COSTCO no firearm policy.

papa bear said:

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

Click to expand...

Please cite the law that is being broken.

Criminal trespass in the second degree.

(1) A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the second degree if he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises of another under circumstances not constituting criminal trespass in the first degree.

(2) Criminal trespass in the second degree is a misdemeanor.

In any prosecution under RCW 9A.52.070 and 9A.52.080, it is a defense that:

(1) A building involved in an offense under RCW 9A.52.070 was abandoned; or

(2) The premises were at the time open to members of the public and the actor complied with all lawful conditions imposed on access to or remaining in the premises; or

(3) The actor reasonably believed that the owner of the premises, or other person empowered to license access thereto, would have licensed him to enter or remain; or

(4) The actor was attempting to serve legal process which includes any document required or allowed to be served upon persons or property, by any statute, rule, ordinance, regulation, or court order, excluding delivery by the mails of the United States. This defense applies only if the actor did not enter into a private residence or other building not open to the public and the entry onto the premises was reasonable and necessary for service of the legal process.


Since you knowingly entered the premisis, and know that costco prohibits firearms, it was be an easy argument that you are guilty of Criminal Trespass in the Second Degree. None of the listed exceptions apply.

gogodawgs said:

Please cite the law that is being broken.

Click to expand...

maybe it might, now that i've looked it up, it appears RCW 9A.52.010 says
(5) "Enters or remains unlawfully." A person "enters or remains unlawfully" in or upon premises when he or she is not then licensed, invited, or otherwise privileged to so enter or remain.

becuase costco is member only, you're privelaged to enter, and if the membership contract included no weapons, you might no longer have such privelage, but if you're only at the pharmacy or tire center or food court that are normally open to the public without badging that wouldn't be an issue, but entering the "secure" portion of the store might be construed that way IF any membership agreement stated that the member agrees not to carry while in the store. i don't have a copy of a member agreement with me though

EMNofSeattle said:

maybe it might, now that i've looked it up, it appears RCW 9A.52.010 says
(5) "Enters or remains unlawfully." A person "enters or remains unlawfully" in or upon premises when he or she is not then licensed, invited, or otherwise privileged to so enter or remain.

becuase costco is member only, you're privelaged to enter, and if the membership contract included no weapons, you might no longer have such privelage, but if you're only at the pharmacy or tire center or food court that are normally open to the public without badging that wouldn't be an issue, but entering the "secure" portion of the store might be construed that way IF any membership agreement stated that the member agrees not to carry while in the store. i don't have a copy of a member agreement with me though

Click to expand...

"Unlawful", my guess is one must be committing a crime to be unlawful. What is the crime?

DCKilla said:

"Unlawful", my guess is one must be committing a crime to be unlawful. What is the crime?

Click to expand...

The crime of unlawfully entering or remaining as defined in the cite i provided is entering a premises you had no prilevalge to enter, i was just speculating that if you're a member and your privelages to enter are determined by agreeing to certain rules and you disregard those rule do you lose the permission to enter?

I don't know, i'm not aware of any court rulings. nor am i aware of anyone being prosecuted for disregarding signage on a non-prohibited place. normally someone with authority to ask you to leave asks the OCer to leave and they leave. i don't see anyone being prosecuted or even attempting prosecution unless you're being a total jerkwad to the manager, security guard, etc

If I have an agreement with them (of which does not include firearm language) and a membership card. They request my membership card upon entry and allow me to enter, it highly unlikely they would be able to have you charged with trespass. Most of the time, a recorded record will need to have existed stating your trespassed from the property before they would even think about charging you unless you defy orders to leave in the presence of an officer.

Personally, I have heard rumors of a carry prohibition in certain membership stores but I've not seen it in the membership information nor is it posted at the stores I've been too. Therefore, it is a rumor only and I choose not to let rumors control me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

DCKilla said:

"Unlawful", my guess is one must be committing a crime to be unlawful. What is the crime?

Click to expand...

You quoted the definition:

maybe it might, now that i've looked it up, it appears RCW 9A.52.010 says
(5) "Enters or remains unlawfully." A person "enters or remains unlawfully" in or upon premises when he or she is not then licensed, invited, or otherwise privileged to so enter or remain.

Click to expand...

If you're not invited to enter or remain, meaning you've been asked to leave, remaining is unlawful.

This is such a dead horse of a topic, it is brought up about once a month. Private property gets to make their rules in regards to firearms, we as firearm carriers can vote with our wallets or choose to conceal to avoid the issue. I conceal to avoid the issue since I don't have a Sam's club close enough to make it a viable option. Your mileage may vary, but remember to respect others choices and do your own research and form your own opinions and then own them.

slapmonkay said:

I have yet to have a problem in the Woodinville Costco.... Just saying.

