The bigger question is what protocol do they use to ensure no one has a weapon? It sounds as if security may have noticed this retiree carrying, but how many others have carried in the building without ever being noticed? The Red Cross like so many others, fail to realize that I'm armed while I'm in line behind you at the grocery store, sitting at the table next to you in a restaurant, driving next to you down the highway, and many other places, and you're none the wiser. Sadly, so are the criminals. These places don't want the good guys there, until the bad guys are there. Instead they prohibit the good guys, so when the bad guys show up, they have to call the good guys, and then wait for them to show up, and then it's too late. And places like The Red Cross, Starbucks, and others will pay the price one day, because you won't find others that think like me there. In fairness, I doubt the criminal element are consuming a lot of lattes either, so Starbucks is probably a tad safer for it.
I updated the story after I emailed it to reflect new responses from Red Cross on being unsafe to prohibit guns and the deterrent to donors. The responses are interesting.
Good on him for sticking to his guns, no pun intended, and not returning, nor leaving his weapon in his vehicle. As he stated, carjackings are out of control in D.C. Be armed everywhere you can.
Gun free zones are an active advertisement for evil people to enter and do evil things. Sad that people really believe a paper sign will keep them safe.
My red cross where I donate platelets has a sign that says specifically, "no concealed weapons allowed" but does not say, no open carry . Hmmm. I am sure I would get tossed out if I open carried (which I never do). They would cite corporate policy, which is NOT posted anywhere I am sure and would likely argue the sign says i cannot carry "at all" regardless of what it ACTUALLY says.
On the other hand, if I am hooked up with both arms w/needles, there is really no chance of me getting to my firearm in an emergency. Also, my car is parked right outside the door. The likelihood of someone attempting to break into my car, then the locked glove box is about 1 in a million. Everyone would see it happening and the area of the facility has very low crime.
Do no misconstrue what I am saying. Their policy is stupid, but what makes it insane is when they put up the ridiculous sign, like they think they just thwarted something because of it (eyes rolling!!)
I was a disaster services volunteer for Minneapolis Red Cross from 1998 to 2003. Red Cross forbids knives, firearms, and anything that can be used as a weapon on their property and at any place under their control. I experienced that rule firsthand. Whether I agree or not with this is not relevant to me. I will not be present in Red Cross controlled facilities for any reason unless it's for no longer then one hour once per day and no more than two days a week, and only for absolutely necessary business that cannot be handled otherwise. I refuse to be present in mass care environment under Red Cross control, especially because I have medical needs that cannot be met in mass care shelters
The one policy fits all is silly when you think through the rationale, but it’s their choice to impose such a rule & it’s my choice to donate or not. I’m not allowed to carry my gun anyway, so I’ll keep on donating power red. If someone has a grudge against the Red Cross & decides to kill us , knowing we were all unarmed- please use me as an example of why their gun policy was short sighted.
Referring to the Red Cross spokesperson telling you that "A decision to not give blood as a protest action will deprive patients of blood that may help save their lives," that was a perfect opportunity for you to respond by saying, "A decision to not allow me to give blood as a protest action will deprive patients of blood that may help save their lives." Their decision is every bit as selfish as they imply yours is! Just a thought...
I have O Negative blood and have been sought out by the Red Cross most of my life. But a couple of years ago, after continuing to pester me to donate via emails and texts and phone calls, I got turned away because my pulse was 100 and my blood pressure was like 145/93 and they said your pulse has to be less than 100 and blood pressure less than 140/90. I have high red blood count so I need to let out blood a few times per year. So now I go to my doc's office and pay them $75 to let out a pint and they throw it in the biohazard trash. Perfectly good, highly demanded O negative blood just gets tossed. They are not a serious organization.
I found out some information for blood and platelet donors who are in the DC area and not happy about the issues with the Red Cross that we have discussed here.
After doing a little digging, I discovered that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, MD (right across the street from Walter Reed) has a donation program for both whole blood and platelet donors. I emailed them (at giveblood@cc.nih.gov) and received a very warm response.
While I didn't want to spook them by asking about being armed, I do know from a relative who works on the NIH campus that visitors are screened utilizing magnetometers and vehicles are searched on entry. This makes me feel more secure about not being armed myself, since there is very little real chance of any incident while donating that would place me, other donors, or staff in harm's way.
I will be contacting them to go through a telephone "pre-screening" for donation and will find out for sure how the process works when I make my first donation, which hopefully will be next week sometime.
