• 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.

COSTCO no firearm policy.

Difdi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
987
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
For private property no we need to stop trampling the rights of property owners.

Guns are also private property.

It doesn't matter who creates the GFZ, if it impairs the ability to engage in self-defense then whoever made the rule should be liable in the event that self-defense is needed.

With a little note that says, "We should support Costco's secret anti-gun stance, courtesy of Cease Fire Washington"

VERY bad idea. Fraudulently posting a message "from" a rival political group is likely to result in legal consequences.
 
Last edited:

Ultra09

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2011
Messages
20
Location
Mukilteo
I was in the Gig Harbor Costco and had an employee ask me to "hide" my weapon for now and not bring it again as it was in violation of their no gun policy,
Take care

So the employee is also at fault for not enforcing their policies!
"Hiding" said gun, is still a gun on the property!
Carry on! Pun intended!
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Guns are also private property.

It doesn't matter who creates the GFZ, if it impairs the ability to engage in self-defense then whoever made the rule should be liable in the event that self-defense is needed.

So what if guns are private property? You shouldn't be able to sue because they are banned from someones private property. You have the choice of not being on that property. IF you feel that you were harmed because of private property owners rules/actions, take them to court civilly.

I don't think men's clubs should be forced to admit women and vice versa, that stores should be forced to install handicap spaces, etc.....the ever encroaching socialist/statist government. Involving themselves in private affairs.
 

DCKilla

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2010
Messages
523
Location
Wet Side, WA
So what if guns are private property? You shouldn't be able to sue because they are banned from someones private property. You have the choice of not being on that property. IF you feel that you were harmed because of private property owners rules/actions, take them to court civilly.

I don't think men's clubs should be forced to admit women and vice versa, that stores should be forced to install handicap spaces, etc.....the ever encroaching socialist/statist government. Involving themselves in private affairs.
+1, government forcing property owners to do anything effects us all.

When asked to leave, I do as they wish without question. I would like the same respect for my own property if rolls were reversed.
 
Last edited:

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
VERY bad idea. Fraudulently posting a message "from" a rival political group is likely to result in legal consequences.

Okay so we leave that part about being from the rival group off of there.

We can still "thank" Costco for it's non-outspoken anti-gun policy. Heck it might be fun to forward this to CeaseThinking and see if I can get them to publish it on their site.
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
+1, government forcing property owners to do anything effects us all.

When asked to leave, I do as they wish without question. I would like the same respect for my own property if rolls were reversed.

Corporations should not have private property rights. Citizens (flesh and blood people) should have private property rights.

Now DC, since you agree that we, the people (flesh and blood), should have private property rights, then why force us to build our house to code? I can see requiring those who are licensed builders/repairmen to build/repair to 'code' but a private homeowner? Those who build houses to tell should have codes to build to. What about zoning laws then too? So long as I am not letting my cows/hogs/goats/pigs/sheep/dogs run through your yard would you have a problem with me raising them next door to you?

If you tell me that we need zoning laws then........

Back OT though. A corporation should have limited ability to restrict anything. It should be limited to what the law clearly spells out. A corporation is not alive, it has no feelings, it is not self aware, so it should have no rights.

About Costco though if it's not clearly published in the membership booklet then it should never be able to be enforced. That membership agreement is a de-facto contract, you agree to the terms listed and you can shop there. If the anti-gun thing is not spelled out then it cannot be enforced. Costco should be sued for fraud based on that alone. If the membership agreement book says you will not wear tank tops and you sign it then that is part of the deal. I have looked though those membership booklets and never found anything about guns/weapons. Even the workers give conflicting statements.
 
Last edited:

Lasjayhawk

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2012
Messages
289
Location
Las Vegas
Just a little food for thought. Here in Las Vegas, NV. IIRC you don't need a membership to go into a local Costco if you are buying booze. Something in the laws about you can't have a "private" liquor store.
 

DCKilla

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2010
Messages
523
Location
Wet Side, WA
Corporations should not have private property rights. Citizens (flesh and blood people) should have private property rights.

Now DC, since you agree that we, the people (flesh and blood), should have private property rights, then why force us to build our house to code? I can see requiring those who are licensed builders/repairmen to build/repair to 'code' but a private homeowner? Those who build houses to tell should have codes to build to. What about zoning laws then too? So long as I am not letting my cows/hogs/goats/pigs/sheep/dogs run through your yard would you have a problem with me raising them next door to you?

