Previous Post
Next Post

Ivette Ros, pictured with her attorney, Noel Flasterstein, courtesy

A branch manager for Wells Fargo Bank in Oldsmar, Florida is out of a job after being fired for bringing her gun to work. Ivette Ros, pictured above with her attorney Noel Flasterstein, said she doesn’t know who found out she had it or how they learned of it, but bank security questioned her about it and she was fired three days later. Now she’s filed a wrongful termination suit. Wells Fargo released a statement saying that employees are strictly prohibited from bringing firearms onto company premises, except within the bounds of the law regarding vehicle storage in company parking lots. Her attorney says that part of that statute applies to her case . . .

specifically 790.251(4)(e), which specifies that employees cannot be terminated or discriminated against “for exercising his or her constitutional right to keep and bear arms or for exercising the right of self-defense as long as a firearm is never exhibited on company property for any reason other than lawful defensive purposes.” I’ll be watching this one, though I expect it will not go far.

The Octane 45 HD is now available in FDE. It features the same CTA stainless-steel baffle stack, user serviceability, and top notch suppression levels. The new FDE finish is available exclusively through our distributor Major Malfunctions Munitions Contact your dealer today and get yours ordered! Full specs on the Octane can be found at

I apologize in advance for this. On a recent episode (maybe the most recent one, I don’t know) of The <hurp> Bachelor, it was Hometown Week or something, and so the dude visited the hometowns of some of the girls he’s totally not banging in the hot tub. One of the girls, prior to taking him home to meet mom & dad, took him to a <gasp> gun range. She shot a bullseye, naturally, and he apparently threw lead all over the range without effect. It’s possible he managed to get a bullseye at the end, though one story I read said the producers reused the shot of the girl hitting it. Reality TV, indeed. Anyway, treacly housewife trash TV combined with fun at the gun range caused some severe cognitive dissonance around this great country, I’m sure.

Police in Alberta, Canada executed multiple search warrants across southwest Edmonton on Feburary 19th, seizing 289 grams of heroin (worth $100,000), cocaine worth $12,000, Canadian and U.S. currency totaling $40,000, and three firearms: a loaded sawed-off shotgun, a Ruger with the serial number filed off, and a previously-reported-stolen Glok handgun [sic]. No word if it was a .9 mm version.

A Laredo, Texas man will spend 41 months in federal prison for trying to smuggle more than 9600 rounds of ammunition across the border into Mexico. Working a tip, police and federal agents pulled him over after he left a Walmart parking lot where he’d purchased ammo. (The story is unclear if he purchased it from the store or from another individual.) A search of his car revealed 1500 rounds in the front, and another 8160 rounds in the trunk. The 38-year-old man admitted to buying the 7.62 and .223 ammunition so that he could give it to Mexican truck drivers for transport back into Mexico.

West Virginia lawmakers are attempting to nix municipal gun control laws in Charleston and elsewhere with a pair of bills that would force municipalities to abandon any ordinances concerning the carrying or sale of guns. Cities could still prohibit the carry of concealed firearms in “municipal buildings dedicated to government operations” but nowhere else. Senate Bill 317 is in the hands of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and House Bill 4288 has not yet been heard by a committee.

Richard Ryan filmed a bunch of stuff at the SHOT Show media day, and he’s now trickling it out to his new YouTube channel, titled simply “Guns”. They’re cool, but short, so here’s three of them. It’s a slow-motion orgasm! …Wait. That didn’t come out right. First, the $2000 Benelli Ethos. Note the wadding flipping inside out.

Next, the Daniel Defense ISR (Integrally Suppressed Rifle) in 300 BLK. Do all bullets wobble like that coming out of the muzzle?

And finally, the Barrett .50 caliber QDL Suppressor. When having a $12,000 rifle isn’t bragging rights enough, stick a $3,000 piece of sewer pipe on the end of it.

That flame though, right?

