Utah Guns Forum banner

Red Cross Blood Donation Center - Orem

16K views 37 replies 12 participants last post by  bagpiper 
#1 ·
I went to donate blood this week at the Red Cross office in Orem and they had a new "No Concealed Weapons" sign on the door. I've been donating there for the past 5 years (carrying for the last 4) and that's the first time the sign has been there. I know I could have simply donated and nobody would have known, but I figured if they didn't want my blood because of my weapon I would be happy to keep it to myself.

I mentioned to the person at the front desk that I had a concealed weapon, and if I was no longer welcome because a new policy that I would not be able to donate today. He was a little confused, I'm assuming I was the first one to make an issue of the sign. His initial response was "I don't even know why we have that sign, we don't handle any cash." To which I thought, ya, and if you did, that sign sure would protect you from anyone intent on relieving you of it. Of course the smart alec in me wanted to simply uncover my gun and ask if that would suffice, since it was no longer concealed, but I didn't expect anyone else to appreciate the humor. He asked if I could leave my weapon in my car while I donated. I responded that that wasn't a compromise I was willing to make when I'm donating to them. He disappeared to talk to whoever must have been in charge, and then came back and told me that I couldn't donate with my weapon, so I left.

I expect I'll get a call in a couple weeks asking me to make another appointment, at which time I'll inform them that as I'm happy to donate as soon as I'm welcome back at that location. I don't know if this is a decision made at that local office, or something pushed down from a national office. I'll probably write a letter to the local office at some point, but I guess I get a break from the bloodsuckers for the time being.
 
See less See more
#2 ·
This may be one of the rare cases where a "no guns" policy actually makes some sense for legitimate safety reasons.

My wife worked blood services for many years. It is common for people to pass out, or at least "brown out" while donating blood. It is also common among those who carry guns regularly, to reach for their gun as they come to, but before they are fully lucid.

She was working before private citizen concealed carry was as common as it is today, so most of her experience involved uniformed police officers.

They ultimately adopted a policy that any officer donating blood had to disarm until the donation was over.

If drawing blood in a station or other secure environment, they'd have officers place their guns in the one of the gun lockers common in such locations. If in a location without lockers, officers were either encouraged to entrust their gun with their partner, or at least take it (really the whole duty belt) off and place it under the donation lounger. A cop in uniform was NOT going to lock his gun in the car in the parking lot. Just wasn't going to happen.

I realize that such a policy is different than just banning all guns entirely. But the rational behind it very likely has far more to do with true, legitimate safety issues involving persons donating blood than it does with an overt hostility toward our rights.

And I know, you've donated for years, you know how you react, and you are not a risk. But the donation staff doesn't know that. They are not trained, necessarily to safely handle a gun. And the risk of an ND does increase dramatically as one handles the gun. Most of us don't have duty belts we can remove with a gun still holstered.

I doubt any of us would object to the wisdom of not being armed while going under antithesis or sedative for a medical procedure. Dropping a pint of blood in short order can have similar effects, even if it hasn't in the past.

I think this is a case where there is a legitimate reason to seriously consider disarming, or, if one is very sure of his ability to be safe, to simply carry legally and discretely.

Charles
 
#3 ·
Yes Charles, you can tell how serious the issue is by how often we read of shootings and ND's at blood donation locations. Obviously we can't have that continue to happen at such an alarming rate.

Oh, wait... come to think of it, I watch the news pretty carefully for incidents like this, and I can't say that I've ever heard or read of one. I'm with Matt. If they want me in their donation they'll have to take down the sign.

Mel
 
#5 ·
All excellent points Charles that I hadn't thought of. If someone had articulated that there I may have responded differently. Based on the fact that whoever was enforcing the decision didn't come out to talk to me, just sent the receptionist back out to tell me no, and no reason or explanation other than "sign says so" I'm skeptical that that's the primary reason. All good food for thought, though, thanks for the insight.
 
#6 ·
quychang said:
Yes Charles, you can tell how serious the issue is by how often we read of shootings and ND's at blood donation locations. Obviously we can't have that continue to happen at such an alarming rate.