If you tell me that we need zoning laws then........

Back OT though. A corporation should have limited ability to restrict anything. It should be limited to what the law clearly spells out. A corporation is not alive, it has no feelings, it is not self aware, so it should have no rights.

About Costco though if it's not clearly published in the membership booklet then it should never be able to be enforced. That membership agreement is a de-facto contract, you agree to the terms listed and you can shop there. If the anti-gun thing is not spelled out then it cannot be enforced. Costco should be sued for fraud based on that alone. If the membership agreement book says you will not wear tank tops and you sign it then that is part of the deal. I have looked though those membership booklets and never found anything about guns/weapons. Even the workers give conflicting statements.
"Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", I guess property wasn't that important.
 

PistolPackingMomma

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,884
Location
SC
Just a little food for thought. Here in Las Vegas, NV. IIRC you don't need a membership to go into a local Costco if you are buying booze. Something in the laws about you can't have a "private" liquor store.

You do not have to be a member to use the pharmacy, but in order to ring up anything else in the warehouse, you must have a membership number in order to start the transaction. Granted, the liquor store is actually adjacent to the warehouse, but I believe the same rules apply to buying liquor as to seeing the optometrist or buying clothes. At least, that's how it was at the location I worked at. I'll also comment that those memos don't look like the standard memos we received weekly, but then again, they could be different for a reason.

I believe that the company remains deliberately (publicly) ambiguous on their firearm policy, and will maintain that as long as they can. Jim Sinegal, the founder, CEO and etc, retired a few years ago and new management has stepped up. I've met Mr. Sinegal, and regret that I never had the opportunity to ask him about this policy. Perhaps the new management would clarify if approached directly, but I sincerely doubt it.
 
Last edited:

John Hardin

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2007
Messages
683
Location
Snohomish, Washington, USA
You shouldn't be able to sue because [guns] are banned from someones private property.
That is not the proposal being made.

A GFZ liability law in no way interferes with the ability of a private property owner to ban guns from their property if they so desire, or to trespass someone who ignores that prohibition. What it does is make explicit and enforceable the assumption of responsibility for safety and the liability for avoidable injury due to the adoption of that GFZ policy. No liability occurs and no ability to sue exists unless injury due to a violent crime actually occurred to someone who otherwise would have been armed and able to defend themselves.

A GFZ liability law does not allow you to sue simply because the GFZ exists.

Note: this is all based on the version I am proposing here: http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/wa_gun_laws_gun_free_zones.txt
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
That is not the proposal being made.

A GFZ liability law in no way interferes with the ability of a private property owner to ban guns from their property if they so desire, or to trespass someone who ignores that prohibition. What it does is make explicit and enforceable the assumption of responsibility for safety and the liability for avoidable injury due to the adoption of that GFZ policy. No liability occurs and no ability to sue exists unless injury due to a violent crime actually occurred to someone who otherwise would have been armed and able to defend themselves.

A GFZ liability law does not allow you to sue simply because the GFZ exists.

Note: this is all based on the version I am proposing here: http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/wa_gun_laws_gun_free_zones.txt

Ok, well that's a two way street though, so if a CPL holder accidently shoots someone, or an accident occurs in gun handling, who's liable?

Enough, no more laws that tell people how to run their businesses please, we have enough of those already.

you can boycott costco or carry concealed in costco and avoid problems. I'm not willing to undermine the rights of property owners however.
 

papa bear

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Messages
2,222
Location
mayberry, nc
of course i am going to beat a dead horse , but thats only because the horse is still running.

there is a difference in private properties. one is an absolute private, this is like your home. the only people that can enter is the ones you have invited. of course that means you still must be within the laws, no murder or robbery or rape allowed

then there are the "public access", where you have let it be known that anyone in the public is invited. in that anyone of the public can come in. being that the public is invited. you can not discriminate against a protected weaker group.

then the is the difference to open or closed "public access". a grocery store is open and a club is closed. say as to the gentleman's club is closed. so also is a "buyers club", when you agree to their terms. that is what you follow. but, that being said there is an amount of security guarantee to the safety of the customer. remember you are there through coercion. they enticed you in. so the responsibility to your safety is their's

we have laws that dictate lots of things to the cost of doing business, and just because we are a strong group. i see no reason we should be discriminated against.

