Right to bear arms vs. right to fire

Last Updated:

  1. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Well-Known Member

  2. jayjay1122

    jayjay1122 Well-Known Member

    I fully support what this guy did in defending himself and his coworkers and I support how he did it. What that article does not definitively state is the corporate policy of whether or not it is grounds for termination just to have the gun on premises. All the article says is "Walgreen discourages its pharmacists from packing pistols"

    I maintain a residence in PA and I have a carry permit in that state. I am well within my rights and the law to carry a concealed handgun. That said, my company has a clear cut "no gun policy".

    If I was a betting man, I would guess that he was fired not for protecting himself and his coworkers (as the article hints), but for violating a rule of no firearms on premises. Yes it sucks, but he and his coworkers are still alive and I guarantee he will have plenty of opportunities for work.
    Bearcat37 likes this.
  3. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Well-Known Member

    Don't know, maybe labeled a troublemaker due to lawsuit.
  4. OstrichSaK

    OstrichSaK Well-Known Member

    This is exactly what will end up happening and it has nothing to do with the outcome or the law but the simple fact that he broke company policy which he agreed to. They can do it and it sucks and this is why castle law needs to be extended to one's place of employment so company policy can't override your rights. This is a clear example where years (guessing) went by with him 'violating' corporate policy while exercising his legal right to protect himself and others around him and nobody knew until the time came that he was forced to utilize it. I've worked for companies that have similar policy and my stance is don't ask don't tell. I don't even tell those at work that I'm close with that I carry and for the most part don't even discuss my interest in firearms at all. If the topic doesn't come up one never needs to lie about anything. But, much like this situation, if I ever had to use it I'm sure those around me who were alive as a result would find a way to forgive me. If it costs me a job then so be it. Innocent people could potentially be alive, myself included, due to my actions so I can live with that. Literally and figuratively. As gun culture becomes more prolific I think we'll see companies start to come around on policy which is only CYA legal wrangling at this point. The larger the assets the more they have to protect and generally the more strict the policies that are put into place.

    I can tell you that for every company that will think he's a trouble maker there will be three lined up to interview him who are smart enough to want responsible citizens who are willing to sacrifice for others in a moment's notice. Maybe not with larger corporations but I wouldn't be surprised if smaller local pro-gun ma and pa shops haven't already reached out to him. Being a pharmacist at Walgreen's isn't going to be a touch income to replace either.
    jayjay1122 likes this.
  5. Frisco

    Frisco =Luceat Lux Vestra= VIP Member

    The whole thing reminds me of our concealed carry class instructor's lecture about "What Happens When You Shoot."

    Police get a call, most often via 911, and the dispatcher says something along the lines of, "shooter at the mall" or shooter on 5th and Champlain Street." That's it.

    The "shooter" is you, possibly others as well, possibly the person you shot in your (hopefully) effort to save your life or the life of another innocent person. The cops WILL order and/or take you to the ground. The cops WILL disarm and cuff you. They will also VERY LIKELY take you to jail. Use your phone call for an attorney.

    It's a sobering reality.

    Exceptions to the above are rare, and most often in a small town where everybody knows everyone else, especially the police.
  6. wish i could carry at work. i work on a DoD installation. it wouldn't be prudent to risk serving Federal prison time just to exercise my personnal beliefs on the 2nd Amendment and the RKBA.
  7. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Well-Known Member

    I doubt smaller shops could afford the 150k base salary, weighted cost would be about 200k.
  8. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Well-Known Member

    You would have won the bet. :)

    Fired for violating non-escalation policy and carrying firearms at work.
    jayjay1122 likes this.
  9. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Well-Known Member

    I'm guessing the DoD installation has armed security guards.

    Maybe a different approach is to sue over unsafe working environment.
    The store was robbed previously. Management didn't provide security, therefore to protect from serious bodily injury, employee had to arm himself.

    Due to gross negligence by company, employee was shot at and placed at risk of life and lost means of income, i.e., was fired.