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Good luck to Miss Ros.Hopefully she makes it hurt bad enough that companies realize stepping on the RKBA means an expensive settlement check.

      • To be honest, the bank’s reaction comes as no great surprise. They’re no different in that way than any other employer who says their employees are not permitted to carry firearms, and in my experience that’s most of them.

      • A company’s HR policies are CYA. Us CCing, where technically we aren’t supposed to, is also CYA. An employee agrees to adhere to company policy by signing a contract. And the more a company is able to trample RKBA is fashionable.

      • As a former wagon rider (WF employee of 13 years) I can only say that yes, carrying is against company rules (as it is at most companies, including my current employer and especially in retail banking world) but that the corporation as a whole is not anti gun. The gun is featured, albeit inconspicuously at times, in a lot of their official marketing imagery. Take a good long look at the guy riding shotgun on the wagon, for instance. For what it’s worth, my opinion would be that as a gun rights supporter you could do far worse from a banking perspective than to continue doing business with Wells Fargo.

    • Really? I see this as just another frivolous lawsuit. If your employer sets a rule and you break it you should expect to be fired when they find out. She doesn’t have to work there if she doesn’t like the rule.

      • So the employer should be able to fire you if you are the wrong religion too, then? Rights are rights. They can’t (shouldn’t) be trampled on.

        • Actually, employers should not be required to recognize your constitutional rights; those are for the relationship between the government and the people. Businesses should be able to fire employees for whatever reason they choose, including race, age, gender, crede, and religion or whatever. There is no such thing as a right to a job.

        • Yes you should be fired if you decide your religion demands that you randomly scream “All hail the spaghetti monster!” during business hours. Now if your religion is who you are, rather than how you act at work, of course you should not be fired. That’s the difference: between being and doing. Here she actively broke the bank’s policy. There’s nothing in the bill of rights that says you have the right to carry a weapon on someone else’s private property.

        • I’m with you on that Ben. To some there is no limits on employers rights, when you work for them they own you. Plantation owner mindset is supposed to be dead & buried, just not with some here.

        • Randy Drescher: It’s hardly a “plantation owner” mindset. Employment is governed under contract law. You agree to certain conditions in exchange for pay. If the conditions are intolerable you are not obliged to accept them.

          Employers need employees just as bad as employees need employers. If an employer is unable to find people willing to agree to the terms of their contract they will be forced to revise the contract to make it more favourable to the employee.

        • Paladin, Thats a well reasoned reply. I would disagree that employers are only subject to contract law though, they must obey civil rights laws etc. Lets take a severe case, a lady takes a job as an assembly person & one night the boss wants her to go to a hotel after work & makes it known that if she refuses she loses her job. Jobs are hard to come by, what if she has small children & can’t go somewhere else easily? There are some on here that say an employer can do whatever he wants to do without limit, I’m not one of them & stand by my slavery reference. Are we to bring back the “company store” too?

        • Contract law can nullify parts of contracts for being unconscionable. A company could potentially be in a position of great bargaining power over the employee and the employee has no choice but to sign an awful contract. Honestly, I still don’t see how in this day and age it could be considered conscionable to sign away a fundamental right. Is there really no precedent for the 1st amendment free speech nullifying a contract clause for not saying something?

        • B, you are not signing away a right; you reserve all rights and cannot give them up under the constitution. You have no right, however, to employed by that bank.

        • That’s just silly nonsense. Your constitutional rights are not given by the gov’t (or an other individual or organization). These rights can not be taken away by such, can not be bargained away or traded away. In particular under duress (that would be extortion). Your Constitutional Rights (if you are an American Citizen) come from our create. You fill in what/who you think your creator is if you don’t understand what God is. But in any case, NO ONE, can suspend for any reason. Progressive bilge and brainwashing of the last 150yr aside.

          Some of you really have a weak understanding of what is different about the US than in Eurp where man was a serf with only temporary “rights” handed out by the self-anoited. Or are some of you lefttard disinformation agents de internet?

