|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
WV: W.V. Court Vindicates Self-defense Right for Employees (blog)
Submitted by:
Bruce W. Krafft
|
There
are 9 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
"In Feliciano v. 7-Eleven, a masked woman with a gun attempted to rob the 7-Eleven where Feliciano worked. ... Feliciano grabbed her gun, and held her captive until the police arrived. 'Following this incident, 7-Eleven terminated Feliciano ... for failure to comply with its company policy ...'"
"The West Virginia Supreme Court cited numerous precedents showing that the right of self-defense is very well-established and substantial public policy. Accordingly:"
"we hold that when an at will employee has been discharged from his/her employment based upon his/her exercise of self-defense ... such right of self-defense constitutes a substantial public policy exception to the at will employment doctrine and will sustain a cause of action for wrongful discharge. ..." ... |
| Comment by:
Cal45acp@pacifier.com
(6/12/2005)
|
| We can only hope that this spreads to the other states. This is a very good outcome. |
| Comment by:
anonymous
(6/12/2005)
|
This is the tactic we need to use... treat RKBA as other rights... one can go about their life while exercising their rights. This is why an employer can not fire some one for wearing a Star of David pendant, being of a particular skin color, etc.
You can not be forced to give up one right to exercise another... in this case the right to life (and its corollary, the right to self defense) and the right to engage in business (a corollary to the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness)
|
| Comment by:
lwarner11@hotmail.com
(6/12/2005)
|
...we hold further that an employer may rebut an employee's prima facie case of wrongful discharge resulting from the employee's use of self-defense in response to lethal imminent danger by demonstrating that it had a plausible and legitimate business reason to justify the discharge."
Isn't this just lawyerese for "business as usual?" |
| Comment by:
Jay@bl
(6/13/2005)
|
lwarner, I read that the same as you do.
The company can just say, "well, since this incident occurred, our customers have voiced concerns of employees carrying firearms. We believe that Reginald Jackson did the right thing, and we're glad that he is safe. Unfortunately, we had to terminate his employment strictly on business reasons." |
| Comment by:
mikestraw1@juno.com
(6/13/2005)
|
Bravo for Mr. Feliciano!
Kudos to his successful team!
This proves that, at least for a short while in the dwindling twilight of liberty before the cruel imposition of permanent martial law, there's yet a little justice, however slight, costly, and late.
Molon Labe!
|
| Comment by:
fs.arnold@comcast.net
(6/13/2005)
|
I'd pay a bit MORE to shop where the employees...and the customers..were always armed!! Concealed or open carry..makes no difference to me!!
The sign: "You LOOT, we SHOOT" draws my business every time!! LOL
Conversely, I try NOT to shop where 'posted' signs are put up.
IF I hafta shop therein, I always try to buttonhole a manager and ask him to explain to me what are his precautions for protecting ME at, on the way to and FROM his store. Most of the time they say "the cops" or "it's illegal to carry a gun here". Fools!! They have no answer for my reply: That the robbers and muggers do NOT obey gun laws any more than they obey anti-robbing and anti-mugging laws!! Fools!! |
| Comment by:
ne1
(6/13/2005)
|
Company policy should not supercede civil rights. PERIOD. If they cannot discriminate because of race, sexual orientation, national origin, religious affiliation, etc., they sure as h311 should not be able to deny employment (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) on the grounds that an individual is merely exercising an inalienable right.
Unfortunately continued dilligance will be required to prevent insurance companies from attempting to convince future courts that potential employer liability for injured criminals is a "plausible and legitimate business reason to justify the discharge" of employees. |
| Comment by:
bkirk@yorkautomation.com
(6/13/2005)
|
My wife owns a dog grooming shop and is one of the top breeders of English Springer Spaniels on the East Coast and advertises the fact that she is armed and that armed customers (as long as they behave themselves) are very welcome. She has never been robbed which is something that NONE of the surrounding businesses can say.
Best In Show Dog Grooming and
Kay n Dee English Springer Spaniels |
| Comment by:
bkirk@yorkautomation.com
(6/13/2005)
|
Almost forgot... If your gonna plug your business.
915 East Mason Ave.
York, PA 17403
(717) 848-5541 |
|
|
