Bad move AutoZone

[Tozguy]

AutoZone needs to take a lesson from the FAA. Prior to 9/11, the FAA's policy was to not offer any resistance to a potential hijacker or such.
After 9/11, the FAA realized that this policy accomplished nothing, except to get a bunch of people killed or injured. That's when the FAA started arming pilots
and flight crews, and added back the armed air marshalls.

Bill

But can a passenger carry a gun onboard? Would you be cheering from your seat when one of those ''hunh'' guys from the shooting range confronts the hijackers?

The clerk in the original post did not have a gun in the store. He went out of the store to get one. Was he in a self defense situation at that point? Was he trained as a security guard or policeman? By going back in the store to confront the burglar he openned up a whole new ball game. He could have put innocent bystanders in jeopardy by provoking a showdown in the store. There are other ways he could handled the situation that would likely have had better results (catching the buglar) without putting others in more danger than they already are. What did this courageous INDIVIDUAL actually accomplish?

 

[Will]

If you feel that Auto Zone was wrong then you need to STOP SHOPPING at Lowes & CVS and others. Need to do a search but those 2 I know about personally !!!

 

[digrazir]

I worked in the trucking industry before I retired.The company I worked for also had a zero tolerance policy regarding firearms. The policy was clearly laid out in the employee handbook, which I had to sign a form stating that I received, read and understood everything in the handbook as a condition of employment. Any doubts or what ifs or what about this were quickly dispelled. Zero tolerance means zero tolerance!
UPS, FedEx, USPO, and virtually every large common carrier has the same zero tolerance firearm in the work place policy.
I never worked for Auto-zone, but I can say with confidence, if the same thing would have happened at the company I worked for that happened at Auto-zone it would have resulted in immediate termination.
Now I guess I could go along with no longer using Auto-zone because I never used them in the first place. As far as no longer using UPS, FedEx and USPS....that could prove to be difficult. Ray

 

[4xforfun]

I wonder what thier stance is on armed robbery?

 

[RandyD]

As an attorney, I understand Autozone's policy, but I do not agree with it. As one member mentioned prior to 9-11, the typical response to a highjacking on an airliner was to be passive. That policy was used to our detriment.

For decades our various local, state and federal governments have conditioned the public into believing that only the government can exercise force appropriately, and citizens are not to participate. This conditioning is very noticeable in the state of California. When we get to the point where criminals know citizens will not resist them, the criminals will use this to their advantage just like the 9-11 hijackers did. In my opinion, it is desireable to encourage untrained, armed citizens to remain armed and to get involved. This would increase the risk of committing a crime, and it is such a large unknown factor that it would frustrate planning a crime.

 

[1holeaddict]

It should be an employers responsibility to keep the employees safe or allow them to use their second amendment to protect their lives. I'm not saying that there should be shoot outs during every armed robbery but a United States Civilian should be allowed to keep himself safe whether at work or at a movie.
Any crime committed with a firearm should hold a death sentence by LAW. What is the difference if someone tries to rob a legally armed citizen and he is shot and killed or if the police have to put him down during a crime or a judge sentences him to death. My point is once a criminal draws a weapon he is open season ;D ;D ;D ;D

 

[Rustystud]

There are a lot of businesses that think like Auto Zone, Pepsico, ie: Burger King, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell all have zero tollerance and gicve money to HCI (hand gun control, and Brady bunch). We in North Carolina have a group called Grass Roots, they publish a list of gun unfriendly businesses, and have an up to date no buy list.
A few years ago Dupont filed a Amicus Brief in Oklahoma (federal court), asking the courts to allow companies to ban/prohibit employees from having firearms in their vehicles, even off the company premises when the employee was working.
Obama is most likely going to appoint two more justices during his tenure. Heller was a "one" vote decision. Under the new supreme court it could and most likely would go the other way.
We live in such a litigus country we loose sight of rights when it comes to monitary losses in civil court.
I just hope the fella in Florida, who shot the 17 year old punk gets aquited and sues everyone involved in his prosecution. Politics and justice don't need to be said in the same breath.
Nat Lambeth

 

[Louisiana Shooter]

Many years ago........late 1800's early 1900's people as a whole were much more courteous and weren't prone to doing many of the things that are done today in the way of violent acts.....the MAIN reason is EVERYONE carried a gun in those days! And knew how to use it!

If you screwed around too much, you would wake up dead.......and no one prosecuted you for terminating "stupidity" either!

You screwed around too much and you would wind up dead! Period!

In my opinion, we would be MUCH better off that way than the way it is now! We've been brainwashed into thinking that the cops or some other "official" should be the only ones to take care of this stuff. I say BS!!!

If a criminal thought nearly all the "sheep" had teeth then they would have to find a better diet!

Why is it that everyone seems to think an armed society would be a society that would shoot everything in sight without digression?

Stop eating the "bologna" they're feeding you about that!

 

[5spd]

I am pretty sure just about every corporate owned bussiness has the same gun policy for employees. You will be fired if you use a gun to prevent the criminal from robbing or killing you or other employees. Give them what they want & do not try to stop them is the same policy at all of them.

