to Celtic159Unfortunately in this country, there's too few people who understand this concept. Instead of No Smoking Laws, there should be CHOICES; perhaps I'll open a business (restaurant, bar, etc) that caters to smokers and see how the free market does. That way, smokers can come to my business and non-smokers can go elsewhere. Very simple except for the non-smokers who insist on coming to my business, so they get a law passed making all business non-smoking. WE LET THEM DO IT! That is how freedoms and rights disappear, a little bit at a time.
I respect this pharmacist for what he did--he made a choice, a personal decision and stuck by it, probably knowing that it violated his company policy. He did what he felt was best and it proved to be so. American's (that's all of us collectively) have become so litiginous that most every company and organization has some similar policy about weapons in place. Not necessarily from an anti-weapons or anti-self protection standpoint, but from a liability concern. In this case, Walgreen's took the additional step of firing the employee when they probably had the option to avoid firing by 'counselling' the individual regarding the companies policies. Then Walgreen's could have looked proactive, the pharmacist could continue to make his decisions regarding concealed carry at work and the world would have been a better place for it.
I would encourage everyone to continue to let Walgreen's know how they feel about self-protection and the data that supports weapons carry by law-abiding citizens. I boycott businesses and organizations that actively are anti-2A/anti-gun so when I see sign in the windows that state 'no firearms' or similar then those businesses are non-existant to me. I understand they all need company policies for self-protection, but that doesn't mean I should lose my ability for self-protection.
As I've said, I think the Walgreens policy is ill-advised, but it is absolutely their right to decide what goes on in their stores.[/
