I sent the following email to a number of Michigan state legislators in the aftermath of a federal court ruling upholding the firing by Walgreen's of Jeremy Hoven, a Benton Harbor, MI, pharmacist fired for violating Walgreen's "non-escalation" policy by holding off armed gunmen with his own legally owned and carried firearm:
Gentlemen,
I have written to you regarding this proposed piece of legislation before, and I am going to continue doing so - especially in light of the federal court decision upholding Walgreen's right to require its employees to submit themselves to manhandling, abuse, and even lethal force by criminals in order to uphold a "non-escalation" policy that prohibits employees from actively defending themselves.
I want you to take a hard look at the security video footage of what happened the night two armed men stormed the Benton Harbor Walgreens where Pharmacist Hoven was employed, and then tell me that ANY company has the right to require its employees to submit to such criminal acts, to leave their God-given right to self defense at the door if they wish to retain their job. You will notice that, at approximately the 54 second mark, one of the gunmen jumps over the pharmacy counter and, before Hoven has deployed his own legally owned and carried firearm, fires at least one shot at Hoven, at which point Hoven deploys his own firearm and returns fire, forcing the two criminals to flee for their own lives:
I could include similar videos and photos from DOZENS of such instances that occur each and every year in this country. Numerous people are killed and injured in such attacks because their employer, in the name of "private property rights," forces them to call police and wait twenty or more minutes for them to respond instead of allowing their employees to defend themselves. The entire incident recorded in this video is over long before most police departments can respond; there is no indicator that the employees of this pharmacy even had time to notify law enforcement of what was taking place until after the criminals left the building.
Any way you look at this, such requirements are morally and ethically wrong.
We MUST restore the individual's right to actively defend him- or herself in such situations. While it may once have been true that the best advice for such situations was to comply with the demands of criminals in the knowledge that most would leave one unharmed once they got what they wanted, this is no longer the case; too many criminals now kill for the sheer pleasure of it.
I am once again including a copy of the Hoven Self Defense Act. To continue to shield employers' "right" to prohibit employees from acting in their own defense is immoral and unethical.
I faxed the following letter to a number of Michigan legislators this morning. It isn't the first time I have contacted them about this proposed amendment, which I wrote over a year ago, and now I am bringing it here to try to build support for it. The amendment states:
Except as provided by law, the right to carry a pistol for the defense of one’s self shall not be infringed by an employer, commercial or corporate entity, place of public accommodation or education.
I know that many business people will take issue with this, because I have debated this with them in the past. Oh, well. I have been a small business owner, and I hope to have a new business up and running in the near future, and I still believe what I say in this letter. If you believe what this letter says, I have included a slightly different version of the letter to send to your Michigan state legislators in Lansing. At this time, no legislator has submitted this amendment for consideration because it won't be popular with their business owner supporters. I'm hoping that a flood of letters from Michigan residents will convince them to finally submit it. Links to their contact information can be found here: Michigan Legislator Contact Links
I have been advocating for this amendment to PA 327 of 1927, The Hoven Self-Defense Act of 2012, for some time, and I am going to continue advocating for its consideration and passage.
I named this proposed amendment in honor of Benton Harbor pharmacist Jeremy Hoven, who was fired from his job after using his personal firearm to stop a robbery of the Walgreen's Pharmacy by which he was employed. Video from the store's security cameras, which appeared in many news reports nationally and can still be seen on YouTube at the following URL, Walgreens Pharmacist Shoots It Out With Robbers - YouTube, shows the aggressive nature of the attack perpetrated by the two gun-carrying thieves, which gave Mr. Hoven cause to fear for his life and that of his co-workers, yet he was fired for violating Walgreen's corporate non-confrontation policy.
No business entity or corporation should have the right to prohibit an employee or customer from defending themselves.
At the base of this debate lies the argument that businesses, offices, and other such locations are the "private property" of the individual or corporation by which they are owned; it is therefore inappropriate for the government to mandate that such places allow firearm owners to carry their legally owned firearms with them.
This is a false premise.
It is the obligation of the state to protect the civil rights of its citizens. It is for this reason that businesses and corporations face a myriad of requirements governing everything from access to the premises or restroom facilities to choices in hiring. These requirements exist to protect such civil rights as equal access, speech, or religion, just to name a few. All of these are rights that are protected, either explicitly or implicitly, by the Bill of Rights, and many of the requirements levied on businesses and corporations would be considered violations of the civil rights of the property owner if he or she was exercising their rights in their capacity as a private citizen. For instance, laws governing hiring on behalf of a business would be a violation of the First Amendment right of association if they were applied to a private citizen, mandating that such an individual must associate with others with whom they have philosophical, ideological, or moral disagreement. Yet, it has been recognized that the state has a compelling interest in infringing the rights of a private citizen or corporation in the conduct of their business.
The right to self-defense enshrined in the Second Amendment is no less a civil right than speech, religion, association, due process, or any other civil right protected by the Bill of Rights.