    Damages would be for emotional and physical injury, loss of income for X number of years and companies saving for not providing security, etc....
  10. OstrichSaK

    OstrichSaK Well-Known Member

    Are you trying to say that a pharmacist at Wallgreen's makes $150-$200k per year? Every year? In US dollars? :confused:
  11. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Well-Known Member

    Per the OP link to the newscast. Cited a salary of 150k, weighted cost not mentioned, but my guess. Weighted cost includes insurance, retirement, workers comp, etc.
  12. Ridgerunner665

    Ridgerunner665 Well-Known Member

    It varies...and varies GREATLY...depending on where you are.

    In some states with not so good laws about personal protection (and the general similar public opinion that often accompanies those laws)...its never going to end well for anybody, which is a sad state of affairs all around.

    In other states, such as TN for example (I live in TN)...It may not be a big deal at all.

    As for the corporate decision on whether to fire you or not...it just depends on where you work and if you have any protection on a state level (workers rights)

    I'm a truck driver...the company I drive for does not have any policies that say I cannot carry my pistol, but if I were to have to use it...and the media got a hold of it (as they always do)....then the company's public image is at stake and they go into "self preservation mode".

    I really don't care about their image...I'm locked and loaded 24/7/365...its a cruel world out there...full of all kinds of deranged individuals.

    My Glock 36...dynamite does come in small packages.

    As far as a "right to shoot"...Yes, we have the right (in most states)...many states have what is often called a "Castle Doctrine"...and the text of it varies from state to state...but in TN it basically says I have the right to use deadly force to defend myself pretty much anywhere (anywhere I have a legal "right" to be)...work, Wal-Mart, gas station..anywhere.

    I'm pretty well read on most states (I have to be, I travel them all)...they vary too much to give any kind of blanket opinion.
  13. Ridgerunner665

    Ridgerunner665 Well-Known Member

    Even my kids carry guns...

    A toy Sig in the holster...and a 6 shooter behind his back (he's sneaky that way)

    Thats the way I raised my oldest son...he turned out OK...he is now a Lance Corporal, and an AAV crew chief...and an expert rifleman (his range score was 331...350 is a perfect score)...not bad considering he just graduated boot camp last September.


    And yes...I'm a proud Papa who stands firm in his belief in the 2nd Amendment.
  14. 9to5cynic

    9to5cynic Well-Known Member

    We talked about this in my ethics class. Not this exact case, but the issue. The instructor posed the question, as to when is it okay (morally/ethically) to shoot (and kill) another person. Everyone agreed on when you are in danger (or someone else is in danger). But this is where things got a bit tricky. Say someone was robbing your house... and you walk in on them... is it okay to shoot them? What if they were not armed? The instructor then brought up all these different moral imperatives that one should look at...

    Now, obviously, being as it's ethics, there is no correct answer, just how you come to your conclusion.

    Very interesting class to say the least.
  15. Ridgerunner665

    Ridgerunner665 Well-Known Member

    If he's in my house...its all over for him...no ethics or morals about it...he shoulda picked another house. Tennessee's castle doctrine covers just this issue...and protects you from a civil lawsuit...if its found to be a legal use of deadly force, you cannot be sued in civil court.

    These laws are pretty cut and dried in many states these days (TN, TX, MT, etc)

    My wife carries too...and darn well knows how to use it.

    Here she is trying to decide which shoes match her 45.
  16. Ridgerunner665

    Ridgerunner665 Well-Known Member

    Yes...I'm a certified gun nut...new to smart phones...but can hold my own with a rifle or a pistol, LOL.

    I'll shut up now...
  17. OstrichSaK

    OstrichSaK Well-Known Member

    Well, it's pretty simple. Is your life in danger? If yes then shoot. If no and dude is running out your back door with your TV then no, let him go because he's no longer posing a threat. Some states will actually allow you to use deadly force to protect your belongings but for me personally that's still a no-shoot situation. It comes down to ethics (as your class would entail) and just because a law allows for something doesn't make it ethical. Shooting at other human beings gets messy in many ways, literally and figuratively so you better be prepared for the aftermath. Belongings can be replaced and lives can't. If someone is threatening my life or that of my loved ones I'm fully prepared for the aftermath and the law allows for it. If it didn't then I would still act the same. Laws are nice and all but sometimes it just comes down to right and wrong.