Oh, wait... come to think of it, I watch the news pretty carefully for incidents like this, and I can't say that I've ever heard or read of one. I'm with Matt. If they want me in their donation they'll have to take down the sign.
I've only seen one example in my life of what happens when someone takes a gun near an MRI machine. Surely you won't argue that is evidence for taking down the signs prohibiting all ferous metals near the MRI?

Likewise, I've never seen an aluminum processing plant explode. But I'm willing to trust the chemists and metallurgists when they tell me that the introduction of ANY metals other than what they are processing can be devastating. So when they don't allow aluminum cans on site, instead requiring glass or paperfiber drink containers, and also ban guns and ammo and knives, I'm willing to accept that their "gun ban" has more to do with a legitimate safety issue than some paranoid fantasy or hatred of RKBA.

I've never heard of Mel having a problem with his gun while on some pain meds. But I wouldn't dream of suggesting your personal decision not to carry while using such meds is improper or guided by anything other than a legitimate concern for safety.

And we certainly don't need to hear any stories of people coming out of general anesthesia having NDs in order to know that one should not carry while under general anesthesia.

On the flip side, we've heard of very few (zero in fact) school shootings or mass shootings in libraries or movie theaters in Utah. What does that have to do with whether we decide to carry in such locations?

I'm not claiming there is any epidemic of blood donors passing out, waking up, and going off literally half-cocked. I am telling you that even in her short time working blood services my wife personally saw cops pass out while donating blood and reach for their firearms before they were fully lucid. The concern with guns while donating blood is similar too (though less acute than) the obvious issue with carrying while under anesthesia or pain meds or alcohol.

The sign has no force of law. We carry to save lives. Donating blood is necessary to save lives until such time as we successfully invent and mass produce artificial blood. I do not believe the gun policies for donors at the Red Cross are based on any hostility to our RKBA, but rather on some legitimate concerns based on years of observations. To refuse to donate over that policy is to put our political/social views which we presumably hold in the interest of saving lives, ahead of actually saving lives. Cart before the horse comes to mind.

But to each his own.

Charles
 
#8 ·
Matt S said:
All excellent points Charles that I hadn't thought of. If someone had articulated that there I may have responded differently. Based on the fact that whoever was enforcing the decision didn't come out to talk to me, just sent the receptionist back out to tell me no, and no reason or explanation other than "sign says so" I'm skeptical that that's the primary reason. All good food for thought, though, thanks for the insight.
Glad to be of help.

And bear in mind the Red Cross operates in one of the most heavily regulated environments in the nation. Officially, blood is "medicine". But it is medicine that cannot be produced to any exact standard. You get what comes out of the vein of a living, breathing, human being who travels, eats all kinds of food, has sex, may use illicit drugs, etc. And there are diseases which can be fatal to a recipient long before even the best test can detect their presence.

I've the story of a patient who had an unexplained reaction to a blood transfusion in a local hospital and died. It was inexplicable. Multiple tests revealed the blood had been typed correctly. There was no obvious reason for the negative reaction. Finally, the donor was contacted and asked to recall everything she did in the days leading up to donating. What did she eat. Nothing unusual except she had spent the day before bottling several batches of blue berries. As is common when bottling at home, she had eaten blueberries until she was sick of them. Turns out the recipient of her donated blood was highly allergic to blueberries. A one in a million fluke event.

Far more common, almost one out of every two hemophiliacs in this nation contracted HIV/AIDS and died a most horrible death as a result of tainted blood products in the mid and late 1980s. Out of 10,000 hemophiliacs, some 5,000 HIV cases from tainted blood, leading to 4,000 deaths officially caused by AIDS. One presumes the other 1,000 died from something else before the AIDS killed them.

My wife was a trainer for the Red Cross when we married. With the exception of an RN and maybe a few upper management types almost nobody has a degree (yet). Even among the regulations that could be understood, most employees simply are not in a position to understand them. And when dealing with the feds, a lot of regulations defy all logic and simply have to be followed because the penalties for not following them involve things like fines, jail, and having the company shut down. An FDA field agent does not need a warrant. His badge alone is sufficient to walk in and shut down a blood bank. So employees are trained to follow various procedures because that is the procedure. Just for fun, toss in DOT regs for those employees who drive the buses or trucks used at mobile draws.

