Gunhub.com banner

1 - 2 of 2 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,935 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Okay, I tend to pick on gun-owning AOL users for their choice of ISP due to the company's anti-gun activities, and it's corporate (Time-Warner) parent's long-standing, and open, antipathy toward the Second Amendment and law-abiding firearms owners.

People who are quick to shout "Boycott!" when Smith & Wesson, K-Mart or Ben & Jerry's does something inimical to our Second Amendment interests, are often quite willing to overlook their own service provider's similar offenses, and rationalize staying with AOL.

But it's a fact that on 14 September 2000, AOL discharged three exemplary employees for no reason other than the fact that they were (legally) in possession of firearms in their vehicles for the purposes of a scheduled trip, on their own time, to go shooting at a range near Eden, Utah.

The narrative of that event and the circumstances is documented by Dr. Sarah Thompson, and TGZ has long offered some facts about AOL and its policies.

Now, an update on the situation by Luke Hansen, one of the three terminated workers, has just been added.

Everyone is free to make their own decision, of course, but I view AOL in much the same way that Rec.Guns' Moderator Magnum ("S&W must die!") feels about S&W, and feel that allowing the merger of AOL, Time-Warner and (Ted) Turner Enterprises was a blunder which only the Clinton Administration could have allowed! (Although, in truth, I'm beginning to suspect that Ashcroft would have back Janet Reno on that one.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
356 Posts
In this case IMHO AOL was entirely within their rights. This has nothing what so ever to do with either the 2nd Amendment or the Utah Gun Laws. This is simply a Conditions of Employment issue and I wish it had not gone to the higher court.

While I think AOLs policies are sad, and counter productive, Companies do have the right to establish conditions of employment. The company has a policy of no firearms oat work. The portion of the parking lot where it occurred is leased by AOL and reserved for the exclusive use of AOL. The employess were not CCW. They were not carrying, rather moving guns from car to car or showing them off.

In this case, IMHO, the employees were wrong and AOL, however missguided, in the right.
 
1 - 2 of 2 Posts
Top