 

[BoydAllen]

I think that when it comes down to it, that one's life is more valuable than one' job.

The history of corporate and for that matter government employee gun related incidents has been that one armed person has been able to kill a number of employees, and the only way that he was stopped was by the intervention of someone who was armed.

If companies prohibit their employees from having the means to protect themselves, but have no mechanism to prevent armed intrusion, they are creating victims zones. Perhaps their liability for doing so should be explored.

That there has been a distinction between the situation of an employee within his place of employment, and his position in the larger society, amounts to allowing suspension of constitutional rights by contract.

It seems to me that if it were any other constitutionally protected right, this would not be supported in the courts.

How is being in a room or building with someone who has a concealed weapons permit, and is carrying, any different than being in the presence of that person outside of a place of employment?

What has happened is that we have allowed institutions both public and private to create constitution free zones.

IMO freedom has inherent risks that are unavoidable. For years we have been told that if we give up just a little more freedom that we will be safer. We have, but we are not.

 

[1holeaddict]

We live in the land of The Criminals Win until they meet ME!!

 

[gambleone]

1holeaddict, Now that's what I'm talkin about!

 

[Geeman]

From the employer perspective, having a dead criminal on the floor is not the best outcome. There would be trama for every customer and employee in the store at the time.

As long as there are cowboy type shoot 'em up types that would be quick to draw and slow to think, the prohibition of guns will continue in the workplace. Sorry folks, might as well tell it the way it is.

Ideal world is a person that hands the looser the money, and the looser never had a clue that the clerk DID have a 9mm and opted to NOT use it. In an ideal world, looser would go away at least 20 years when caught, and be searched at least a half a dozen times a year, every year, for weapons when he does get out.

Unfortunately, ideal world doesn't exist and folks get disarmed by their employer, and get fired when they break the rules.

Greg

 

[gambleone]

Geeman, I think the 1st statement would be true. 2nd statement would be true no-matter who had the gun (clerk or criminal). Cowboy type, quick to draw, slow to think? Just because they are a cowboy type, they think slow? (assumption) Not true. Not to dispute you, I get your point, but not so sure prohibituion of guns will continue in the workplace. The change has already started. Time will tell how this evolves.

 

[Geeman]

Geeman, the 1st statement would be true. 2nd statement would be true no-matter who had the gun (clerk or criminal). Cowboy type, quick to draw, slow to think? Just because they are a cowboy type, they think slow? (assumption) Not true. Not to dispute you, I get your point, but not so sure prohibituion of guns will continue in the workplace. The change has already started. Time will tell how this evolves.

I certainly didn't want to offend those that live west of the Mississippi. I was born and raised in that part of the country. That is not what I wanted to say. I suppose I shouldn't have used "cowboy", but the guns ablazing western movie seemed to fit the thread to a certain degree.

Keeping the customers and employees safe is best accomplished by keeping things as calm as possible and get the looser out of the store as quickly as possible without any shots fired. Almost all robbers run after getting what they want.

The serious problem with disarming the workplace is no defense in the case of an pissed off employee seeking vengence, or the x-hubby/boyfreind that is determined that if he can't have her, nobody will.

Please don't misunderstand. I'm for carry. Just don't take that responsability lightly!

Greg

 

[Tozguy]

Most of us here have considerable experience with firearms and also with human nature. If you were responsible for getting an airplane full of people safely to destination, would you allow any passenger to carry a gun on board based on their constitutional rights?

 

[stinnett1981]

Most of us here have considerable experience with firearms and also with human nature. If you were responsible for getting an airplane full of people safely to destination, would you allow any passenger to carry a gun on board based on their constitutional rights?

Nope!

 

[BoydAllen]

In the case of an airplane, after 9-11, elaborate procedures were put in place to make sure that no passengers board a plane armed, and security personnel provided who are. In the case of a workplace, people come and go without any such scrutiny, and there are no particular security arrangements. This is also the case in areas that have what I believe to be overly restrictive gun laws, and having an armed policeman show up after the damage is done does nothing to protect the public. On the other hand, those in government who deny us the right to protect ourselves, certainly do make sure that they do not have the same vulnerability.

 

[bowfisher]

From the employer perspective, having a dead criminal on the floor is not the best outcome. There would be trama for every customer and employee in the store at the time.

I cordially disagree. A dead criminal IS the best outcome, IMO. Once you draw a weapon against your fellow man, to either rob or kill, you've given up any right to life. It's time the criminals suffered and we quit babying them. Soon we will have less criminals and more freedom.

Trauma to me is when a law-abiding free citizen can't defend himself legally. That's what is backward and traumatic.

 

[bowfisher]

Most of us here have considerable experience with firearms and also with human nature. If you were responsible for getting an airplane full of people safely to destination, would you allow any passenger to carry a gun on board based on their constitutional rights?

I would submit to you that if any of the four flights hi-jacked on 9/11 were full of Kansas rednecks, all carrying, the Islamist would have never succeeded.

Now ignorant city kids from Jersey who haven't used firearms since they were kids, I tend to agree with you.