Obviously, there is no federal regulation about guns at blood draws. But, the culture of "because that is our procedure" is pervasive. It is the only way you can survive such a highly regulated environment with a bunch of $10 an hour employees responsible to perform the work subject to reams of regulation.

On the rare occasions I donate blood somewhere other than an LDS church building (where my guns are prohibited by statute), I CC and nobody is the wiser or harmed.

I do likewise when shopping at Costco despite their official policy. So far as I know, other than being an Obama/liberal cheerleader, Costco hasn't actually taken to actively attacking my RKBA and what I save (time and money) by shopping there is far more valuable to me than whatever "message" I might send by boycotting them. So what is in my pocket is none of their business so long as I am legal.

That said, anyone who does ever have any black out or other loss of lucidity while donating blood, should personally re-evaluate whether they should carry while donating. In fact, I'd suggest anyone who doesn't have a history of donating and knowing they don't have such negative reactions, probably should avoid carrying until he is sure he isn't prone to such reactions. Kind of like not operating heavy machinery when using certain meds until you are sure how the meds affect you.

Charles
 
#9 ·
Uinta Firearms said:
What will the Red Cross do when they deal with military personnel. You can't have them disarm in a combat zone. How is the Red Cross going to notify soldiers and sailors in the field about the passing or critical illness of a close family member?
I expect that when donating blood, military personnel stow their firearms beyond reach. Even security forces on military bases have places to store their long guns while eating chow, as others continue the work of providing security.

And when the Red Cross is doing something other than drawing blood, I'd expect they don't have a policy on patrons' guns at all.

THAT is my point. I don't think the sign on the door of the blood donor center is based on nor indicative of any hostility toward RKBA. I think it is a reasonable safety measure similar to a doctor telling you not to drive for a couple of hours until the meds wear off fully. He isn't hostile to cars or driving.

Charles
 
#10 ·
I still stand by my statement that there haven't been any reported issues.

Comparing a blood draw to an MRI machine is certainly a strawman argument that I'm not going to engage in.

Not carrying while under the influence of pain killers is a personal choice, and not mandated by someone that wants a donation from me.

The fact is, I rarely donate blood, needles bother me. Less so as I age, but nevertheless they'll never be a favorite of mine. So, if I have a loved one, or even an acquaintance that needs me to donate, I probably will. And, like you at Costco (or myself for that matter) I'll simply ignore the signs and carry on. But as for just casually going in on a regular basis and donating because it's a good, civic minded thing to do? Take down the signs, we'll talk.

Mel
 
#11 ·
bagpiper said:
Uinta Firearms said:
What will the Red Cross do when they deal with military personnel. You can't have them disarm in a combat zone. How is the Red Cross going to notify soldiers and sailors in the field about the passing or critical illness of a close family member?
I expect that when donating blood, military personnel stow their firearms beyond reach. Even security forces on military bases have places to store their long guns while eating chow, as others continue the work of providing security.

And when the Red Cross is doing something other than drawing blood, I'd expect they don't have a policy on patrons' guns at all.

THAT is my point. I don't think the sign on the door of the blood donor center is based on nor indicative of any hostility toward RKBA. I think it is a reasonable safety measure similar to a doctor telling you not to drive for a couple of hours until the meds wear off fully. He isn't hostile to cars or driving.

Charles
You missed my point. I was being sarcastic. I blame the internet.
 
#14 ·
quychang said:
I still stand by my statement that there haven't been any reported issues.

Comparing a blood draw to an MRI machine is certainly a strawman argument that I'm not going to engage in.
Amen, this policy is pure hoplophobia. And to answer the question about military personnel. At my FOB in Afghanistan when a mass casualty event (four or more casualties) would occur a call for donors would go out. We did not secure our weapons at a safe distance or any crap like that. If you carried a sidearm you just sat down and donated. If you had a rifle you'd place it in the rack there in the room but it was still readily available. And eating was done with the weapon at hand or at most in a rack at the end of the six to eight person table. Similarly MP's stateside do not disarm to eat, no more than police disarm to eat.

