on September 27, 2012, 12:03:41 PM
Post by: Bob33 on September 27, 2012, 12:12:38 PM
Post by: carpsniperg2 on September 27, 2012, 12:19:29 PM
Post by: Austrian Hunter on September 27, 2012, 01:16:39 PM
Yeah that is jacked up, what people do on there own time should be there business. Not like he was hurting anything at work/company time or their property.
:yeah: I missed that part. NRA or any good lawyer should do it. Plus he can use the double damages law, meaning double his severance package!