This is why I get pissed off at the police, they need to make public statements about not responding to businesses that violate peoples rights and places that have a no weapons policy, bc as a cop responding to an emergency if they think for 1 second an officer would drop their gun belt to comply with a policy they’re nuts, and I know there’s an exception for responding officers but the respondent didn’t say, they said:
“ However, we must ask that anyone entering our Red Cross premises comply with our corporate no weapons policy. ”
The bigger question is what protocol do they use to ensure no one has a weapon? It sounds as if security may have noticed this retiree carrying, but how many others have carried in the building without ever being noticed? The Red Cross like so many others, fail to realize that I'm armed while I'm in line behind you at the grocery store, sitting at the table next to you in a restaurant, driving next to you down the highway, and many other places, and you're none the wiser. Sadly, so are the criminals. These places don't want the good guys there, until the bad guys are there. Instead they prohibit the good guys, so when the bad guys show up, they have to call the good guys, and then wait for them to show up, and then it's too late. And places like The Red Cross, Starbucks, and others will pay the price one day, because you won't find others that think like me there. In fairness, I doubt the criminal element are consuming a lot of lattes either, so Starbucks is probably a tad safer for it.
I updated the story after I emailed it to reflect new responses from Red Cross on being unsafe to prohibit guns and the deterrent to donors. The responses are interesting.
Another case of liberal stupidity that at some point backfires. Of course they’ll blame Trump or something like that.
Good on him for sticking to his guns, no pun intended, and not returning, nor leaving his weapon in his vehicle. As he stated, carjackings are out of control in D.C. Be armed everywhere you can.
Gun free zones are an active advertisement for evil people to enter and do evil things. Sad that people really believe a paper sign will keep them safe.
My red cross where I donate platelets has a sign that says specifically, "no concealed weapons allowed" but does not say, no open carry . Hmmm. I am sure I would get tossed out if I open carried (which I never do). They would cite corporate policy, which is NOT posted anywhere I am sure and would likely argue the sign says i cannot carry "at all" regardless of what it ACTUALLY says.
On the other hand, if I am hooked up with both arms w/needles, there is really no chance of me getting to my firearm in an emergency. Also, my car is parked right outside the door. The likelihood of someone attempting to break into my car, then the locked glove box is about 1 in a million. Everyone would see it happening and the area of the facility has very low crime.
Do no misconstrue what I am saying. Their policy is stupid, but what makes it insane is when they put up the ridiculous sign, like they think they just thwarted something because of it (eyes rolling!!)
I was a disaster services volunteer for Minneapolis Red Cross from 1998 to 2003. Red Cross forbids knives, firearms, and anything that can be used as a weapon on their property and at any place under their control. I experienced that rule firsthand. Whether I agree or not with this is not relevant to me. I will not be present in Red Cross controlled facilities for any reason unless it's for no longer then one hour once per day and no more than two days a week, and only for absolutely necessary business that cannot be handled otherwise. I refuse to be present in mass care environment under Red Cross control, especially because I have medical needs that cannot be met in mass care shelters
The one policy fits all is silly when you think through the rationale, but it’s their choice to impose such a rule & it’s my choice to donate or not. I’m not allowed to carry my gun anyway, so I’ll keep on donating power red. If someone has a grudge against the Red Cross & decides to kill us , knowing we were all unarmed- please use me as an example of why their gun policy was short sighted.
Ehh, not surprising - but still absurd. It’s definitely “Gun-free victim zone” advertising.
Referring to the Red Cross spokesperson telling you that "A decision to not give blood as a protest action will deprive patients of blood that may help save their lives," that was a perfect opportunity for you to respond by saying, "A decision to not allow me to give blood as a protest action will deprive patients of blood that may help save their lives." Their decision is every bit as selfish as they imply yours is! Just a thought...
Would he not be covered under the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act?
I have O Negative blood and have been sought out by the Red Cross most of my life. But a couple of years ago, after continuing to pester me to donate via emails and texts and phone calls, I got turned away because my pulse was 100 and my blood pressure was like 145/93 and they said your pulse has to be less than 100 and blood pressure less than 140/90. I have high red blood count so I need to let out blood a few times per year. So now I go to my doc's office and pay them $75 to let out a pint and they throw it in the biohazard trash. Perfectly good, highly demanded O negative blood just gets tossed. They are not a serious organization.
I found out some information for blood and platelet donors who are in the DC area and not happy about the issues with the Red Cross that we have discussed here.
After doing a little digging, I discovered that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, MD (right across the street from Walter Reed) has a donation program for both whole blood and platelet donors. I emailed them (at giveblood@cc.nih.gov) and received a very warm response.
While I didn't want to spook them by asking about being armed, I do know from a relative who works on the NIH campus that visitors are screened utilizing magnetometers and vehicles are searched on entry. This makes me feel more secure about not being armed myself, since there is very little real chance of any incident while donating that would place me, other donors, or staff in harm's way.
I will be contacting them to go through a telephone "pre-screening" for donation and will find out for sure how the process works when I make my first donation, which hopefully will be next week sometime.
This is why I get pissed off at the police, they need to make public statements about not responding to businesses that violate peoples rights and places that have a no weapons policy, bc as a cop responding to an emergency if they think for 1 second an officer would drop their gun belt to comply with a policy they’re nuts, and I know there’s an exception for responding officers but the respondent didn’t say, they said:
“ However, we must ask that anyone entering our Red Cross premises comply with our corporate no weapons policy. ”