CCW article

With all the talk that has been on here lately I thought I would post this article that I saw on Fownews.com this morning where a CCW carrying employee lost his job for saving a ladies life but was then reinstated. Interesting artlcli.http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/02/11/worker-fired-for-carrying-gun-on-company-property-given-job-back.html?intcmp=hplnws
Untitled URL Link

This has happened before,lucky for him there were some cooler heads to prevail,I would do the same thing if I was in his shoes,as he said you can always get another job,another life -not so much!

According to news reports on WOOD TV, the stabber was the woman's daughter.

He should have gotten a medal.

Yep, should have gotten a medal for what he did. Once they gave me my job back, I'd be looking for one else where, or the one who fired me would....one or the other would definitely happen......

Now the woman who got stabbed needs to sue the company for not being allowed to protect herself on their property, and for them not providing the protection they took away her right to.

Costs very little to file a lawsuit, but it would cost the company dearly to defend against it. Lawsuits like this need to be filed every time someone gets attacked in a gun/weapon free zone, and those zones would disappear in a hurry.....

This incident happened only a mile from where I work. GM policy is quite clear about firearms or weapons of any kind on GM property, and the individual in question should have known he was violating company policy by carrying a firearm on the GM Tech Center campus. A few years ago a GM employee was fired for shooting a deer with a bow and arrow on GM property across the street from the Tech Center.

Also, the headline that the individual was "fired then given job back" is not at all accurate. He was working for a contractor to GM, so GM can't actually fire him. He was escorted off the premises and is not allowed back. Whether or not his employer fires him is up to the employer, but since he can't perform his job it seems likely he will be let go.

It makes no difference where GM fired him or not, GM caused him to lose his job. If GM had not took the action they did it wouldn't have happened. Since he wasn't a GM employee he may not have known about GM's gun policy. He should be commended for the way he handled it by detaining and not shooting her.

GM's policy is quite stupid, and dare I say flat out wrong. If the valet company fires him, they will be wrong as hell too. Personally I know quite a few companies that would love to have that young man as an employee.

That being said, the woman who was attacked needs to file a lawsuit against GM for not being allowed to protect herself on their property, and for GM not then providing the protection they denied to her and the rest of the employees with armed guards, or by whatever means necessary to insure employee safety.

I see claims that these policies are set forth by insurance companies, supposedly to cover the companies butt. Thing is it needs to be made crystal clear to them that their (the insurance co as well as the business in question) culpability will extend just as far to the victim of violence that is allowed to happen due to their policy, as it will to the theoretical issues that would only arise in the defense against that violence.

Better yet, every GM employee needs to take a lesson from this incident and strike until they retract their idiotic policy. Loss of employees and profits would resound with them like nothing else.

> GM's policy is quite stupid, and dare I say flat out wrong. If the valet company fires him, they will be wrong as hell too. Personally I know quite a few companies that would love to have that young man as an employee.

Wayne, whether or not GM's policy is stupid, there's no doubt that putting your livelihood in jeopardy by breaking company rules is a really bad idea. And there are plenty of unemployed Detroiters who will be happy to take his place.

> That being said, the woman who was attacked needs to file a lawsuit against GM for not being allowed to protect herself on their property, and for GM not then providing the protection they denied to her and the rest of the employees with armed guards, or by whatever means necessary to insure employee safety.

I can hear Geoffrey Fieger now: "My client wouldn't have been stabbed by her daughter if her employer had allowed her to have a gun at work, because she then could have killed her daughter when they hugged before her daughter had a chance to stab her." I don't think Geoff's gonna take that case.

> I see claims that these policies are set forth by insurance companies, supposedly to cover the companies butt. Thing is it needs to be made crystal clear to them that their (the insurance co as well as the business in question) culpability will extend just as far to the victim of violence that is allowed to happen due to their policy, as it will to the theoretical issues that would only arise in the defense against that violence.

Companies the size of GM don't buy insurance. They self-insure. Decisions on things like whether or not to allow employees to carry weapons are made based on the advice of risk management specialists, who consider the impact and likelihood of various risks. Apparently they feel the risk of having a large number of employees carry concealed weapons is not worth any potential benefits.

> Better yet, every GM employee needs to take a lesson from this incident and strike until they retract their idiotic policy. Loss of employees and profits would resound with them like nothing else.

Really. I had no idea you're such a labor activist. Maybe GM employees like their paychecks, and are willing to leave their guns at home in exchange for a steady income.

> GM caused him to lose his job.

Hmm. So if you get fired because you were drunk or stoned on the job, whose fault would that be? The employer's? No, when an employee's actions cause the employee to get fired, it is the employee's fault.

I'm a very, very hard core 2nd Amend supporter. That being said, private property is not public property or your own property. If someone says I can't do something while on their property, that is their right and I either obey or leave the property. Black and white. You don't have the right to go into someone else yard and scream at them, preach at them, touch them, take a pee, dump your trash or even just stand there quietly if they don't want you to. The guy took his chances and now he has to face up to it.