Yes people occasionally pass out while or after donating, (I've never seen anyone pass out personally when donating but I have no doubt it happens) but they don't stop you from driving away after donating. They don't trust a trustworthy citizen with a firearm inside their facility while or after donating, yet have absolutely zero qualms about that same citizen leaving their facility and getting behind the wheel of a 2000 lb weapon.

Sorry Charles I totally disagree with you here.

This policy makes no sense and is simply hoplophobia. And comparing the non-threat of getting a little dizzy while carrying a weapon to the very real threat of exposing a large chunk of ferrous metal to a high power magnet is a strawman argument and you know it.
 
#15 ·
I suspect that on the few occasions where a blood donator did get a little woozy during donation that "grab" at the firearm is to satisfy themselves that the firearm was still secure!
 
#16 ·
[Edited by mod to remove quote from prior post. -Don]

Charles and co, I will throw my .02 cents in here.

We live in a country(world, for that matter) FULL of unhealthy people. there are more men in the us with hypertension or CAD than there are really people in California are new York combined.

For example, one such illness like orthostatic hypotension is quite common, especially in women and older folks. This disorder causes people to get woozy and pass out when they stand up too quickly. I've seen it quite often.

Another one is epilepsy. Many people respond to medicine worse than others. A grand maul seizure is a much bigger deal than simply passing out due to a temporary drop in BP.

I am sure we would typically consider it reprehensible to suggest that people with an illness that may cause them to lose consciousness briefly are not fit to conceal a firearm. I see this as a slippery slope.

They MIGHT pass out, wake up, unholster their gun and freak people out so we should prohibit them? I'm not buying that.

OTOH, it IS a private business, and they can restrict whatever they like. that's different than governmental restriction, as in my example.

To say that it is a legit reason to prohibit guns? possibly . And im not positive that i agree with it. But to think that's the actual reason they did, I just think of that as a LIL bit of a stretch. With all the "just follow these rules because they have been this way forever" types in hospital and medical administration like you mentioned, I doubt they put any more thought into it other than "oh guns are dangerous, let's not allow them" or possibly "we get a break on our insurance if we put this sign up"
 
#17 ·
Hmmm....

one is supposed to maintain control of a firearm. Passing out means losing control (and I guess you could argue falling asleep would be as well). Take this to an extreme, and nobody could carry a firearm if it is possible they will be involved in an accident that could render them unconscious -- like a car wreck. Maybe a means for the gun-control to push the idea of a firearm that can only be fired by it's recognized owner (thumbprint, whatever).
 
#18 ·
J_dazzle23 said:
To say that it is a legit reason to prohibit guns? possibly . And im not positive that i agree with it. But to think that's the actual reason they did, I just think of that as a LIL bit of a stretch. With all the "just follow these rules because they have been this way forever" types in hospital and medical administration like you mentioned, I doubt they put any more thought into it other than "oh guns are dangerous, let's not allow them" or possibly "we get a break on our insurance if we put this sign up"
UtahCFP said:
one is supposed to maintain control of a firearm. Passing out means losing control (and I guess you could argue falling asleep would be as well). Take this to an extreme, and nobody could carry a firearm if it is possible they will be involved in an accident that could render them unconscious -- like a car wreck. Maybe a means for the gun-control to push the idea of a firearm that can only be fired by it's recognized owner (thumbprint, whatever).
As I noted in the thread about the Darren Hunt shooting, I will defend a person's legal right to own and carry a gun right up to the point he violates someone else's rights. If a man is trusted to walk the streets unsupervised then his rights must be respected. IE, until we can convict or commit him, we have to respect his rights.

It is for this reason that I, a tea-totaler, am very supportive of Utah's law that permits lawfully carrying a firearm into a bar or restaurant that serve alcohol, and even permits imbibing; our law in this regard only bans being intoxicated and in possession of a gun. My position should not be confused as actually encouraging the use of alcohol or any other drug while carrying. Indeed, I think it highly prudent not to carry when drinking, or not to drink when carrying. I think it only prudent to avoid carrying while using pain meds or other drugs that affect motor control, brain function, etc, and certainly until one is quite certain of what effect and what level of impairment, if any, the drugs have on the individual. But I do not support a law banning possession while using such medications unless their effects are demonstratively or objectively comparable to being legally intoxicated.

