Walgreens pharmacist fired for saving co-workers

[mjrfd99]

Sent Walgreens my boycott message.

[Strawboss]

Just another store to add to my list of "no go" along with all the other stores locally here that have silly "no firearms" signs posted, not too many though anymore here in Ohio.

[Organdonor]

Could be worse... they could ban patrons from legally carrying inside their stores, too. That's why I'll never patronize a California Pizza Kitchen.

Here's what needs to happen:

Everytime a business that doesn't allow it's employees to defend themselves is robbed, they all need to sue their employer. After all, by not permitting us to carry, they are taking it upon themselves to provide us with a safe work environment.

You can be damn sure that were I to be assaulted by a criminal (not a patient) here at my workplace (hospital,) I'd sue their pants off because of their no-weapons policy.

[Cholla]

It is their right to not allow wepons on their property just as it is your right to not allow someone into your home.

[YoDoc]

It is their right to not allow wepons on their property just as it is your right to not allow someone into your home.

Just 'cause it is, don't mean it ought to be.

[Mal]

Just 'cause it is, don't mean it ought to be.

Say what? You don't think that we should have the right to allow or disallow weapons onto our property?

[deadzed]

"He said he knows of no specific Walgreens policy barring employees from carrying lawfully concealed weapons at work"


I've sent Walgreens my boycott message and drafted an email to all of my gun toting friends.

[Tactical_Mik]

These types of reports really get me.  While law enforcement wants the average citizen to comply because they are not generally trained in combat tactics etc.  This only means, you may, possibly survive relatively unscathed.  I don't particularly care for those odds.  While I don't have a pistol on me all the time, I am armed and would gladly accept termination for defending myself or another person.  As unfortunate as that is, that is their right.  Better to be alive and move to another job than dead or worse yet alive living with the knowledge that I could have kept someone else alive had I only acted. 

[Cholla]

Funny how some feel other's rights should be limited but not their own.

[YoDoc]

Say what? You don't think that we should have the right to allow or disallow weapons onto our property?

I don't believe that publicly traded corporations should have the same property rights as individuals, no. I feel the inside of a Walgreen's is more a public space than a private one. It should be legal to do anything inside a Walgreen's (employee or not) it is legal to do in the parking lot outside.

[Mettler1]

I don't believe that publicly traded corporations should have the same property rights as individuals, no. I feel the inside of a Walgreen's is more a public space than a private one. It should be legal to do anything inside a Walgreen's (employee or not) it is legal to do in the parking lot outside.

   Funny how we pick and choose rights. I figure if it's their right to decide. If you don't like it don't go inside!!

[YoDoc]

   Funny how we pick and choose rights. I figure if it's their right to decide. If you don't like it don't go inside!!

Of course we pick and choose rights. How else do we know which ones we have? A corporation is not an individual and should not be treated as such. They do need some rights, but they do not need to be treated as individuals under the law. IMO the supreme court case in the 1880's (Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad) that upheld corporate personhood to a new level was a bad decision. An actual person can gather only so much influence, because people have expiration dates and physical needs (sleep, poop, eat, ride motorcycles) and a corporation has neither. How much influence and money and power could you appropriate if you never had to do anything other than make money, and as long as you continued to make money, you could live forever?

Further, if the corporation knows that the area has a history of crime (and they know, they always know) they should provide adequate security to their employees, should they choose to strip an employee of his/her right to self-defense. If they don't, they should be legally liable for injuries and deaths resulting from such a poor policy.

Look, it's not like you are going to offend the corporation's religious or ethical sensibilities by carrying a weapon. What you offend is their fear of lawsuits. If the inside of a Walgreen's was treated as the public space it is, Walgreen's couldn't get sued for firearms incidents. Nobody sues the city because that's where they were when they got assaulted.

[Cholla]

A coprporation is a corporation of PEOPLE. Those people have rights.
A "publicly" traded company is funded by whom? PRIVATE individuals. It's not a public institution like a government entity. That is where our rights are violated. The gummint is supposed to protect our rights but that is the first place they are violated. Walgreen's is "publicly" traded but amongst PRIVATE individuals.they have the right to deny access to whom they choose. Don't like it? Don't do business there. But yu will still support the lcal gummint that denies you your rights in a truly publicly owned buildng. I find something drastically screwed up there.

[Mal]

Of course we pick and choose rights. How else do we know which ones we have? A corporation is not an individual and should not be treated as such. They do need some rights, but they do not need to be treated as individuals under the law. IMO the supreme court case in the 1880's (Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad) that upheld corporate personhood to a new level was a bad decision. An actual person can gather only so much influence, because people have expiration dates and physical needs (sleep, poop, eat, ride motorcycles) and a corporation has neither. How much influence and money and power could you appropriate if you never had to do anything other than make money, and as long as you continued to make money, you could live forever?

