• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Is the Red Cross going anti-gun part III

pourshot

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 10, 2006
Messages
405
Location
Stafford, Virginia, USA
imported post

This transcribes most of my March 31, 2008 discussion with Paul Regal of the American Red Cross (ARC).

Sorry it took so long to post....

Paul J. Regal
Chief Executive Officer
American Red Cross
Blood Services
Mid-Atlantic Region
611 West Brambleton Ave.
Norfolk, Va. 23510

It took some time to get in contact with each other. This all started
2007-12-20 and it got to the right guy 2008-02-13. We finally talked
2008-03-31. Illness and travel on his end and illness on mine just
made it difficult to get in touch.

The call lasted about 43 minutes.

We spent about 3 minutes in greeting and discussing the flu that had
taken its toll on both of us.

He brought up that he understood I did not like the "no guns" policy.

He thanked me for being a faithful donor and stated that they knew
some people would be displeased with it. He also said it was a
"conservative" policy.

We discussed the meaning of 'conservative' and I explained how my gun
and giving blood were the same in that they both were meant to save
lives.

He explained that when he said 'conservative' he meant the extremes
that the ARC went to in an effort to prevent blood contamination.

I said I understood.

He explained how it was a medical procedure and that, although rare,
people had convulsed under the needle.

I said that I understood, but that even with some donation issues I
had in the past, the thought of going for my gun had never occurred
to me.

I asked if it had happened and, if so, where and when?

He asked if I meant if someone with a gun had fainted.

I said, Has anyone fainted and gone for their gun? Has something
happened to make you develop this policy? Or is someone being overly
cautious and developing a policy when nothing has happened to warrant
it? It other words, is this a solution in search of a problem?

He said he would not frame it that way that it had no happened in any
program he was overseeing, to the best of his knowledge. Nor had he
ever heard of a gun discharging at a donation center.

He then went on to say that they had gotten very few objections to it.

I asked where it had started as I had been lead to believe that this
started in the Philadelphia area.

He said he did not know and even went as far as to say that he found
the fact that he did not know embarrassing.

On a side note, it really was refreshing to talk to the man as he was
exceptionally candid about everything.

I responded with the fact that they were disarming people in the name
of donor safety boggled my mind. I explained how the policy would
require me to disarm and be defenseless from the time I left the house
until I returned. The other option was to leave the gun in my car
where it could be stolen. I said that neither option was acceptable.
I explained that my gun was like a child that needed to stay close to
be safe. That it was safer in the holster on my hip, being carried,
then it was anywhere else. I also explained how the weather was my
main motivation for either open or concealed carry.

He explained some about how the blood regions were set up and that he
did not believe it got started in the Philly area. He said that he
believed about 25% of the blood regions had this, or similar, policies
in place.

He then likened it to going into a hospital and going under anesthetic
and asked if I knew the local hospital's policy on firearms.

On a side note I did not think to ask local or general. Point being I
do not wear it when I sleep (general) but I do most other things
(local).

I explained that a good percentage of hospitals are anti-gun procedure
or no procedure, but that there was no legalities regarding gun carry.
I also explained that no gun signs on the door meant nothing unlike
some other states as you could miss it and the most they could do is
ask you to leave when they found out you were armed and if you did not
it was criminal trespass. I also explained that I had gone through
surgical procedures with my gun. I mentioned my dentist, doctor, and
other appointments attended with a gun and the most that happens is
that some of the office staff ends up taking a class from my to get
there CHP. I asked him how familiar he was with the type of person
who had a CHP.

He said he was conversant with it and believed he understood the issue.

I said I meant deeper then that. To know them as citizens and as
individuals. There are over 150,000 people in Virginia with their
permit and there carry concealed most places in Virginia to include
your donation centers before your sign went up. And of those 150000
people that have received training, had background checks, and are in
the most law abiding portion of the population. A permit holder is
less likely to commit their first felony then an off duty LEO. Would
it be an issue if an LEO came in, in uniform with his gun? Would you
ask them to disarm?

He said that has happened and he said that that has happened and the
LEOs self-disarm.
He also went on to talk about donations at the FBA academy and VA
police stations

There was some back and forth here but he did say that if the police
are on duty they would be armed. He said if they were off duty, they
would comply with the policy.

I explained how CHP holders were more likely to practice more often
then the police that they were allowing to donate armed. I said that
they were taking people that were safer and saner then the LEO
community and disarming them. I said that in the 10 years since shall
issue (and I explained shall and may issue) …then I got slightly off
track..

