TexasCHLforum.com

goose wrote:I hope that this is as awesome as it sounds. I will hope that Charles weighs in with his thoughts. I know that this has interested him some as well.

Well, it's not Heller-magnitude, but I think it is a significant brick in the wall of protection and acceptance of the 2A. Lord knows the federal level is still a chancy mess, the more things are enshrined at the state level, the better off we will all be. I see this in the same vein as the case where Utah Supreme Court ruled that self-defense is a public policy exception to the at-will doctrine: UT: Can't fire employees for defending selves. The case(s) is (are) not about self-defense and the 2A; it (they) take that as a given, and apply them to other areas of the law.

Three yards and a cloud of dust.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2016032 ... l-remedies

Specifically, the Mississippi Supreme Court held that a terminated employee may sue his ex-employer under the parking lot law. Employers had held that the parking lot law did not restrict them from banning firearms in parked cars because it did not expressly provide for a cause of action for the employee, but the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled that the legislature created an exception to the state's at-will employment doctrine.

The employee sued for wrongful termination in Federal Court, and the district trial court dismissed his suit "with prejudice" because it “[could not] say that the Mississippi Supreme Court would recognize a third exception to the doctrine of at-will employment,”.

The employee appealed to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals who sent the question to the Mississippi Supreme Court. Whelp, 9-0, the district court can now say there's an exception in Mississippi's employment at will doctrine.

The opinion: https://courts.ms.gov/Images/HDList/..% ... 111640.pdf

BTW, the parking lot law has a provision exempting the employer from liability for bad things arising from the employees possession of a firearm in his vehicle within the limits of the law. The employer tried to argue this protection from liability meant it couldn't be sued by the employee for his termination in violation of the law. So apparently the employer thought the law only protected the employer, not the employee!. The court kicked that one back too.