Still wanna support AOL?

[Sniper[MI]]

http://www.nraila.org/CurrentLegisla...d.aspx?ID=1174


America Online Can Fire Gun-Owning Employees Utah High Court Rules



Friday, July 23, 2004

Self-defense took a big blow this week when the Utah Supreme Court upheld the right of America Online (AOL), America`s largest on-line service provider, to fire three employees whose firearms were stored in the trunks of their cars in the parking lot of an AOL call center in Ogden, Utah. In a decision that diminishes rights guaranteed under both the Utah and the U.S. Constitution, the court acknowledged the individual right to keep and bear arms, but said the right of a business to regulate its own property is more important!

Complying with this decision could potentially cost an employee his or her life--violent criminals certainly aren`t going to obey such a ban. It may also diminish employees` abilities to hunt or target shoot after work.

The issue is becoming a hot legislative topic in the states. This year Oklahoma passed HB 2122 ensuring that employees with guns in their cars were not fired or harassed, and it was debated in several other states.

Please look to future editions of the Grassroots Alert for developing information on this issue.

:insane: :insane: :insane:

!!!!?!?!?!?

Are you still using AOL? Time to switch, or your aiding the anti gunners who are eroding our freedoms one step at a time! These 3 BROKE NO LAWS, yet a pack of uber commie Lib judges make another swipe at our freedoms!

[Shaun]

I read this its absolutely ridiculous that these guys should have what they keep in their own car subjected to this -- they were doing nothing wrong -- I think the next time I see someone in the office with a golf club even if its in thier car I am going to report them to HR that I am feeling threated by them having such a dangerous weapon in the office.

[Dale]

Shaun, I'm not sure how to phrase this without you, or others, getting the wrong idea of what I'm saying.

Although I detest the way some decisions are going against gun owners I can see the need to allow property owners to control their property as they see fit and feel is in their best interest (even if we disagree with their actions and logics).

Should commercial properties loose the liberty to decide what goes on on their properties then the private home and property owners will soon be slated to loose their ability to control their property.

As one domino is pushed and falls so too shall all that are in that line.


Again, please don't construe my remarks as a blanket comment that insinuates I agree with the oppression and penalizing of gun ownership of any sort.

[Gyrene]

I tend to agree with Dale, because of the inference of reinforcing our rights on our own property.

The details of how AOL found that the employees had guns in their cars would have an important bearing on what was done. For instance, did they have a vehicle inspection? Did their security catch people handling guns in the parking lot? Were the employees talking about the guns in their cars?

If they had a vehicle inspection, then I would say that AOL intruded on the rights of the employees, and the Courts decision should be appealed! As far as the employees getting caught handling guns in the parking lot, then I could understand the Courts decision. As to the individuals talking about the guns they had in their cars, that is not evidence, and the employees were wronged.

[Shaun]

Dale then the business (small or large ) is going to have the take on 100% responsibility for their employees safety ---that would mean I would expect the company to be responsible for my safety from the point I leave my home to the point I arrive at home at night. Because I am unarmed I am unable to afford myself the protection that I would otherwise have when I am carrying. As I have told my family if I am ever injured in a workplace incident then they are too sue the company to the fullest because they have a policy that says I am only to be a victim and not to fight back. My car is my private property and its none of their business

[colt45]

i switched off Aol yeras ago when they publicly supported and helped fund legislation that we all know and are at this moment wait for it to sunset.
they have a long history of anti gun standings.
and allmost every place i have every work has a clause right in your hireing packet the tells you not to bring weapons into on on the company property.

[Dale]

The thought of suing anyone, and winning, because they aren't allowed to carry in/into a particular business is a futile attempt, at best.

To think success at suing is an option then we'd better be prepared to sue any bank in the event there is a robbery and mental anguish or injury is incurred.

The same holds true should we walk into a bar, Post Office, government building, etc. and something happens.

I don't see any court, or jury for that matter, awarding anyone monetary compensation because a peson was injured, killed or sustained mental anguish SOLELY because they were in a place that had a no carry policy.

Especially if a good Attorney points out to the jury that commercial property is owned and can be regulated just like their own properties.

Companies regulating what goes on in/on their property is a given.

My suggestion is to avoid those places if it's that much of an issue. If avoidance is not an option then I guess property owner rights need to be ralized and accepted.

The same suggestion to avoid is brought up many times about not frequenting anti-gun businesses....the same holds true here.