I explained that what they were doing was setting up 2 classes of
people. The on duty LEO and the average citizen with a CHP.

He said with the way I presented it, he would have to agree with it.
And then went on to male the point that they were not tying to make
judgment about the people who had the firearms, but in the event of an
inadvertent accident of some kind….and I think that would be the
concern….the inadvertent discharge of firearm

I asked, how would that firearm discharge?

He said I do not know.

I said Modern firearms do not go off when dropped and in the holster
they are safe as safe can be. They are more likely to get stolen out
of your car then your holster and what I cam seeing is a double class
of citizen. In essence, what you are telling me, and people that are
serious about defending their lives...and I have put some of this
information out on some of the gun forums on the Internet. And I have
heard from people that they are going to cut up their donor card and I
have asked them not to until I get more information. I said I cannot
donate because of the signs on the bus. I explained how there are gun
organizations across the state and that it would not surprise me if a
good percentage of the people who donate blood have that same
mentality and are the CHP holders. They are the ones that care about
society. They are the ones who care about life. This decision may
have a lot more ramifications then just one individual.

He said he had talked to other individuals who said they would abide
by the policy. That they did not like it but understood. Others have
said I am sorry but you have lost us as donors. So people are making
their own individual decisions about this.

He said, and frankly so for I have been pleased with the understanding
level and that we have not had anyone try and overturn this by making
people boycott the blood drives and trying to turn it into a crusade
I think it has been well received.

I said No, I do not think it has been well received, I just do not
think it has been publicized.

He said, well, every donor that comes to a blood drive sees that sign
and to my knowledge and to the organizations knowledge, very few
people who said they were going to cease donating blood.

I asked, so if you got complaints from how many people… let's say…
what would it take for you to say this is a bad policy we are losing
to many donors? What would that magic number be?

He said that there wasn't a magic number and that would be
disappointing if we were going to try and grandstand on this.

I said I wouldn't. But I would like to get the opportunity to get the
word out there and see what the response is and not necessarily tell
people to quit donating but to say look, ARC, this is a distinct
possibility because this is how I feel. There are people out there
who will kind of make complaints…but they think they are the only one.
They do not think they have the strength.

I said A couple of quick points. The first being the aids on the bus,
the phlebotomists, most of them are female. I cannot think of a
better place for a domestic dispute then a bus in the middle of a
parking lot somewhere with one way in and one way out and very cramped
quarters. In my mind, someone gets ticked off at their girlfriend or
wife and decides to go on a shooting spree. That is a shooting
gallery with one lane. One shot gun and they could clear the place
fairly quickly and another thing is if you allow LEOs to do it as
will, they can or can't, it is there choice. And I can't. Then in
essence what you are really telling me is that my life is not as
valuable as there s and it is not worth protecting.

He said, that is not what we are saying. What we are saying is we go
to some LEO agencies and they tell us that if you are going to get
donations here then you have to let the LEOs be armed. and if wee
agree to that then….and under certain circumstances we have a greed to
that. When they are on the table I can check, but I do not believe
they have their firearms on them when they are on the table. I think
in the secure confines of their workspace they can put their weapons
where….where they keep their weapons. I think that is a different
circumstance.

I then went into how the SCOTUS ruled that the police are not required
to protect people. There fore self defense is every individuals
responsibility so every individual is never off duty.

He said, well all I can say is when the police some to an ARC blood
drive it has been our experience that they comply with the policy. I
cannot comment on what their rights or responsibilities are under
those circumstances. I just don't know.

I said is there any way around this? Could there be a specialized
donor card for people who have CHPs? Is there a way to get around
this? Or a way to get approval or something? Because I cannot
co-exist with this policy impacting me and I am pretty sure there is
quite a few other people that feel the same.

He said, well, we have no plans at this point to change the policy.
We have been please with the understanding that our donors have given
to the policy and their compliance with it. That is not to say there
are people who have torn up their donor cards based on this policy,
but that has not been our experience. Since we have had the policy in
place I think we have drawn about 20,000 donations and I can honestly
say I think… I mean all of the people that have taken the time to
complain about our policy, I am aware of 8 who have taken the trouble
to… of making it through to make inquiries.

I said – OK then how would I go about… You say you do not want to see
a big movement , you say you do not want to see people boycotting or
whatever and I can understand that because we are dealing with
people's lives here and I can concur with that but my question for you
is what are my options? How can I get you to change this policy?

