Self-Protection

[WatTyler]

Just to play devil's advocate here, what about private property rights? If Walgreen's doesn't want firearms in their stores, don't they have the absolute right to determine that? Seems to me that a business owner should be able to determine who he serves and what he allows within his place of business.

As a consumer, I'm free to patronize that business or not.

Good point. But, if the right to Life is indeed unalienable and endowed by the Creator, and if self-protection is contained within that right, then I believe it trumps private property rights - but what do I know? The Fifth Amendment was placed in the Bill of Rights as a protection for property rights. The same writers deemed that Life needed no such protection, as it constituted what they considered a Natural Law (actually, to be precise, a Natural Right - people were quite precise about such concepts back then); pre-existing, and, as said in the Declaration, unalienable. The owner of a gas station, for instance, can enforce a rigid no smoking policy on the premises, as is his statutory right. But he cannot enforce a no breathing policy.

 

[BondJamesBond]

Good point. But, if the right to Life is indeed unalienable and endowed by the Creator, and if self-protection is contained within that right, then I believe it trumps private property rights - but what do I know? The Fifth Amendment was placed in the Bill of Rights as a protection for property rights. The same writers deemed that Life needed no such protection, as it constituted what they considered a Natural Law (actually, to be precise, a Natural Right - people were quite precise about such concepts back then); pre-existing, and, as said in the Declaration, unalienable. The owner of a gas station, for instance, can enforce a rigid no smoking policy on the premises, as is his statutory right. But he cannot enforce a no breathing policy.

It still comes down to personal choice. If Walgreen doesn't want firearms in or on their property, then that is their choice. If someone cannot imagine being out of their house without a firearm, then they too have the choice to not shop or work at Walgreen.

 

[jehu]

Walgreens and many other companies don't really care about your safety and definitely not your life force - being. After you are killed in an incident, those companies/stores can review their security cameras that will help in catching the killer, so the tax payers can provide support by keeping the criminal in prison. Your dead and we pay taxes to keep criminals alive. What F up ideology.

Good points!! What it comes down to is you and you alone are responsible for your self protection. Remember alot of these unfathered and unchurched animals have never been taught right from wrong and are drugged out and so desperate for what they need that they will shoot you even if they get what they want. Take care of yourself and the hell with corporate policy! You're better off alive and fired then dead.

 

[MDFF2008]

Good point. But, if the right to Life is indeed unalienable and endowed by the Creator, and if self-protection is contained within that right, then I believe it trumps private property rights - but what do I know? The Fifth Amendment was placed in the Bill of Rights as a protection for property rights. The same writers deemed that Life needed no such protection, as it constituted what they considered a Natural Law (actually, to be precise, a Natural Right - people were quite precise about such concepts back then); pre-existing, and, as said in the Declaration, unalienable. The owner of a gas station, for instance, can enforce a rigid no smoking policy on the premises, as is his statutory right. But he cannot enforce a no breathing policy.

This is very true. They may have the right to say no to guns on their property.

We have the right though, to not shop there, and we have the right to make it known why we will not shop there.

 

[Celtic159]

I'm just pointing out one of the inconsistencies of the application of our rights. As far as I'm concerned, there's no legal or constitutional justification for infringing on private property rights, and there's no functional difference between a private dwelling and a private business. If I can refuse entrance to my home, I should be able to refuse entrance to my business. Likewise, if I choose to allow or disallow smoking, carrying a weapon, or what have you, that's no one's business but my own.

When we talk about the application of the right to life, we need to keep in mind that it's wholly man-made. IOW, nature couldn't care any less about that right. We agree that we have a right to life partially because we don't want to have to worry about someone killing us. So we can agree that you have a right to life, and a right to defend that right. What you don't have is a right to enter my home or place of business.

And yes, I believe that makes smoking bans wholly illegal. It's a case of the public voting to ban something they find offensive. Last I checked, there's no constitutional guaranty of a smoke-free meal.

As with free speech issues, I'll defend to the death the right of Walgreens to determine what goes on in their stores, even as I vehemently disagree with the policy and won't spend a dime with them.

 

[Les Gawlik]

True, and that argument was used for segregating businesses, too.

Jim

Exactly! We must frame self-defense and related 2A issues as matters of civil rights.

 

[RollingThunder]

My Dad and I were shopping for a new phone carrier and we went into Verizon in Hunt Valley Mall. As we entered the store there was a sign that said no firearms, (or something like that). I explained to my Dad that what that means to criminals is, come in here and do whatever you want, we can not protect ourselves. I think a light bulb turned on in his head.