        • Should they be able to fire someone for exercising their constitutional rights? Yes. Those constitutional rights only protect you from the government. If you exercise your right to free speech by insulting my wife or daughter, I will at least attempt to kick your ass.

          Should they be able to fire you if you practice a certain religion? Well… I’d still have to say yes. Again, you’re only protected from the government. And like others have said, working is a privilege, not a right. Specifically, I hate working with a certain religion that requires a prayer break 4 or 5 times a day. They still get payed for it, and I wind up covering for them. So, I wouldn’t hire one on purpose.

          If the company says “no guns at work” and you signed a document saying you wouldn’t… well, as long as the state doesn’t preempt that, don’t bring your gun inside. I can’t bring my gun inside either.

          Now if they fired her for having her gun in her car, and state law says the company cannot restrict that, well… then they have a case.

  2. Dude, you watched The Bachelor? Surrender you man card immediately, or remove it from the state, or disable it permanently so that it can never be used again.

    • My wife watches it, so it was on. The girl is pretty, she’s an assistant DA in Georgia, and she brought a normal, safe, and fun looking gun experience to millions of people who otherwise get their dose of guns on TV from the mainstream media. I would call it a bigger win than most realize.

      • It was a very clean range, the girl is smart (i.e. not any sort of dumb southern redneck caricature), used a fairly-tricked-out AR, and the man didn’t hit anything with his handgun (Glock?). Not even paper, until the very end when he finds the bullseye. Uhuh…sure. Obviously just overly-dramatic editing, but hey…it’s a reality show. But even I was shocked to see them run this segment in primetime. Let the normalization continue.

    • @Brian – WTF are you talking about??? There are 2 and ONLY 2 no go places in Missouri (the Metro and the public bus). BANKS ARE NOT PROHIBITED PLACES in MO. Read the Weapons statute again and read Section 2 “it is not be a crime”. Hell, MO is the MOST gun friendly place. I even have carried into the stadiums. . . .

      • You’re right, my bad. The instructor merely noted that all the banks in my area had signs posted and I must have transferred that mentally to mean all banks. Duly noted and thanks for the correction.

    • Full disclosure from the article:

      Criminal proceedings were brought against Wachovia, though not against any individual, but the case never came to court. In March 2010, Wachovia settled the biggest action brought under the US bank secrecy act, through the US district court in Miami. Now that the year’s “deferred prosecution” has expired, the bank is in effect in the clear. It paid federal authorities $110m in forfeiture, for allowing transactions later proved to be connected to drug smuggling, and incurred a $50m fine for failing to monitor cash used to ship 22 tons of cocaine.

      Wachovia was acquired by Wells Fargo during the 2008 crash, just as Wells Fargo became a beneficiary of $25bn in taxpayers’ money. Wachovia’s prosecutors were clear, however, that there was no suggestion Wells Fargo had behaved improperly; it had co-operated fully with the investigation.

      Words are important. They convey meaning. Read them. All.

    • That’s true, but none of those cartel guys were carrying guns in the bank. Dufflebags full of cash, yes, but not guns.

  3. What is it with armed citizens posing with their guns for news stories? It’s just weird. If, God forbid, I somehow become newsworthy, I’m not pulling out my gun for no camera.

    • Yeah, I agree. Guns aren’t a fashion accessory; maybe that’s how someone magically found out she had it. And her lawyer should at least know better than to do that little photo shoot.

      • Definitely. If you’re involved in any kind of firearms-related legal matter, and your lawyer suggests that you and he pose together with your handguns for a press photo, you really need a new lawyer.

    • The difference between making a pro-gun statement this way or attending an Open Carry rally?

      She is a normal and law-abiding person being targeted for exercising her Second Amendment protected rights. The business MAY have the legal right to dismiss her for carrying inside the bank, that’s for the courts to decide, but SHE has a right to use the incident to lobby for normalization of the right to keep and bear arms, including being photographed with her weapon, and her armed attorney.