I still subscribe that property owners also have an inherant right as to what to expect on/in their property....be it commercial or private property (and commercial is still considered private property)

I would sure it if someone walked on to my property and told me I could no longer control or direct what happens on my property and, therefore, anyone coming onto my property could carry whatever they wished.

But, I realize that I disagree on some points and I also realize that is not a popular thing to do.

God forbid if my view is somewhat different and I stick by my guns (pun intended), LOL.

[Shaun]

Dale we may differ on this but I do understand where you are coming from -- one of my general policies on my properties is that when your there I welcome your being armed. Because it demonstrates that you are taking the responsibility of your safety into your own hands and not relying on others to take care of you . I also avoid businesses that are anti such as not flying with northwest or doing business with AOL.

[Stopper]

I half arssed agree with you both. Private property is just that and the property owner should have the say whether I agree or not. But, if they will not allow a person the right to defend themselves on said property, then that property owner is liable if something happens to someone on thier property. It's not a "enter at your own risk" situation because it happens to be a place of employment.

I think it's a chitty deal, thats why I will not work for AOL or use thier services.

[lefty o]

i agree with dale 100%, while i think it shows poor taste on aol's part. they own the property and they make the rules. if you happen to work there and dont like the companies policies, you have the freedom to quit and go find a job with a more agreeable company.

[Rufus Rhastus J]

I got rid of AOL a while ago, too much hassle and too much ,martketing as well as, too much snooping by AOL.

[NorCalAshnjikov]

http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/antigun-aol2.html

AOL Fires Gun Owners!
America On-Line takes the Second Amendment "off-line."
America Online, http://www.aol.com, has been known to gun owners for some time for their support of anti-gun organizations and policies. They've donated large sums of money to liberal, anti-gun Democrat organizations to support people like Dianne Feinstein, Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy.

More recently, they've canceled accounts for firearms related Web sites on the grounds that such material is no different from "pornography." Never mind that guns are entirely legal items owned by tens of millions of Americans. Never mind that AOL doesn't seem to think that disgustingly offensive rock music is a problem.

Now, in another step towards the final elimination of gun owners from "civilized society," AOL has fired three exemplary workers for having firearms in their cars in order to go shooting at a range on their own time!

The three employees are Luke Hansen, Jason Melling and Paul Carlson. All three worked as "partner technical consultants" at AOL's Ogden, Utah facility, doing higher level technical support. The Ogden facility employs about 850 people, according to AOL's Web site, and "handles a range of technical, billing, third-party and sales calls."

According to Mr. Hansen, they had worked at AOL for two to four years, and all had good employee records and good reviews from their supervisors. Unfortunately (at least from AOL's point of view), the three young men also enjoy shooting.

On September 14, 2000, Luke, Jason and Paul met after work in the AOL parking lot to go shooting at the gun range near Eden, Utah. In order to carpool to the range, Jason and Paul transferred their firearms from their own cars to Luke's truck, a matter of carrying them a few yards. Jason transferred a .30-06 hunting rifle and a 9mm Smith & Wesson handgun. Both firearms were unloaded and in cases. Paul transferred a .45 Colt "cowboy style" pistol and a 7.62 X 39mm SKS. The Colt was in a holster, and both firearms were unloaded. The handguns had trigger locks in place. Luke's firearms were in his truck and he never touched Jason or Paul's firearms. At no time did they brandish or handle the firearms in a threatening or unsafe manner. Luke and Paul hold valid Utah concealed weapons permits, and Jason is in the process of obtaining one, so all three are familiar with safe handling and Utah laws.

Although all three of them worked during the subsequent three days, nothing about the firearms was mentioned. However, on Monday, Sept. 18, all three were fired for "violating AOL's employee policy" which states that firearms are forbidden on company property, including the parking lot. According to Luke, although no one complained, an overzealous security guard saw the firearms on a video surveillance tape and reported the alleged violations.

AOL does have its firearms policy posted inside the front and back doors of the building, stating that firearms are not permitted in the building or in the parking lot, and all three employees were aware of this policy. However, they were also aware that AOL's policy violates Utah state law. AOL states that it is a "secure facility," although under Utah law secure facilities can be designated only by the legislature, and include places such as courts, airports, mental health facilities, and prisons. By definition, a place open to the public cannot be a "secure facility," and AOL's parking lot is open to the public. (Actually, it's a group of marked stalls in a public parking lot.) In addition, a secure facility is required to provide locked safe storage for anyone lawfully carrying a firearm, and to accept responsibility for stored firearms, something that AOL clearly was not equipped to do.