Click to expand...

Same here. We've OC'd in the Woodinville Costco many times with no problems whatsoever, and we've also OC'd in the Everett Costco once or twice with no issue. Maybe it's because hubby's usually got his Vet hat on, and we usually have our kids?

38or45 said:

Same here. We've OC'd in the Woodinville Costco many times with no problems whatsoever, and we've also OC'd in the Everett Costco once or twice with no issue. Maybe it's because hubby's usually got his Vet hat on, and we usually have our kids?

Click to expand...

I'm not aware of costco employee policy, but i did used to work at QFC in Port Orchard, and it was A) store policy that open carry be allowed as long as the firearm remained holstered and the carrier wasn't threatening anyone.

but the important part about trespassing was, the power to trespass someone from the store rested in the Store Manager, the Merchandising Manager, and the highest ranking manager on duty, in that order. regular union employees and department heads couldn't order someone out. basically only the highest ranking person at the store on-shift could. It's possible that Woodinville and Everett stores might have managers who simply don't care, or the manager doesn't care if customers OC so long as other customers don't complain about it. much like the DAs in Illinois who have stated they won't prosecute any CCer as long as they hold a valid FOID card, or cops giving people warnings instead of tickets on minor offenses. the manager has discretion in terms of trespassing people out, and most likely in those stores the managers don't care as long no one else cares, is what I think is going on there.

slapmonkay said:

If I have an agreement with them (of which does not include firearm language) and a membership card. They request my membership card upon entry and allow me to enter, it highly unlikely they would be able to have you charged with trespass. Most of the time, a recorded record will need to have existed stating your trespassed from the property before they would even think about charging you unless you defy orders to leave in the presence of an officer.

Click to expand...

This ^

And even if OC or CC really is against the rules, breaking the rules does not automatically mean that you are trespassing - even if the penalty were immediate cancellation of your membership, which I'm pretty sure is not the case.

John Hardin said:

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

Click to expand...

LOL.....you make a good politician....you don't get to sue because it's a gun free zone you get to sue because they must assume responsibility for making it a gun free zone?

Give me a break, you get to choose not to go. The private property owners shouldn't be sued because you decided to follow their private property rules if you feel you are unsafe in their GFZ don't go there.

EMNofSeattle said:

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?

Click to expand...

The person who pulled the trigger.

That's not comparable though, as there would be no liability for the private property owner in that situation from not banning firearms.

John Hardin said:

The person who pulled the trigger.

That's not comparable though, as there would be no liability for the private property owner in that situation from not banning firearms.

Click to expand...

So if someone who has your favored policy has a mass shooting conducted on his property then no liability,

but if a mass shooting is conducted and they banned guns, completely liable?

That throws the tort law as we know it on its head.

EMNofSeattle said:

So if someone who has your favored policy has a mass shooting conducted on his property then no liability,
but if a mass shooting is conducted and they banned guns, completely liable?
That throws the tort law as we know it on its head.

Click to expand...

How so?

rapgood said:

How so?

Click to expand...

I was replying to someone who advocated that any business who posts "no firearms" be made liable for injury caused by a criminal assault. it's not law now, but some people on the forums have floated making a law like that. I'm only stating I think it's absurd that a business that bans guns be held liable while a business that allows them be immune.

Now I understand you're an attorney Mr. Rapgood, so obviously you know way more then me. But I always thought generally in torts that disregarding rules or regulations absolved the regulating party of liability. like in my former workplace, if I attempted to put an item on top shelf of a shopping aisle using a wheeled shopping cart and fall and hurt myself, that the store isn't liable becuase they provided me with instructions to use OSHA compliant step ladders kept in the back.

Likewise I would think that if a business had posted "no gun policies" and a shooter came in and shot some people, the business isn't responsible since they didn't encourage nor ask that the shooter bring his gun on premises and by bringing his gun he violated posted rules.

I mean This was how I thought it worked from minimal reading, but obviously you're the expert so I'll defer to whatever you say is the case.

Liability only comes from negligence. If the private property owner could foresee there being a problem, and negligently took no action to prevent it, then maybe they could be held liable.

What Mall owner would reasonably foresee their property being "invaded" by a mass shooter when it's only occurred at a very small number of malls, widely spread out over the country, and widely spread over time.

Ditto for theaters, and other such venues.

amlevin said:

Liability only comes from negligence. If the private property owner could foresee there being a problem, and negligently took no action to prevent it, then maybe they could be held liable.

What Mall owner would reasonably foresee their property being "invaded" by a mass shooter when it's only occurred at a very small number of malls, widely spread out over the country, and widely spread over time.

Ditto for theaters, and other such venues.

Click to expand...

If a venue such as a mall or theater hires security and bans firearms, this is evidence that they foresaw violent crimes on their property.