He said you know I don't know. I don't think we have plans the change
the policy. I regret that you would probably in the face of this
policy not changing we will probably lose you as a donor and that is
very regrettable and we probable have lost some people, but to the
extent I don't know but I am only aware of a few people who have
ceased their donations with the Red Cross.

I said – how may emails would you like to get? I mean I am trying to
think of a way that I can get you to see the scope of this thing
without hurting your clientele, the people that need the blood.
Because that is the whole point of your existence. I don't want to
hurt those people. I don't want to say lets start a boycott and then
you are missing the particular type of blood you need and someone
dies. I am not about that.

He said I can appreciate that and I can tell you are not about that.

I said, but I have no options. How do I fight this thing? You are
telling me you don't know how. But any way I can think of hurts…still
you are hurting yourself without realizing it because you are not
seeing it directly through the numbers. Somebody that came a few
times and they never come back again and you say well that is just
part of the metrics and you absorb that into your metrics and you
don't realize that want it tends to be is this new policy. So there
is no way you can associate someone who quits donating with the new
policy unless they specifically tell you "I am not donating any more
because of this.

He said they gate a lot of objections to various policies and listed
several that were unrelated to the gun issue. But he did admit that
there is no way to measure the donor loss based on policy changes.

I said then at that point you are talking health issues more than
social issues. When you made this decisions on guns you stepping into
the social issue area. There is no medical study that going to say if
you carry a gun in here your lead count is going to be higher
therefore we can't accept your blood. So at this point this becomes a
social issue. The medical issues they float. They come and go. We
learn this then we learn something that displaces this and we are back
to where originally and it tends to be cyclic. That is medicine,
that's science. Textbooks change every year for reasons and I have no
problem with that, but now you are getting into social issues that
should not have any bearing on weather or not…. You know my gun should
not have any bearing on weather or not I give blood.

He said, I understand your point of view. I really do. I sincerely
do. It is just that is what we have chosen to do at this point and as
I say it has been administered well. There has been great acceptance
of it, understanding of it, and very little, of the people who give
blood on their own, objections to it. So it is not found that highly
objectionable by the donor population.

I said – like I said, I think it might be more objectionable to then
you think. Probable not as objectionable to the degree I would like
it to be because as you can tell I am very pro-gun. But I still think
this is a solution in search of a problem. Nothing bad has happened.
So you are making a policy… This is no different…

He said – let me say no one has come to a blood drive and sprayed
bullets and killed people ever either. That has never happened to my
personal knowledge.

I said – OK, but you can not tell me that no one has been robbed or
assaulted either on their way to or from a blood drive or that a car
has never been broken into while somebody was at a blood drive.

He said – No I cannot tell you that. I am sure that has happened. I
have been in the business 35 years and I am not aware of anyone who
has been assaulted at a blood drive.

I said – not at the blood drive I mean coming to or coming from so
obviously they would not make it to the drive or they would not come
back and say "hey, I got mugged on my way home. I did not have my gun
with me because I left it at home so I could donate." So it is not so
much at the blood drive. My concern is having it with me… because
wherever you have people you have the possibility of things going bad
and going bad quickly. To give you an example, the parking lot at
Michaels off of I95 in Fredricksburg Virginia that is the parking lot
where the… (and I was going to say Wash D.C. sniper hit and I choose
that location as that is where the ARC parks the bus for some of their
drives but he said he remembered) I explained the 2 times that I have
gone for my gun in 10 years as an example of why it is good to have a
gun with you at all times, but I will not bore you with the details of
the story. I then related it to having fire and health insurances and
then brought it back around to the gun and how it is a tool of last
resort and when you need it you need it.

I then asked, from several different directions, what I could do to
get this policy changed without hurting either the ARC or the clients
of the ARC.

I said - Just walking away does not fix the problem….I explained, in
more word then this, you have lost 6 months worth of donations from me
alone. I asked him for an avenue to pursue getting this fixed.

He said, if I wanted to I could write a letter to his attention, he
would see it gets to the people above him and gets reviewed and that I
get a response. (See the name title and address at the top)

I asked if a letter would have more impact then an email and he said
that he thought that it would.

There was other small talk and then we hung up.

All in all it was not only a civil conversation, but pleasurable.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
imported post

I was a phoresis/platelet donor for ten years (two needles, two hours, two times per month) until the Lowcountry ARC posted against legal guns (including LEO) and ignored my protests. I know that they cannot afford to lose platelet donors and that for technical reasons recipients should recieve from as few as possible.
 

pourshot

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 10, 2006
Messages
405
Location
Stafford, Virginia, USA
imported post

Yes, but remember, he said hard copy would have more impact.