      • Just because someone has a right doesn’t make it smart to do. As pointed out above, while you may not realize the implications for a legal situation of doing such a thing a lawyer SHOULD. Unless, of course, he’s more interested in making a name for himself.

        That little photo does little more than show her playing with a gun for no good reason, posing like a 16 year old on a car and showing exactly the kind of behavior that the bank wants to prevent.

  4. Could somebody help me understand the value of suppressing a .50 anti-matter rifle? I was under the impression that suppressors don’t make a massive difference (certainly not the way they are portrayed in movies and TV shows, where the sound of the shell hitting the ground is louder than the actual gunshot), only offering a reduction of maybe 40db at most.

    And with a .50 rifle, you’re not exactly going for subtlety. What’s the benefit of such a thing? I notice the guy shooting it in the video was still wearing ear protection, despite the addition of the suppressor….

    • The government suppresses the .50 anti-matter rifle because if that technology fell into the wrong hands, it would mean the end of the universe. Either that or limitless cheap energy. Bad either way.

    • Well, in this case the non-suppressed version kicks up a huge dust cloud in front of the muzzle, as well, as a very large backblast from the brake. This suppressor is designed to cut that down. It also does cut the sound down quite a bit, though still not to ear-safe levels. Another use of suppressors is to help cut down on the directionality of the sound, so it’s harder to tell where the shot came from. I think all of those things are in play here.

      • Mine will blow your hat off if you sit left or right of the buttstock by 3-4 feet.
        I’d the ground is dry, it’s a huge cloud that gets kicked up.
        I would like to try a supressor on it. Just so I wouldn’t need to wear plugs, muffs and a cone of silence.

    • Well as somebody who has been forced to shoot that piece of crap, the barret requires two sets of ear pro if you got good hearing, and your spotter has to sit on your back, otherwise he will get hit with the blast and be useless, so this should definitely help. Good suppressors can do more than most people think, but this probably is for the fact that the barret has one of the absolute worst signatures of any gun when firing, so it should help that some. It still amazes me that people like this gun.

    • As I understand, it makes locating theshooter by sound more difficult. I’ve heard that it removes the echo, but I am in no way certain about that. Also, it is an anti-materiél rifle.

      The Anti-Matter Rifle is still in DARPA’s secret stash of fun stuff that we can’t have.

    • The guy in the video said that the suppressor would make the rifle more comfortable to fire, which I guess means that if you’re going to shoot it repeatedly you’d have a little more of your hearing left afterwards than if you’d shot it without the suppressor. He also mentioned that it reduced the muzzle flash and that the rifle wouldn’t kick up as much dust. Mostly these rifles are used to shoot at objects that are in space orbiting around the Earth, so when you shoot it without the silencer the muzzle flash and the debris being kicked up is usually visible as far away as the moon, but with this suppressor you can barely even see or hear the rifle beyond the stratosphere.

  5. The Bill of Rights protects your rights, but not your job. Employers can fire you for actions protected under the 1st amendment, never mind the 2nd amendment.

    • Exactly. If you work for Coca Cola and you go on CNN and say that Pepsi is better, you might be exercising your freedom of speech, but Coke can and will fire you.

        • Meh, the Doctor is better than coke or pepsi. (Dr. Pepper that is) I mean, come on, that drink went to med school.

        • The Doctor is only better than Coke if said Doctor consists of 3 parts Amaretto and 1 part Bacardi 151 (95% grain alcohol is an acceptable substitute) in a shot glass which is then ignited, dropped into a glass of beer, and the resulting mixture consumed posthaste.

          And, no, Pepsi is not better than Coke.

          In order of decreasing palatability: Coca-Cola, Dr. Pepper, Bertie Bott’s Every Flavour Beans (Earwax), Crunchy Frog, 3-day-old goat piss, Jack and Pepsi, Pepsi.