I disagree... a right exists for everyone, or it's not a right. When you can start choosing rights, they become privileges, and eventually someone can decide what privileges you have, and which you don't.   A Walgreens may be a public place, but it is a private business, and as such is entitled to the same rights any other private business would have. Would you deny a mom-and-pop store the right to choose whether or not to allow weapons in their store? How about when mom-and-pop owns 5 stores? Who decides the limit of stores owned before they become a 'huge corporation'? You or some other arbitrary figure?

You may not like it, but everyone has the same rights, regardless of if it's inconvenient for you....

[YoDoc]

It's not a matter of scale. It's a matter of being publicly traded. Yes, those people investing in that corporation are indeed private individuals. They don't (normally) get a vote on any policy or direction the company is thinking about going, you know that right? Their rights do not transfer to the corporation, because the corporation is it's own person. This is similar to the way you cannot transfer your rights to another person; say... you cannot give YOUR right to vote to someone who does not have that right.

When the founding fathers wrote the constitution, they did not envision a world run by large, public corporations. Even the largest companies of their day were run by an individual or a person, and that person was responsible for the company. How is it not just painfully obvious that it is wrong for a company to be responsible for itself? How do you punish a company for wrong doing? You can't jail it. You can't execute it. It can't do community service. It feels no shame, no remorse, and no hope for a better job next time.

Corporate person is wrong, plain and simple.

If it were a mom and pop store, I'm sure this wouldn't be an issue. If it was, no, I wouldn't shop there. I do all I can to preserve those stores, normally, including driving eight miles out of my way to go to a locally owned "mom and pop drug shop" to get my son's prescriptions filled.

As for the guns being banned in public buildings thing? Maybe where you live. In Texas it is legal (as long as you have a permit to carry) to carry a concealed weapon into the capitol building in Austin, or any other gov't building in the state. Some of the bigger cities have city ordinances that prohibit carrying into a city hall meeting or something of that nature, but you can still carry in the building.

OFF-TOPIC, sorry.

Corporate person hood is wrong, therefore, Walgreen's should not have been allowed to fire that employee for exercising one of his constitutionally protected rights.

[Mal]

It's not a matter of scale. It's a matter of being publicly traded. Yes, those people investing in that corporation are indeed private individuals. They don't (normally) get a vote on any policy or direction the company is thinking about going, you know that right?

Yes I do know that, I also know that the stockholders vote for the CEO, CFO and the rest. Are you seriously suggesting that once a company goes public, that they are to cede their rights? Man, that would do wonders for our economy, as public corporations fled to other countries...

As for the guns being banned in public buildings thing? Maybe where you live. In Texas it is legal (as long as you have a permit to carry) to carry a concealed weapon into the capitol building in Austin, or any other gov't building in the state. Some of the bigger cities have city ordinances that prohibit carrying into a city hall meeting or something of that nature, but you can still carry in the building.

Most, if not all, public buildings here in CO are off limits to all firearms...  Texas is looking better and better in my eyes...

OFF-TOPIC, sorry.

Corporate person hood is wrong, therefore, Walgreen's should not have been allowed to fire that employee for exercising one of his constitutionally protected rights.

Thats your opinion, and thankfully the USSC disagrees with you...

[Cholla]

You are confusing "publicly traded" with "public sector". They are two totally different things.
the metro-that is the public sector. same with police, fire, etc. TAX funded.

Walgereen's Ford, Boeing, are publicly traded on the stock market but are NOT government agencies. They are not funded by tax dollars (you could argue Boeing is somewhat but they are still a private company).
You missed or do not remember the discussion we had last year about corporations having rights. Corporations may enter into contracts. Why? because the contracts are signed by what? PEOPLE. The Supreme Court has ruled on this and has said corporations have rights because corporations are people. people sit of the Boards of these companies and make the day to day decisions. Corps are not a machine that is out there doing things, they are people and those people have rights. Your rights do not go away because you sit on a board of a company. You still can pick and choose who to do business with and you can tell your employees they cannot wear a shirt that says, EFF YOU on it if they say you cannot, am I correct? yes, they may do that. They can require you to wear certain types of clothes, etc. Is that violating your 1st Amendment rights? NO, because you are on their property and what they say goes.
My employer says I may not even have a firearm in my car on their property and I must abide by that. It is their right, as it is their property.

Once you take away the rights of one, you take away the rights of all.

[Mettler1]

  Whether I agree or disagree,thanks for an intelligent discussion!

[Outback_Jon]

My employer says I may not even have a firearm in my car on their property and I must abide by that. It is their right, as it is their property.

In a couple of states, the courts have said otherwise.     Hopefully that common sense will spread.

[Mal]

In a couple of states, the courts have said otherwise.     Hopefully that common sense will spread.

That's a tough one... CO law states that your car is an extension of your property. So in that case, who's property rights trump whose?