R.Ph fired for legally carrying

Glenn's quote:

My view is that civil rights (which should include self-protection) trump the former. It should be enacted into law.
Click to expand...

exactly

they have the right to protect themselves and

my quote:

they need to make a law that supercedes company policy
Click to expand...

as I already said! same thing happened when that offduty cop in chicago got killed which indirectly and/or directly led to the passing of LEOSA granting all LEOs - whether offduty or not - to CCW

Why? because the chicago cop should've had the right to protect himself, and the law needed to be changed.

I am not against corporations. I my opinion, things like corporations, the military, ad infinitum(spelling?) are in place and can do the average joe wonders IF he uses the benefits offered and/or makes whatever one of the above mentioned work for him/her.

Besides that something like this should and will be looked into eventually(in my opinion). the pharmacist isn't some slacker(pun intended) chuggin his coffee and weilding his big, bad briefcase(only kidding); these pharmacists are basically in the drug trade, war, and in more danger. Same goes for the singla mom or whoever workin a convenient store thats getting staked out every night or week whether something happens or not
 
Last edited:
Since the law is contrary to your way of thinking, then what are you doing to change the law other than complaining here? You seem awfully emphatic about your POV. Are you activily involved in a program to pressure lawmakers? Elections are coming up. How many have you contacted in the last week? Do you have a website dedicated to the cause?
 
Since the law is contrary to your way of thinking, then what are you doing to change the law other than complaining here?
Click to expand...
You'd be dismayed to find out how many people think that posting on an internet forum (or yelling at the TV) constitutes political involvement.

Glenn and I have disagreed on whether employers should be legally forbidden from banning carry. He's made some great points claiming that the right to self-defense is paramount, while I worry about further encroachments on the rights of the business owner to dictate what happens on private property.

I certainly can't claim ideological purity on the matter. I once had a job that sent me out on service calls to bad neighborhoods at all hours, and I carried on occasion, despite company policy dictating otherwise.

Now, I was fully prepared to be terminated if they found out and made an issue of it. Then again, I didn't have a wife and kids to support, and I could have easily found other work had that happened. A middle-aged pharmacist has much more to lose.

Still, while I'd like Walgreens and such to change their policy, I'd like to see the pressure come from the private sector, rather than government.
 
FWIW, my local Walgreens does not carry any hunting or shooting magazines on their magazine racks either. The whole chain seems to have a policy of disliking civilian gun ownership, hunting, civilian use of firearms for sporting purposes, etc. I may start taking my considerable prescription business to the local HEB grocery chain. At least there, I can buy gun magazines along with my medicine.
 
FWIW, my local Walgreens does not carry any hunting or shooting magazines on their magazine racks either. The whole chain seems to have a policy of disliking civilian gun ownership, hunting, civilian use of firearms for sporting purposes, etc.
Click to expand...
Those two things could be completely unrelated. I've noticed that some Barnes & Noble locations carry gun magazines, while others don't.

Shelf space is limited, and if a given product doesn't sell, retailers don't want it taking up shelf space.

If I were to boycott every establishment that doesn't allow their employees to carry, or who simply don't trumpet their support for the 2nd Amendment from the PA system, I'd rapidly run out of places to do business.
 
It is hard to know what pharmacy robbery that was, but it does appear to be a Walgreens.

I think if I was the pharmacist, I would have dropped the phone and shot two handed. Holding on the phone just kept him tethered to a small area and limited his gun control, though he apparently was quite victorious.

Nice battlefield pickup by that large employee!
 
Update: Jeremy Hoven who was fired for breaking company rules by carrying while at work has lost his lawsuit in federal court to regain his job, the court upholding the company's right to regulate whether or not employees can have guns in the workplace.
Click to expand...


Well, we know what to expect.

So, would you rather be fired or be dead?
 
Thanks for the update... Looks like I won't worry with fighting to get my job back if I need to defend myself...:eek:

Brent
 
While I might not care for the corporate policy involved, I do not, it boils down to just that, a corporate decision, one based on possibly erroneous "thinking", never-the-less, their's to make.

The other side of the coin, and there always is one of those appears to be the following. The public might also disagree with this "corporate policy", as a result, in droves, staying away from corporate stores. That sort of thing has, I suspect, worked changes in "corporate policies".

I noticed references to a federal court siding with the employer. If that is District Court, their ruling can be appealed to a higher court, where a different ruling might be obtained. I expect that can get expensive though.
 
Last edited:
Well, you can appeal to the Supreme Court if you can push it far enough. However, I don't think anybody has won any of these cases so far, so the chances are extremely poor.
 
Non escalation policy?

The robbers were brandishing firearms and took a manager hostage (according to the video / article linked in the first post or two) That seems as high as escalation can get.

I'm not shopping at walgreens anymo'
 
Double Naught Spy writes:

Well, you can appeal to the Supreme Court if you can push it far enough. However, I don't think anybody has won any of these cases so far, so the chances are extremely poor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
He's probably correct there, however there's always "next time". Takes a bunch of money from somewhere, I suspect.
 
He's probably correct there, however there's always "next time". Takes a bunch of money from somewhere, I suspect.
Click to expand...

Well Jeremy Hoven was "next time" again and again the only winners were the lawyers.

It is definitely a fool's errand to do without any sort of significant changes to the legal system.
 
Walgreens is based off Illinois, so it's not surprise they're antigun.
Click to expand...

Geographic home office location is not the basis for being anti-gun. National pharmacy chains are based in a variety of states and whether the state is pro-gun or not does not have any determination on whether the chain is. You would be hard pressed to find any national, regional, and not many local corporate chains (be it pharmacy or otherwise) that allow employees to carry. Even most or all "pro-gun" sporting goods chains don't allow employees to carry.
 
Some folks mentioned the real problem before. It's not necessarily that WG or any other store is "anti-gun" it's just they're more on the hook if an employee does something to another employee than if a robber comes in and kills an employee. I want to say WI passed a law that gave protection to businesses who allowed legal carry.
Bottom line, if the establishment isn't liable for illegal acts one way or the other, it probably wouldn't make much sense to ban carry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top