just like the "no blacks allowed" signs that used to be in this country that held the power of law. realize that it is just a perceived notion in the constitution. the 2ndA is a clear right, that should not be discriminated against
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
of course i am going to beat a dead horse , but thats only because the horse is still running.

there is a difference in private properties. one is an absolute private, this is like your home. the only people that can enter is the ones you have invited. of course that means you still must be within the laws, no murder or robbery or rape allowed

then there are the "public access", where you have let it be known that anyone in the public is invited. in that anyone of the public can come in. being that the public is invited. you can not discriminate against a protected weaker group.

then the is the difference to open or closed "public access". a grocery store is open and a club is closed. say as to the gentleman's club is closed. so also is a "buyers club", when you agree to their terms. that is what you follow. but, that being said there is an amount of security guarantee to the safety of the customer. remember you are there through coercion. they enticed you in. so the responsibility to your safety is their's

we have laws that dictate lots of things to the cost of doing business, and just because we are a strong group. i see no reason we should be discriminated against.

just like the "no blacks allowed" signs that used to be in this country that held the power of law. realize that it is just a perceived notion in the constitution. the 2ndA is a clear right, that should not be discriminated against

Wrong, businesses cannot discriminate against people in "protected groups" which are protected becuase those groups are a status of birth. you can't control if you're black or gay or whatever. second off protected groups are specifically defined by law. gun owners aren't among them and frankly shouldn't be. if "protected classes" are expanded to mean anyone who happens to own a physical object then private property laws become useless.

and yes, a retail outlet can ban you from their premises for nearly any reason they want except for protected classes. if you are making a scene in the store they can trespass you from the premises. if you steal something from the store, they can trespass you. if you're alarming other customers, they can legally trespass you from the premises. and I guess I forgot about those costco enforcers running around saying "shop at costco, i'd be a shame if something happened to you" and thus "coercing" me into entering the warehouse store.

it seems to me that you are all for "your rights" but when it comes to someone else's rights you want to pass unconstitutional laws and send gub'ment enforcers to make other people COMPLY WITH YOUR WILL. go to a different damn store or start your own. no reason at all. if a business hates guns, i don't spend my money there. simple enough.
 
Last edited:

papa bear

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Messages
2,222
Location
mayberry, nc
sorry EMN but there are no property rights in the USA. please find a copy of the constitution and read it.

as for your straw argument that there are protected weaker groups. that is also not in the constitution. the birth right to keep and bear arms is.

besides we already regulate what goes on in an public access property.what 's it going to hurt if my constitutional rights are protected there. after all there are several states that already allow it. think New york, and a lot of others
 

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
sorry EMN but there are no property rights in the USA. please find a copy of the constitution and read it.

as for your straw argument that there are protected weaker groups. that is also not in the constitution. the birth right to keep and bear arms is.

besides we already regulate what goes on in an public access property.what 's it going to hurt if my constitutional rights are protected there. after all there are several states that already allow it. think New york, and a lot of others

Go read what 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...' means by the founders.....
 
Last edited:

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
sorry EMN but there are no property rights in the USA. please find a copy of the constitution and read it.

as for your straw argument that there are protected weaker groups. that is also not in the constitution. the birth right to keep and bear arms is.

besides we already regulate what goes on in an public access property.what 's it going to hurt if my constitutional rights are protected there. after all there are several states that already allow it. think New york, and a lot of others

I'm glad you brought that up, if you want New York style laws then good luck OCing anywhere.

we regulate in terms of healthy practices, and building codes, and fire codes meant for the health and safety of the using public. that's a far cry from saying we should regulate all forms of private property.

I'm glad there's no such thing as private property rights, i'm calling a rave at your place tommorow night, let me book a DJ and call a friend to get some kegs, thank you for reminding me, becuase there is no property rights, anyone can use your property for anything they want and you have no right to tell us to leave...... or you'll invoke your right to tell us to leave, and then give some explanation justifying your own hypocrisy in claiming privilage that you would deny others.
 

papa bear

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Messages
2,222
Location
mayberry, nc
just noticed something in the posts here. if you are CCing to the Costco, then you are breaking the law. since you know that firearms are not permitted there. just a reminder of the rules

and don't forget, someone was killed at one for that very reason
 
Top