Down in Nick Leghorn’s neck of the woods, a disgruntled IT employee brought a gun to work after his termination was formalized for creeping out his his coworkers. “(Scott) Trammell, a computer server manager, was fired around noon Wednesday and told not to return to the building,” mysa.com reports. “The termination came after employees and security there said he sent emails ‘disturbing to the workplace.’ . . .
Police couldn’t confirm the content of the emails or whether Trammell directly threatened anyone. Security called police to file a report and around 4:30 p.m., when officers were in the building, Trammell showed up saying he had to get some personal belongings.
Officers searched Trammell and found a loaded handgun, a bullet already in the chamber, and another clip in the front pockets of his shorts, the report said.
This news hits close to home. I work in Texas. And I work in IT. I also work in a gun free workplace. The people in this building are damn lucky that security/law enforcement (the article wasn’t clear) searched this guy. It’s not likely that the employer’s stern “no guns allowed” sign would have slowed Trammell down much.
Hmm… clip in his shorts pocket? So he had a Mauser C96 then?
or maybe a M1 Garand
Looks to be on the lower end of the payscale. It was an SKS. Pistol.
I can’t tell if that’s a win or a fail.
Or maybe a paper clip…
He probably had one of those Borchardt pistols. You know…the ones with that newfangled removable magazine.
I really think that any business that denies it’s employees or customers their right to defend themselves should be held liable for any criminal act that occurs on their property. Furthermore I think that the bureaucrat who made these policies should be charged as accessory to these crimes.
When you take away a persons ability to defend themselves you better be sure that you are going to protect them and are willing to accept the consequences should you fail.
So now you are taking away private business’ rights? It’s not the private business’ duty to protect you. It’s your duty to stay away from private businesses that you don’t feel adequately protected when entering. Their property, their rules, not yours.
No; They have every right to take away someones ability to defend themselves. However if they do so they must take responsibility to do it themselves. To do otherwise is simply negligent.
And it’s not just businesses that pull this shit. I have disarm myself every time I go to class as well. The only way to carry a firearm on campus is to get a waver from the campus safety administrator and she still hasn’t allowed anyone to do it even though we’ve had two students abducted and murdered last year.
You can choose not to work somewhere that does not allow you to defend yourself. If you choose to work there anyhow then its your choice, not theirs.
You’ll learn one day. Your rights do not trump a property owners rights.
From what I’ve seen EVERY company has these sort of restrictions. So if all my choices are the same, do I really have a choice. As far as i’m concerned discriminating against gun owners should be treated in the same way as discriminating against Jews or blacks or members of certain political parties.
There are plenty of jobs where you can carry. Security, government, even military. If you don’t like your choices then go create your own company.
Stop trying to tell other what they can or cannot do with their own investments and property. I expect when you get a bit older the light bulb will finally click. I know you are super excited about your new permit.
ummm, not in the military – remember Ft. Hood? A cop had to stop the shooter b/c apparently we don’t trust our men and women in uniform.
“There are plenty of jobs where you can carry. Security, government, even military. ”
I would prefer a job that actually pays well.
Rights come with responsibilities. I fully support their right to limit firearms. But I also hold them responsible for any harm that comes to people they have disarmed.
“Your rights do not trump a property owners rights.”
So a private property owner can rape you on their property because their rights trump yours? The obvious answer is an emphatic “no”. Rather, a private property owner’s rights extend only to dictating the use of their property — and even that is limited to uses that do not endanger others. A private property owner that forbids possession of firearms is not dictating the use of their property, they are denying self-defense which they have no legitimate power to do. The right to life is inalienable and always supersedes private property rights. To deny someone self defense is to deny them life.
It is no more appropriate to state that a property owner can strip a person of their right to be clothed (no pun intended) than to state that a property owner can strip a person of their right to defend themselves.
“So now you are taking away private business’ rights? It’s not the private business’ duty to protect you.”
The way I see it, it should be the private business’s duty to protect you IF they are going to take away your right to protect yourself. Property rights should definately give way to the personal rights of life and liberty.
Joe’s response shows just how thoroughly the powers-that-be have brainwashed the citizens. Neither a business nor a private property owner can take away your right to protect yourself! Our right to life is inalienable. And such a right is meaningless if we cannot protect our life during an attack.
Can a business or private property owner prohibit an employee or guest from using their fists, hiding under an object, or running away during an attack? The obvious answer is “no”. Can they prohibit an employee or guest from throwing a stapler or a rock at an attacker? Again the obvious answer is “no”. Well the only difference between throwing a rock and “throwing” a bullet is the mass and velocity of the object hurling through the air.
We need to seriously educate our fellow citizens on this basic truth.
So since its their company and their property, they can choose to have elevators without doors, or bathrooms without handicap access, or high voltage wires dangling from the ceilings? I’m not saying you’re wrong necessarily, but simply saying “its their property” isnt enough.
Does castle doctrine not apply when you’re at your work?
I’d rather be fired than robbed, raped, or murdered.
Ouch that is getting by just barely..
I guess his WoW fueled post apocalyptic rant that he sent to the all distribution list didn’t go over very well did it….
He may be unemployed but at least now he has someplace to sleep and 3 hots a day.
So he had a pocket pistol. Hardly the first choice for a spree killer. For all we know he was just a CCW holder, he did indeed go back to get his belongings, since he was no longer an employee, he was no longer bound by their policies, and carried as a private citizen making a call on a business. Now, if they had a “no weapons” sign out front, they can get him for whatever infraction that is, and if he refused to leave when requested, they could have gotten him for trespassing. But I’m hesitant to jump on this guy just because he peacefully exercised his 2nd Amendment rights on the same day he was fired. Let’s see some other evidence of intent before slandering the guy. If he had been threatening people, I suspect we’d hear all about it.
Um, yeah, that’s one way of looking at this guy…
I could see that. Thanks!
Yes, however “The report called Trammell’s former office a “government workplace.” If it was a government office that changes things, legally anyway.
I checked, it is a DoD contractor and you need an active security clearance to work there.
+1 We shouldn’t condemn this man when we don’t know all the facts. He could have been circulating pro-gun emails that “disturbed” his workplace. For all we know his former employer might not have posted the required 30-06 signage, his carrying to go and pick up stuff he left there might have been totally legitimate.
Sounds like the business was being responsible to me. When a former employee showed up, they searched him. By doing so, they met the basic requirement of protecting their employees. Are you saying the place would have been safer if half the employees in the place were all carrying? I am not sure there is any evidence to support that theory.
Let’s say this guy intended to shoot up the place if he got in w/ his gun. Are you saying that if your were in there you’re not sure if you’d want half your co-workers to have guns? You’d rather the bad guy have the only gun in there while he tries to shoot everyone?
I carry anyway..but if all employees were allowed to have guns at his job he would have been armed at the time of the “disturbing” emails and could of/would have used his gun then.
either way the company felt threaten. he was dismissed for “disturbing” reasons and knew they had a no firearms policy. he should have left it in the car.
A fired employee came back 4 hours after being fired at my company and it ended badly. So I can understand the company’s actions.