Yeah I work for verizon, they have a no gun no knife policy on all their properties. A few months ago they sent around a security memo on what to do if confronted with a gunman in your center.
1. Run if possible
2. Hide if possible
3. THROW A STAPLER AT THEM!!!!!!!

I strapped a desk stapler onto my belt and started walking around with it. Everyone was asking me what I was doing and I told it was a Verizon approved self denfense weapon. I went to my Manager and asked him if I should order Staplers for everyone in the center and whether it should be desktop model or maybe a handheld models with a grip on it?????? Any opinion on what model would be best for self dense is greatly appreciated!!!

 

[Bob A]

It would be a very interesting thing to have available a copy of that Verizon memo.

 

[rseymorejr]

Yeah I work for verizon, they have a no gun no knife policy on all their properties. A few months ago they sent around a security memo on what to do if confronted with a gunman in your center.
1. Run if possible
2. Hide if possible
3. THROW A STAPLER AT THEM!!!!!!!

I strapped a desk stapler onto my belt and started walking around with it. Everyone was asking me what I was doing and I told it was a Verizon approved self denfense weapon. I went to my Manager and asked him if I should order Staplers for everyone in the center and whether it should be desktop model or maybe a handheld models with a grip on it?????? Any opinion on what model would be best for self dense is greatly appreciated!!!

all three of those choices are more likely to get someone killed than defending yourself with a gun.
But if you must, those small easily concealed staplers and the scary looking assault staplers are especially deadly!

 

[GTOGUNNER]

Walgreen's needs "NO ROBBERS" signs. As well as no masks, wigs, veils, hoods and what ever else bad guys may use.
That will stop the robbers from entering.
We all know that will stop the bad guys dead in their tracks.

Nobody knows when I CC. because its concealed. Put up all the signs you like!

 

[Inigoes]

Need to add OSHA to the list to sue. Seems OSHA is claiming preemption over state law.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/laborprof_blog/2007/10/osha-general-du.html

Walgreens fires the fella claiming an OSHA regulation.
http://biggovernment.com/jlott/2011/05/25/hero-gets-fired-for-using-a-gun-to-stop-robbery/

 

[Trapper]

I'm just pointing out one of the inconsistencies of the application of our rights. As far as I'm concerned, there's no legal or constitutional justification for infringing on private property rights, and there's no functional difference between a private dwelling and a private business. If I can refuse entrance to my home, I should be able to refuse entrance to my business. Likewise, if I choose to allow or disallow smoking, carrying a weapon, or what have you, that's no one's business but my own.

When we talk about the application of the right to life, we need to keep in mind that it's wholly man-made. IOW, nature couldn't care any less about that right. We agree that we have a right to life partially because we don't want to have to worry about someone killing us. So we can agree that you have a right to life, and a right to defend that right. What you don't have is a right to enter my home or place of business.

And yes, I believe that makes smoking bans wholly illegal. It's a case of the public voting to ban something they find offensive. Last I checked, there's no constitutional guaranty of a smoke-free meal.

As with free speech issues, I'll defend to the death the right of Walgreens to determine what goes on in their stores, even as I vehemently disagree with the policy and won't spend a dime with them.

While I agree that you can do all of that on your private property, when you invite the public into your business (to get their money), you lose some property rights in the bargain. There are zoning laws that are different for retail space, fire codes, and using the space as retail also precludes you from discriminating against people. You cannot bar <insert protected race / religion> people from your establishment, because they have a right to go wherever the rest of the public can. Therefore, you cannot bar those persons exercising their right to self defense, because they are also constitutionally protected.

While many would not equate the two, the constitution (14th Amd.) does the math for us. It's called "equal protection". If they (Walgreens / business or property owner) want the right to discriminate, let them form a club and restrict who can join (because that worked so well for the boy scouts, and other male-focused groups).

 

[SWTOR]

I think there's one thing that can easily be agreed upon; NONE of us should be shopping anywhere that prohibits law abiding customers from carrying.

 

[dblas]

Yeah I work for verizon, they have a no gun no knife policy on all their properties. A few months ago they sent around a security memo on what to do if confronted with a gunman in your center.
1. Run if possible
2. Hide if possible
3. THROW A STAPLER AT THEM!!!!!!!