      • Better yet, when I worked for Coca Cola you could/would be terminated for drinking a Pepsi product on the clock. Had a co-worker who was suspended for stopping at a fast food joint that sold Pepsi products and ordered a Dr. Pepper. Didn’t matter that it was actually a Coke product, it was in a Pepsi cup… in his personal vehicle.

  6. She knowingly, and willfully violated company policy without regard for the consequences, she doesn’t have a leg to stand on…this isn’t a matter of someone being denied their 2nd Amendment right, it’s more about someone deliberately and knowingly violating company policy…

    • There appears to be a state law that (should) trump company policy which states she can have a gun at work as long as she doesn’t show it to anyone. The statute uses the word “exhibited” which implies an intent for it to be seen. I’d like to see a state that prevents people being fired for responsible concealed carry, just as an experiment. I’d like more for it to not be a big deal to coworkers or management.

      • She showed it to someone, told someone, or someone is psychic… otherwise she wouldn’t be in this situation.

        We see these stories pop up at least once a week where someone would have been just fine carrying a gun except they decide to show it off… usually to impress someone. Stupid is as stupid does.

        • Maybe she thought she was buddy buddy enough with a co worker to share a secret with. Or she printed or didn’t securely Velcro the holster pouch on her carry purse. I’ll agree she was careless in some way.

          What just occurred to me is the possibility that she deliberately created the conflict to justify some litigious activism, in light of the pose in that picture up there.

          When I read the headline and then saw her in the pic my first thought was “oh, I bet.”

  7. While I support her right to be armed, I may suggest she get some training in BASIC gun handling. Notice in the video she breaks pretty much all the rules. She hands off a LOADED gun to those who may not know a damn thing about gun. She manages to muzzle sweep EVERYBODY (including her attorney who claims to be a gun guy) in the room while passing around a loaded gun.

    Purely my take,,,,, if you are gonna be on TV at least know what the hell you are doing.

    Watch the video here:

    • Yeah, that video is pretty bad in terms of gun safety. She hands the reporter a gun with the admonition that “it’s loaded” and to “be careful” while she indeed slow sweeps everyone on the other side of the conference table.

  8. Was the Texas man smuggling ammo for the cartels, or for the vigilantes who are resisting the cartels, because the federales are too busy (paid off) to bother?

  9. Re: Wells Fargo – There are businesses and there are businesses. I remember a while back when once a year a business owner I knew took his employees skeet shooting and then to lunch.

    It’s all about liability. The bigger the business the bigger the liability. If publicly traded that liability passes on to the stockholders. And the insurance companies don’t want it either.

  10. I wouldn’t use my gun to stop a bank robbery, unless the BGs were trying to herd everyone in the back, or began executing people. At that point, game on.

    Two reasons:
    1. FDIC.
    2. F*ck banks!

      • Bankers all rat scoundrels as far as I’m concerned…

        Go down to the bank and attempt to take out a few thousand bucks out of your account, it’s your money, but they act like you’re a complete jackass for wanting it.

        I sold something to a buddy not too long ago and he wrote me a check for it, went to his bank to cash the check and it was like trying to pull teeth. It was only a grand, Jesus, it’s a bank, not coin machine.

    • The only problem with that I see is that they likely will actually have to execute at least one person before you can respond, if you can at all.

      Once they walk in and point a weapon at someone, there is ability, opportunity and jeopardy. THAT is generally taken as our signal for action.

      It’s not about the bank or protecting their money.

      Just food for thought.

      Of Course, there are a lot of variables and the like.

  11. As I look at it, yes, the company is allowed to fire her. However, I think somebody should bring a case to court for injuries suffered at the hands of a criminal while disarmed by company fiat, and establish the precedent that a company that thereby creats a victim disarmament zone assumes complete and absolute liability for all injuries sustained by thusly disarmed employees at the hands of the assailant. OR, put more simply, if the company actively forbids me reasonable, legal measures for personal safety, THEY are liable

Comments are closed.