I think it a good idea to empty the chamber on long guns before placing them into a vehicle. But I strongly support current law that exempts permit holders from that requirement. And not because getting a permit makes one smarter or less likely to have an accident with a fully loaded long gun in a car.

Not every bad, foolish, or potentially dangerous practice needs a criminal penalty attached.

I'd like to see less, not more government regulation. But that doesn't mean I want to see individuals or businesses behaving badly.

I think it would be great if businesses placed such an emphasis on worker safety that they would take every reasonable measure to assure it whether OSHA required them to do so or not. It is wonderful when employers go above and beyond legal requirements to take care of and support their workers who are in the National Guard or Reserves. Would that employers would reach out to attract and employ, with necessary accommodations, that handicapped without any threat of ADA lawsuits. Wouldn't it be wonderful in companies would voluntarily limit executive pay while providing employees real and meaningful profit sharing, without any threat of regulations or laws?

Shouldn't we, as gun owners, encourage personal responsibility rather than pushing for laws that would certainly be overly broad and grossly abused?

If a man is walking the streets unsupervised, he is entitled to his rights...ALL of them.

But it is clearly prudent for some of those men to make a personal determination that they should not personally own a gun, or maybe not carry a gun outside their own homes as a matter of protecting themselves or the public.

And it is probably a good thing that lots of regular blood donors view the "No Gun" policy at the Red Cross as highly offensive, despite my take on it. In making your voices heard the next time they call asking for a donation, or even dropping them a letter explaining why you won't be donating in the future, you may be the catalyst to changing an overly broad policy into something more appropriate such as either leaving the matter entirely up to the individual, or, including a brief portion on the potential risk as part of the educational overview or personal questions. "A small number of donors feel lightheaded or pass out. In rare cases such an event could lead a person to instinctively handling a firearm they are carrying before they are fully cogent. If you are carrying a firearm and would like us to secure it for you, please let us know during the private interview."

Charles
 
#19 ·
Ok, I am going to contribute my share. Consider my opinions worth what you just paid for them.
I work for ARUP, we also collect blood donations and operate a transfusion medicine division, in addition to several other lab services. As an MLT and certified phlebotomist I have been fairly extensively trained in blood collection, processing, handling and transfusion. Yes it is possible for someone to pass out after a transfusion, although most people get light headed or sick and lay down before they pass out. Yes it is possible for someone to reach for their gun, most likely to ensure it is still secure, before the donation staff feel like they are completly "with it". All of the points that have been previously made are valid, even those that are examples of incredibly rare events. Are any of them good reasons for Red Cross to prohibit concealed firearms, IMO no.
That being said, blood donation saves lives. If you can donate you absolutely should. If you want to donate but you don't want to go to Red Cross because of their policy about concealed weapons come to ARUP. We do not have any policies prohibiting concealed weapons and your blood will support the blood banks locally, specifically at Primary Childrens, Shriners and the UofU.
 
#20 ·
justBeth said:
Ok, I am going to contribute my share. Consider my opinions worth what you just paid for them.
I work for ARUP, we also collect blood donations and operate a transfusion medicine division, in addition to several other lab services. As an MLT and certified phlebotomist I have been fairly extensively trained in blood collection, processing, handling and transfusion. Yes it is possible for someone to pass out after a transfusion, although most people get light headed or sick and lay down before they pass out. Yes it is possible for someone to reach for their gun, most likely to ensure it is still secure, before the donation staff feel like they are completly "with it". All of the points that have been previously made are valid, even those that are examples of incredibly rare events. Are any of them good reasons for Red Cross to prohibit concealed firearms, IMO no.
That being said, blood donation saves lives. If you can donate you absolutely should. If you want to donate but you don't want to go to Red Cross because of their policy about concealed weapons come to ARUP. We do not have any policies prohibiting concealed weapons and your blood will support the blood banks locally, specifically at Primary Childrens, Shriners and the UofU.
Thank you Beth, for sharing a voice of reason, from within the industry! Before I donate, I need to clear it with my physician, I'm on a small pharmacy of medications. Also I need to ask, is there an office up north of SLC? For me to drive to Orem to donate would require a very specific set of circumstances. Meaning either a family member or close friend. I know, I could google it, and will if you don't answer, but it's good to see you participating in a forum.