RegalP at usa.redcross.org



Guys, no hate mail. He seems very reasonable. I think he is just un / miss informed.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
imported post

I have e-mailed a slightly expanded version of my comment here to Mr. Regal. If the interest continues then I will follow up through the USPS on my return home.

It is a precept of my political activism training that print correspondence is ALWAYS more effective than virtual e-mail correspondence.
 

asforme

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2008
Messages
839
Location
Kalamazoo, MI
imported post

I personally have only given blood once and never will again. I tend to pass and have even had convulsions. Even simple things like vaccinations make me want to pass out. Shoot, I'm light headed after reading all this about giving blood.

That being said, I will never carry my gun while going in for a medical procedure. The last thing I want is to be in public, unconscious, on drugs, and having no physical way to protect my gun from unauthorized users. Be them well meaning nurses, or opportunist criminals, I don't wan't any chance of my gun getting into anybody's hands buy mine.

That being said, I still thing ARC should change their policy. I am an exception to the rule. Most do not have problems with needles and do not need to fear passing out like I do. It should be an individual choice, ARC has no businesses making that choice for you.
 

UTOC-45-44

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2007
Messages
2,579
Location
Morgan, Utah, USA
imported post

I don't/can't donate due to the fact that I lived in Great Britain between 1991 & 1993. So either way I'm "covered":lol:

TJ
 

ree

New member
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
5
Location
Twin Cities, Minnesota, USA
imported post

FWIW, the official American Red Cross policy (nationwide in the US) for employees and volunteers simply disallows weapons. This is from the latest copy of their Disaster Response Handbook (May 2008):

14. Violence-Free Work Environment
The Red Cross promotes a safe work environment for all employees and volunteers and does not tolerate any type of violent behavior committed by or against employees or volunteers. All Red Cross workers, regardless of their personnel category, are expected to conduct themselves in a professional manner and in accordance with the Code of Conduct.

Threatening or violent behavior committed by anyone against employees, volunteers, vendors or clients during work or off-duty hours will not be tolerated. Such behavior may include, but is not limited to, the following:
• Physical injury to another person;
• Threats;
• Behavior that creates a reasonable fear of injury in another person;
• Intentionally causing damage to employer property or property of another employee or volunteer;
• Possession of weapons (for example, guns, knives, clubs, explosive devices, etc.) on Red Cross property or while at Red Cross sponsored-activities;
• Committing acts motivated by, or related to, sexual harassment or domestic violence.

Management will take seriously and appropriately respond to statements or gestures that in any way suggest that the employee or volunteer may engage in violent conduct.

Employees and volunteers on a disaster relief operation must immediately report any potentially dangerous situations or unauthorized individuals on Red Cross premises to Staff Relations and Investigations, Compliance and Ethics. Investigations, Compliance and Ethics will promptly investigate reports of statements or behavior that may violate this policy. Investigations, Compliance and Ethics will conduct all investigations in as confidential a manner as possible. An employee or volunteer suspected of violent behavior will be dismissed from the disaster relief operation and placed on a temporary inactive status during the investigation until investigations, Compliance and Ethics determines a course of action in consultation with the Staff Relations activity.
And from their Human Resources Policy and Procedure Manual, Sept 1, 2005 (Policy 402.00, page 1):
The Red Cross prohibits the possession, transfer, sale, or use of illegal drugs, open containers of alcohol, firearms, weapons, explosives, or other improper materials on its premises.
...
Staff are required to report to the department head, Human Resources, or Safety & Security Personnel any known activity that involves the possession, transfer, sale, or use of illegal drugs, alcohol, firearms, weapons, explosives, or other improper materials on Red Cross premises, or any person known to be involved in these activities.
...
In the same document, they define premises as (Policy 401.00, Page 2 of 2, Under II Procedure, Item (f)):
Premises include but are not limited to buildings, furniture, equipment, computers, electronic mail, voice mail, written documents, lockers, and Red Cross owned or leased vehicles.
There's a few other policy docs at ARC that restate this policy.

But basically, this policy is nation wide and all chapters and blood donation centers are expected to follow. If you don't see the signs everywhere, it's probably that some locations haven't gone out of their way to broadcast the policy. And it's not going to change since it's a nationwide committee of bureaucrats that would have to change their minds against major political forces.