In fact, in no less than ten (10) Supreme Court decisions, it has been established that self-defense - personal security - is not merely the right of the private citizen, it is their obligation. In no case was this obligation expressed as clearly as in the United States Supreme Court case, City of Castle Rock, Colorado v Gonzales:
"You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980's when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole. It is a well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection" (emphasis added).
With such a well-established legal basis for the civil right and obligation to self-defense contained in the Second Amendment, the state has a compelling interest in mandating that businesses and corporations - places of public accommodation, commerce, manufacturing, etc. - recognize and accommodate the right of their employees and customers to bear their legally-carried firearms. That laws mandating the accommodation of civil rights exist is an explicit recognition that businesses and corporations are not truly "private property," nor do they possess the same civil rights as those possessed by natural, human private citizens. They are places of public accommodation, commerce, manufacturing, etc., not private property as is one’s personal residence.
The case of Mr. Hoven shows what can happen when businesses and corporations are allowed to force their employees or customers to accede to the personal beliefs of the business owner or the corporation. Thankfully, the outcome in this situation was not as tragic as has been the case in a myriad of other situations that occur every day in businesses and other places of public accommodation that have been allowed to take away the Constitutional right of their employees and customers to bear their legally-owned firearms in their own, Supreme Court mandated, personal defense.
The Hoven Self-Defense Act of 2012 deserves to be considered and passed for the protection of employees and customers - your constituents - across our state.
Sincerely,
Version for you to send:
I am asking you to support an amendment to PA 327 of 1927 called The Hoven Self-Defense Act of 2012. A copy of this proposed amendment has been sent to a number of legislators, including the Senate and House leaders, but they have not seen fit to submit the amendment for consideration. I hope you will.
This proposed amendment was named in honor of Benton Harbor pharmacist Jeremy Hoven, who was fired from his job after using his personal firearm to stop a robbery of the Walgreen's Pharmacy by which he was employed. Video from the store's security cameras, which appeared in many news reports nationally and can still be seen on YouTube at the following URL, Walgreens Pharmacist Shoots It Out With Robbers - YouTube, shows the aggressive nature of the attack perpetrated by the two gun-carrying thieves, which gave Mr. Hoven cause to fear for his life and that of his co-workers, yet he was fired for violating Walgreen's corporate non-confrontation policy.
The Hoven Self-Defense Act of 2012 simply states,
Except as provided by law, the right to carry a pistol for the defense of one’s self shall not be infringed by an employer, commercial or corporate entity, place of public accommodation or education.
No business entity or corporation should have the right to prohibit an employee or customer from defending themselves.
At the base of this debate lies the argument that businesses, offices, and other such locations are the "private property" of the individual or corporation by which they are owned; it is therefore inappropriate for the government to mandate that such places allow firearm owners to carry their legally owned firearms with them.
This is a false premise.
It is the obligation of the state to protect the civil rights of its citizens. It is for this reason that businesses and corporations face a myriad of requirements governing everything from access to the premises or restroom facilities to choices in hiring. These requirements exist to protect such civil rights as equal access, speech, or religion, just to name a few. All of these are rights that are protected, either explicitly or implicitly, by the Bill of Rights, and many of the requirements levied on businesses and corporations would be considered violations of the civil rights of the property owner if he or she was exercising their rights in their capacity as a private citizen. For instance, laws governing hiring on behalf of a business would be a violation of the First Amendment right of association if they were applied to a private citizen, mandating that such an individual must associate with others with whom they have philosophical, ideological, or moral disagreement. Yet, it has been recognized that the state has a compelling interest in infringing the rights of a private citizen or corporation in the conduct of their business.
The right to self-defense enshrined in the Second Amendment is no less a civil right than speech, religion, association, due process, or any other civil right protected by the Bill of Rights.
In fact, in no less than ten (10) Supreme Court decisions, it has been established that self-defense - personal security - is not merely the right of the private citizen, it is their obligation. In no case was this obligation expressed as clearly as in the United States Supreme Court case, City of Castle Rock, Colorado v Gonzales:
"You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980's when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole. It is a well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection" (emphasis added).
With such a well-established legal basis for the civil right and obligation to self-defense contained in the Second Amendment, the state has a compelling interest in mandating that businesses and corporations - places of public accommodation, commerce, manufacturing, etc. - recognize and accommodate the right of their employees and customers to bear their legally-carried firearms. That laws mandating the accommodation of civil rights exist is an explicit recognition that businesses and corporations are not truly "private property," nor do they possess the same civil rights as those possessed by natural, human private citizens. They are places of public accommodation, commerce, manufacturing, etc., not private property as is one’s personal residence.
The case of Mr. Hoven shows what can happen when businesses and corporations are allowed to force their employees or customers to accede to the personal beliefs of the business owner or the corporation. Thankfully, the outcome in this situation was not as tragic as has been the case in a myriad of other situations that occur every day in businesses and other places of public accommodation that have been allowed to take away the Constitutional right of their employees and customers to bear their legally-owned firearms in their own, Supreme Court mandated, personal defense.
The Hoven Self-Defense Act of 2012 deserves to be considered and passed for the protection of employees and customers - your constituents - across our state.