Mel
 
#21 ·
quychang said:
justBeth said:
Ok, I am going to contribute my share. Consider my opinions worth what you just paid for them.
I work for ARUP, we also collect blood donations and operate a transfusion medicine division, in addition to several other lab services. As an MLT and certified phlebotomist I have been fairly extensively trained in blood collection, processing, handling and transfusion. Yes it is possible for someone to pass out after a transfusion, although most people get light headed or sick and lay down before they pass out. Yes it is possible for someone to reach for their gun, most likely to ensure it is still secure, before the donation staff feel like they are completly "with it". All of the points that have been previously made are valid, even those that are examples of incredibly rare events. Are any of them good reasons for Red Cross to prohibit concealed firearms, IMO no.
That being said, blood donation saves lives. If you can donate you absolutely should. If you want to donate but you don't want to go to Red Cross because of their policy about concealed weapons come to ARUP. We do not have any policies prohibiting concealed weapons and your blood will support the blood banks locally, specifically at Primary Childrens, Shriners and the UofU.
Thank you Beth, for sharing a voice of reason, from within the industry! Before I donate, I need to clear it with my physician, I'm on a small pharmacy of medications. Also I need to ask, is there an office up north of SLC? For me to drive to Orem to donate would require a very specific set of circumstances. Meaning either a family member or close friend. I know, I could google it, and will if you don't answer, but it's good to see you participating in a forum.

Mel
http://www.utahblood.org/locations.html
 
#22 ·
justBeth said:
Ok, I am going to contribute my share. Consider my opinions worth what you just paid for them.
I work for ARUP, ...

If you can donate you absolutely should. If you want to donate but you don't want to go to Red Cross because of their policy about concealed weapons come to ARUP. We do not have any policies prohibiting concealed weapons and your blood will support the blood banks locally, specifically at Primary Childrens, Shriners and the UofU.
Beth,

Thank you. I appreciate the alternative view point and the knowledge that ARUP doesn't ban guns at their donation centers. I can now actually let the Red Cross recruiters know that I now donate via ARUP because of the Red Cross policy that at the very least is needlessly broad.

Charles
 
#23 ·
ARUP has donor centers in their research park location and in Sandy just south of 9000 and west of the freeway. They can be ready reached by calling 801-583-2787 and asking for donor services. They are really great to work with and are actually more cautious about medical rejections than Red Cross is.
 
#24 ·
I sure would like to hear the Red Cross' reasoning for the gun buster sign. Maybe I'll stop in and donate. Possibly organize a decent size OC event. It is my understanding that blood banks have a rough time during the holidays because less folks donate.
 
#25 ·
justBeth said:
If you want to donate but you don't want to go to Red Cross because of their policy about concealed weapons come to ARUP. We do not have any policies prohibiting concealed weapons and your blood will support the blood banks locally, specifically at Primary Childrens, Shriners and the UofU.
Yes but then you are supporting Primary Children's, which I wont do because they get far too nosy and try to interject themselves into peoples decisions, even going so far as to try to get peoples kids taken away for having guns in the house, or seeking a second opinion on health care matters before letting them perform a surgery on their child.
 
#26 ·
gravedancer said:
justBeth said:
If you want to donate but you don't want to go to Red Cross because of their policy about concealed weapons come to ARUP. We do not have any policies prohibiting concealed weapons and your blood will support the blood banks locally, specifically at Primary Childrens, Shriners and the UofU.
Yes but then you are supporting Primary Children's, which I wont do because they get far too nosy and try to interject themselves into peoples decisions, even going so far as to try to get peoples kids taken away for having guns in the house, or seeking a second opinion on health care matters before letting them perform a surgery on their child.
All your doing is providing life saving blood to those who need here locally. IMHO not donating blood when you can just because you don't like how they have dealt with some patients is kinda selfish. Blood goes to those who are in need of it to save lives and children would be of the highest priority regardless of the hospital.

I'm not saying your belief about PCH is right or wrong just that it should not be a factor in donating blood if you can. Feel free to not donate any money to them if it is your wish.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top