I strapped a desk stapler onto my belt and started walking around with it. Everyone was asking me what I was doing and I told it was a Verizon approved self denfense weapon. I went to my Manager and asked him if I should order Staplers for everyone in the center and whether it should be desktop model or maybe a handheld models with a grip on it?????? Any opinion on what model would be best for self dense is greatly appreciated!!!

Nice to see that hasn't changed since my days in the Silver Spring Major Customer Center for Verizon...

 

[Minuteman]

Exactly! We must frame self-defense and related 2A issues as matters of civil rights.

Yes!

The other day I was speaking with a coworker about MSI, and they spontaneously said, 'oh, so it's not so much about guns, but our civil rights to defend ourselves'. Stunned, I simply said... exactly.

 

[LongTom]

I strongly disagree.

There is a growing trend in this country to punish citizens for breaking the law but somehow, if you're a large company then it's okay. If you poison your wife you're a murderer, but if you knowingly contaminate the water source for an entire town with lethal chemicals, causing the deaths of hundreds of residents, well somehow that is morally superior. Well I call ********.

If you do something to someone to infringe on their rights then you're just as guilty whether you're an individual, government, or a corporation.

1. Company policy does not supersede federal or state law.

2. You can put anything you want to in an employee handbook or contract but that doesn't make those words legal. Many times you can get out of a contract if you find out that the law contradicts what you wrote for someone in your basement. Many, MANY contracts (which is what employment IS) have a clause that states that if the words contradict law then they are null and void.

Your store policy could state that employees must kill their firstborn son but that doesn't make it legal or even a requirement to work there any longer once it is determined to contradict law.

3. The company is operating in a country that has those rights. They knew the employee had those rights when they hired him.

The way I see it in a nutshell is that we have basic rights to defend ourselves and feel safe. This right is given to us by God and reaffirmed by the Bill of Rights. Walgreens punished him for wanting to LIVE and using those rights. If they wish not to recognize that right then they need to do business in a country with laws that are more in line with store policy. Not the other way around.

Just because you work for Walgreens does not mean that somehow you are exempt from those basic rights to life and liberty.

Whether the man had a gun, a knife, or a large wrench, he defended his life, and the other employee's life (employees = Good samaritan laws, various)

 

[tdt91]

I do not agree with Walgreens policies but you should understand that most all companies have the same policy or versions of it. For some of you you then would be refraining yourself to purchase what you need.

 

[Bikebreath]

I do not agree with Walgreens policies but you should understand that most all companies have the same policy or versions of it. For some of you you then would be refraining yourself to purchase what you need.

Uh...that could be a problem...I had not thought about that.

 

[Gray Peterson]

Need to add OSHA to the list to sue. Seems OSHA is claiming preemption over state law.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/laborprof_blog/2007/10/osha-general-du.html

Walgreens fires the fella claiming an OSHA regulation.
http://biggovernment.com/jlott/2011/05/25/hero-gets-fired-for-using-a-gun-to-stop-robbery/

The Conoco Phillips litigation went to the 10th Circuit and that decision was overturned.

 

[Celtic159]

While I agree that you can do all of that on your private property, when you invite the public into your business (to get their money), you lose some property rights in the bargain. There are zoning laws that are different for retail space, fire codes, and using the space as retail also precludes you from discriminating against people. You cannot bar <insert protected race / religion> people from your establishment, because they have a right to go wherever the rest of the public can. Therefore, you cannot bar those persons exercising their right to self defense, because they are also constitutionally protected.

I'd argue though that as a business owner you should be able to decide who you'll serve. There is no "right" to shop at Walgreens any more than there's a "right" to eat your meal in a nonsmoking environment. There is a difference between public policy (laws) and private business, and there's a balancing act protecting both private property rights and the public's rights. As far as I'm concerned, with very few exceptions, private property rights trump everything.

While many would not equate the two, the constitution (14th Amd.) does the math for us. It's called "equal protection". If they (Walgreens / business or property owner) want the right to discriminate, let them form a club and restrict who can join (because that worked so well for the boy scouts, and other male-focused groups).

This is, I believe, a misreading of the 14th Amendment, which embodies the principle of equal protection under the law. There can't be a different set of laws for different races or religions. I'm not suggesting that at all, rather that businesses are free to do business as they see fit. We as consumers are free to either support those businesses or not.

So if you, as a business owner, only wanted to serve customers who were armed and smoking, you should have the right to do so.

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.