Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

This story is for every employee that forgoes their right to self defense in order to bring home a paycheck.

http://biggovernment.com/jlott/2011/05/ ... p-robbery/

Do we go with the typical "private property" canard or should NO MAN be required to give up a God-given right in order to obtain (and maintain) gainful employment?

Is it not DISCRIMINATION to deny him the right to work because he chooses to take a proactive stance on personal defense?

P.S. - to hell with OSHA and their "safe workplace" regulations.

Should not have had his gun!

He should have just let himself get shot and killed. That way he would not have gotten fired!

Oh wait.. fired from job vs fired at by gun and die....

Hmmm tick tock tick tock, which do I choose!?!?!?!


If any of you are from Rio Linda, I had my tongue firmly implanted into my cheek.

Sounds about right. Had a guy go loopy with a knife on company property and everyone was scared shitless for weeks. My staff knows I have a CCW - they were wondering if I was carrying, but of course, I can not.

Mindflayer wrote: My staff knows I have a CCW - they were wondering if I was carrying, but of course, I can not.

Right. <wink, wink><nudge, nudge>

Walgreens is a private entity which can enact its own internal hiring/firing policies as it should be....yes...I....just....said that. Hmm. I may have caught conservatilitis from someone here.

Good thing I've been inoculated by reality!

One less place I need to give my money to.

Well I know one place I won't be shopping any time soon. Walgreens may be a private entity, but so am I! I can choose when and where I do my shopping and I don't have to go anywhere near walgreens. At least he is still alive--a live man can get another job, a dead one can only leave insurance to your family.

mamabearCali wrote:Well I know one place I won't be shopping any time soon. Walgreens may be a private entity, but so am I! I can choose when and where I do my shopping and I don't have to go anywhere near walgreens. At least he is still alive--a live man can get another job, a dead one can only leave insurance to your family.

As a member of the CCW community, I don't know of any employers that allow you to carry in any form. The only exception would be where you would be required as part of your "uniform."

In this day and age, 99.9% of employers are going to "release" said employee that took any action against attackers in any form. Had he not displayed his weapon and only tackled the attackers he would have STILL been disciplined.

Sad but VERY true.

ChicagoGuy wrote:
As a member of the CCW community, I don't know of any employers that allow you to carry in any form. The only exception would be where you would be required as part of your "uniform."

In this day and age, 99.9% of employers are going to "release" said employee that took any action against attackers in any form. Had he not displayed his weapon and only tackled the attackers he would have STILL been disciplined.

Sad but VERY true.

IMHO it is one thing to have a policy to CYA for insurance purposes. Company policy however is not "law" and can be set aside with intelligence. It is another thing to fail to protect your employees after multiple robbings (armed guard), and to then fire them when they protect their own life. That is inexcusable in my book, and wins a boycott from me.

mamabearCali wrote:

ChicagoGuy wrote:
As a member of the CCW community, I don't know of any employers that allow you to carry in any form. The only exception would be where you would be required as part of your "uniform."

In this day and age, 99.9% of employers are going to "release" said employee that took any action against attackers in any form. Had he not displayed his weapon and only tackled the attackers he would have STILL been disciplined.

Sad but VERY true.

IMHO it is one thing to have a policy to CYA for insurance purposes. Company policy however is not "law" and can be set aside with intelligence. It is another thing to fail to protect your employees after multiple robbings (armed guard), and to then fire them when they protect their own life. That is inexcusable in my book, and wins a boycott from me.

Company policy however is not "law" and can be set aside with intelligence.

Once you "set aside" a policy you open yourself to lawyers, lawsuits....ACLU and everyone else. Not to mention if your "good intentions" harm a fellow co-worker, it won't be long before that same co-worker has their own lawyer.