On a previous occasion about two months ago, the three men had also transferred firearms after work, and had been reported to management. At that time, Luke Hansen met with AOL's General Manager, Sarah McElwee. At that time, he explained to Ms. McElwee that while AOL might be able to restrict firearms in the building, it could not restrict firearms in a public parking lot, and that AOL did not meet the criteria for a "secure facility." Mr. Hansen says he thought the matter was resolved at the time, although no written changes were made to AOL's policy. Ironically, Ms. McElwee's husband is known for the very fine firearms he makes!

As a result of the firing, Paul is still looking for work. Jason, who has a wife and just bought a new home, has found a new job. So has Luke, who is expecting his first child in February.

It appears that AOL management, and especially Ric Waiters, the AOL manager who fired the three, want to force the issue of illegal, politically correct, gun bans. Fortunately for gun owners everywhere, Luke Hansen, Jason Melling and Paul Carlson are not going to take this lying down! They're not willing to see their rights, or the rights of any other Utah gun owners destroyed by America Online. So they've decided to take on America Online, the 800 lb gorilla of anti-gun corporations.

As Luke wrote in a recent email: "If AOL is allowed to continue with illegal company policies like this, then ALL companies in Utah can adopt similar policies. Your employer can whittle away at your gun rights, and get away with it. The 3 of us have chosen to take a stand, because this is something that we feel very deeply about. We believe that this is truly an issue that affects ALL Utah gun owners and ALL Utah CCW carriers. These aren't just our rights that were violated, they are your rights too."

The real issue here is whether gun owners are going to be demonized and excluded from participation in ordinary life, whether we're going to become the last persecuted minority. Remember that most Americans in the "old South" didn't assault African-Americans; they simply told them they couldn't work in "white" businesses, attend "white" schools and churches, eat eat in "white restaurants" or live in "white" neighborhoods. Likewise, the Nazis first told Jews that they couldn't work in German businesses, attend German schools, or otherwise participate in German society. Once the Jews had been isolated, so that ordinary Germans no longer interacted with them, it was much easier for the Nazis to convince people that Jews were an "inferior race" and a "public health menace"... and that they should be murdered for "the public good".

If we allow ourselves to be isolated and demonized in the minds of our fellow Americans, then we too will one day find ourselves forbidden to interact with non gun owners. We too will find ourselves unable to find work, to send our children to school, to attend the religious services of our choice, or to eat in restaurants, shop in stores, or attend movies and sporting events. (In addition to this AOL case, there is a ballot initiative circulating to prohibit gun owners from entering schools and religious facilities in Utah.) Eventually we will find ourselves rounded up into concentration camps or stalked by "public servants" seeking to imprison or kill us.

So it's critically important that we resist each and every attempt to isolate and persecute gun owners NOW - before it's too late!

Last week, Hansen, Carlson and Melling filed suit against AOL for wrongful termination. They are being represented by James "Mitch" Vilos, a local attorney, firearms dealer, and author of the book Utah Gun Law: Good, Bad and Ugly, available at www.firearmslaw.com. Mitch is also the founder of the Utah Gun Owners Legal Defense (U-GOLD) fund.

AOL has so far refused to comment. Mace Molen, the Director of Human Resources has a message on his phone saying he's "on vacation" until November 3.

Mr. Vilos believes the three have an excellent chance of winning their lawsuit. Like many freedom-loving states, Utah is a "right to work" or "at will" state, meaning that an employee can be fired at any time. However, Mr. Vilos points out that an employee may NOT be fired if doing so violates public policy. For example an employer may not fire an employee for being Catholic or Asian, because that would violate state and federal anti-discrimination laws.

[Shaun]

have no need for aol

[Rufus Rhastus J]

AOL sucks, as stated above, I got rid of them a long time ago. I will NEVER do business with them again...never!

[NRAJOE]

Never have supported "Ahole hell".....

[11c_infantry]

I haven't used AOL in years because it sucks.....now I just have more reason to never use it again.

[Despoiler]

I hate AOL, I hated them before reading this.

[Rave]

Dropped AOL due to high prices and anti-gun stances.

[Rufus Rhastus J]

AOL sucks, plain and simple. Besides, their politics suck, to!