Your best bet is to either argue that if LEOs have been allowed, then lawabiding carriers should be allowed the exception too. And when that doesn't work, point out how the signs actually are more likely to attract a violence filled zone than prevent it and to simply take them down despite their policy.
 

UTOC-45-44

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2007
Messages
2,579
Location
Morgan, Utah, USA
imported post

The Red Cross prohibits the possession, transfer, sale, or use of illegal drugs, open containers of alcohol, firearms, weapons, explosives, or other improper materials on its premises.
...
Staff are required to report to the department head, Human Resources, or Safety & Security Personnel any known activity that involves the possession, transfer, sale, or use of illegal drugs, alcohol, firearms, weapons, explosives, or other improper materials on Red Cross premises, or any person known to be involved in these activities.
...


So to me this means that you, if the State allows, CAN OC AND CCW. But not ILLEGALLY.



TJ
 

BobCav

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
2,798
Location
No longer in Alexandria, Egypt
imported post

Apparently to the ARC your blood is worth more than your life.

My grandfather loathed them after the way they treated him and his fellowMarines (1/5) on Guadalcanal.
 

MontanaCZ

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2008
Messages
145
Location
Milford Colony, Montana, USA
imported post

Interesting indeed. I have not been able to donate for a few years due to overseas trips, but was about to start again. My wife gets called all the time, something about her blood type. We have a school, where we donate a couple of times a year, and a lot of the people that donate carrry (about 30 people or so). If this is indeed the case, then I could see a lot of these people, my wife included, stop donating.

If they made my wife disarm to donate, and something happened during the time that she was not able to defend herself, then I would be they could be found liable for not providing for her security. The point about being females on the bus, and a disgruntled husband/boyfriend is a valid one.

-CZ
 

AbNo

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
3,805
Location
Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
imported post

Maybe the next time an ARC van shows up somewhere, have about 10-15 people show up while OCing to donate, and see if they will all get turned away?
 

ne1

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2006
Messages
460
Location
, , USA
imported post

ree wrote:
FWIW, the official American Red Cross policy (nationwide in the US) for employees and volunteers simply disallows weapons. This is from the latest copy of their Disaster Response Handbook (May 2008):
This is one of the reasons that I no longer volunteer for ARC missions, though Ihave been acertified disaster relief worker. Sorry, I'll stay home and take care of those near me.
 

jack

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2007
Messages
228
Location
Clayton, North Carolina, USA
imported post

AbNo wrote:
Maybe the next time an ARC van shows up somewhere, have about 10-15 people show up while OCing to donate, and see if they will all get turned away?
That is a great idea ! A opencarry.org blood drive. We should all drive to Dickenson, PA and donate there.
 

pourshot

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 10, 2006
Messages
405
Location
Stafford, Virginia, USA
imported post

ree wrote:
FWIW, the official American Red Cross policy (nationwide in the US) for employees and volunteers simply disallows weapons. This is from the latest copy of their Disaster Response Handbook (May 2008):

14. Violence-Free Work Environment
The Red Cross promotes a safe work environment for all employees and volunteers....
But I am a Donor not a volunteer.
 

Skeptic

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Messages
585
Location
Goochland, Virginia, USA
imported post

I don't donate blood, but I do donate a lot of money to the red cross.

Or at least, I DID. Next time they contact me for "an urgent need" for some disaster or another, I will explain how I cannot support an organization that supports the anti gun position.
 

pourshot

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 10, 2006
Messages
405
Location
Stafford, Virginia, USA
imported post

Skeptic wrote:
I don't donate blood, but I do donate a lot of money to the red cross.

Or at least, I DID. Next time they contact me for "an urgent need" for some disaster or another, I will explain how I cannot support an organization that supports the anti gun position.
Consider writing a note to Paul R. His address is in the original post.
 

Tess

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
3,837
Location
Bryan, TX
imported post

Skeptic wrote:
I don't donate blood, but I do donate a lot of money to the red cross.

Or at least, I DID. Next time they contact me for "an urgent need" for some disaster or another, I will explain how I cannot support an organization that supports the anti gun position.
I was a 2-gallon donor over 10 years ago. Then I went to Turkey at Uncle Sam's behest, and we ate imported British beef. Several years after I returned (and had donated), the Red Cross decided I could no longer donate. Seems they turn away a lot of servicemembers and former servicemembers. Their loss.

Then this.

I'm no longer a Red Cross donor in any form. I've blogged it as well, so if their bots are searching (as do many organizations) they'll realize I'm not keeping it to myself either.
 
Top