Companies set aside "policy" all the time with no ill effect. I could list dozens of examples right off the top of my head, but that would take valuable time. It is the choice of the employer to be blind and to require their employees to die rather than have a chance at life in a robbery/not to protect their employees when it is obvious (3 previous attacks) that their lives are in danger. Even my husband's employer who has a no-weapons policy requires that their field units carry their metal clip boards in the field because in utter need it can serve as a weapon/shield. If Walgreens wants to hide behind "it is my business and I will conduct it in the way I choose" then I shall do the same.

Give you an opposite story...

Was CTO of a large non-profit radio network in NY a number of years back. We held a lot of night-time events. Most of the folks there knew I owned handguns and shot competitively.

One night I was in my office during an evening concert and the President/ Founder came by. he asked me straight out, "Hey Pumbaa, do you have your gun on you?"

I'm thinking I might be in deep kimchee, and just said, "Well it's locked up in my truck." His response, "Won't do much good there if you need it, why don't you keep it on you here?" he then asked me to ride shotgun (armed) to make the night deposit. And then told me it was okay for me to carry in house.

We also did family, marital counseling and stuff, and we had some incidents in the past and also received threatening phone calls too. But here was the boss with foresight!

Pumbaa wrote:One night I was in my office during an evening concert and the President/ Founder came by. he asked me straight out, "Hey Pumbaa, do you have your gun on you?"

One of those "Well, I might as well go get a box and start packing" moments.

Glad it worked out SUPER-positive.

"Company policy however is not "law" and can be set aside with intelligence."

I can agree with that. I worked nights in my 20's in a warehouse. At the end of my shift, my boss, and I would count the cash receipts, and balance it out. Considering we were in the Hanover Airpark, and there was NOOOOOOO one else around, he said "Listen, don't know about you? But I'm gonna carry my .357. You can carry in as well"

One night, I had my Glock on my desk, he had the revolver on his, we had thousand of dollars in cash, and the VP walked by... Just said "Glad you guys are safe!"

Not another word... "GOOD" sense needs to be put into play.

If you work in a day care? Not much need for a fire arm, but LARGE sums of cash, or dangerous cliental? I can understand that an exception might need to be made.

Reverenddel wrote:If you work in a day care? Not much need for a firearm, but LARGE sums of cash, or dangerous clientele? I can understand that an exception might need to be made.

Money is more valuable than life?

Public schools are more like daycare centers than anything else and they corral hundred of helpless children and faculty together, depriving them of the ability to defend themselves.

No, that part of your argument needs a little work. I see where you are coming from, but I don't rightly know how you got "here".

wylde007 wrote:

Reverenddel wrote:If you work in a day care? Not much need for a firearm, but LARGE sums of cash, or dangerous clientele? I can understand that an exception might need to be made.

Money is more valuable than life?

Public schools are more like daycare centers than anything else and they corral hundred of helpless children and faculty together, depriving them of the ability to defend themselves.

No, that part of your argument needs a little work. I see where you are coming from, but I don't rightly know how you got "here".

It should be intuitively obvious to even the most casual passerby that Carl was merely comparing the likelihood of thugs entering a place of business where large sums of money are kept as opposed to a day care for children where they would only make off with cookies and milk.

And your point is taken as well, however...I leave the rest for you to figure out for your own self...

There is a car dealership in Winchester where CC is allowed, including the owner.

zephyp wrote:It should be intuitively obvious to even the most casual passerby that Carl was merely comparing the likelihood of thugs entering a place of business where large sums of money are kept as opposed to a day care for children where they would only make off with cookies and milk.

Really?. So, who needs a gun at a day care center?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/417147.stm

zephyp wrote:It should be intuitively obvious to even the most casual passerby that Carl was merely comparing the likelihood of thugs entering a place of business where large sums of money are kept as opposed to a day care for children where they would only make off with cookies and milk.

I suppose that's all well and good if burgling is the flavor of the day. If we're talking strictly about "thugs".

But what if we aren't? What if we're talking about a disgruntled student or parent or ex-boyfriend/girlfriend? What if the objective is not to engage in thievery but to murder?

My point was more along the lines that the situation should not be used so much to dictate the legitimacy of carry.

See also: the post above this one.