    There was a time not all that long ago when we didn't try to legislate morality and people actually had to make logical decisions on to what was right and wrong regardless of what the law said or didn't say. People were better decision makers then. Now it seems if the law doesn't say what someone can or can't do they don't know what to do. Sad that it's come to that.

    Freedom. Hows it work?
  18. IOWA

    IOWA Mr. Logic Pants Moderator

    As others have said, if there is a threat, shoot. Even if the criminal is running away, it doesn't mean he/she still isn't a threat. Its a tough call but let the cops be the detectives, only shoot if you have to.
  19. Ridgerunner665

    Ridgerunner665 Well-Known Member

    OK...I can't shut up just yet.

    If you shoot somebody in the back, they darn well better have a gun in their hand...otherwise its gonna be difficult to prove they were in fact a threat.

    Even if they have a knife...if they are more than 21 feet away (I know...who's gonna take the time to measure it in this situation?)...the law (in TN) says they are not a threat.

    If they broke into my house...it doesn't matter if they are armed or not, but out in public is another story.

    As I mentioned earlier...you just cannot make blanket statements on this...they are not gonna be valid for everybody.
  20. copestag

    copestag Well-Known Member

    I for one am a very strong supporter of gun rights....... I believe in many cases the government has far overstepped their constitutional boundaries

    having said that I also have to say that I believe a private party (in this case an employer) should be able to determine their own rules regarding guns

    if they dont want you to bring guns to work then you should be fired if you do not comply

    after all....... if a person is anti-gun and explicitly states there are to be no guns brought into their home........ would you still expect to be ok dragging your pistol to their birthday party?

    Im glad this person ended up safe along with others from what I gather....... but I see no fault in the company firing him....... they have a clear policy in place and he violated it

    maybe next week I will bring some beer and drugs to work and tell my boss its all fine.... he shouldnt bother disciplining me
  21. OstrichSaK

    OstrichSaK Well-Known Member

    Bringing elicit substances to work is hardly the same. :rolleyes:
  22. IOWA

    IOWA Mr. Logic Pants Moderator

    What if they are running towards your child? Someone else's child? Someone they can take hostage? Just by being a criminal, they turn themselves into a threat. If they are willing to break in to a house, store, or other place, what else are they willing to do? What else have they done in the past already?
  23. Frisco

    Frisco =Luceat Lux Vestra= VIP Member

    I changed my mind slightly about when to draw the weapon, after the cc class last year. I'd been through other cc classes, where the emphasis was on safety, operation of the different handguns and accuracy at the range. This class had State Patrol there (the licensing entity in this state), two attorneys and two instructors. There was a lot of talk about scenarios.

    Part of it is a moral decision, but most of it is pretty close to the same as something such as deciding whether or not to use a fire extinguisher: it only goes into operation if there's a fire.

    I used to believe in brandishing to scare off a perceived threat. Now I don't. If there's a perceived threat, they guy is going to get shot, all brandishing does is give the creep time to shoot you. So the onus is on us as law abiding citizens to only bring the weapon out of concealment when we know/feel a certain threat to our person, not to bring it out to ward off a possible threat.
  24. IOWA

    IOWA Mr. Logic Pants Moderator

    Yep, if you draw it, you should be ready to fire as soon as it's on target.
  25. copestag

    copestag Well-Known Member

    I beg to differ...... its exactly the same...... other things that are exactly the same:

    Im not allowed to bring hookers to work

    Im not allowed to bring bombs to work

    Im not allowed to wear shorts and sandals to work

    etc etc etc etc etc etc

    its called RULES...... learn em, live em, love em

    remember 1 thing.... when you are at work...... YOU are on someone elses private property.... and people should be able to make their rules on their own private property

    as I said....... Im 100% on board with the 2nd and freedoms...... but some people get fanatical about the expression of those rights for some reason

Share This Page