"No Weapons" at Cost Cutters

Went to get a haircut today and saw the location was posted.

Sent the following letter to corporate:
"On the afternoon of February 5th, my family visited the Cost Cutters location at 6894 Centennial Blvd in Colorado Springs, CO. My son and I were planning on getting haircuts and had brought a Cost Cutters coupon with us for that purpose. As I approached the doors to the business I was greeted by a large posted sign stating that "weapons" were not allowed on the store premises. I am a Concealed Carry Permit holder, meaning that I am a verified law-abiding citizen. I have submitted fingerprints and passed extensive background checks as well as successfully completed firearms training and safety classes, meaning that I know proper and safe weapons handling and all relevant state laws pertaining to the carry and use of firearms. I am clearly a law abiding citizen and have made the conscious decision to both protect my family and exercise my 2nd Amendment Constitutional rights.

I would love to have a dialog with someone in your company regarding this and would also respectfully ask that Cost Cutters examine this policy in great detail. By choosing to support a ban on firearms in this particular store location, Cost Cutters has effectively endorsed discrimination against a specific group of law abiding citizens based solely on their choice to take personal responsibility for their own safety. I would assume that your policy is not to discriminate against customers based on religion or infringe upon their freedom of speech, so I am confused as to why your company has decided it is appropriate to deprive law-abiding citizens of the ability to protect themselves and their families. Out of respect for Cost Cutters' rights as a private business, I promptly took my business today to Great Clips down the street where I gladly paid for two full price haircuts rather than support a company that doesn't support me. At this my family and I have chosen to spread the word about your corporate policies to the numerous groups we are members of, both in person and online."

I had more but that was as much as I could fit into their canned comment field on their website.

Interesting, great message. Let us know what the reply says, if any!

I expect that the "No Weapons" sign is simply an expression of their work-place security policy- in the event that a customer was horribly dissatisfied with their haircut, or if a robber were to come in to demand money neither could confront the staff with a weapon since the sign obviously prevents weapons from being introduced into the establishment.( Ding-a-ling)

A preferable approach to enhancing security might be a sign that says:

" This business welcomes our armed customers because we appreciate the additional security that their presence provides to all other customers and our staff."

I go to Floyd's Barbershop near my house and they have not made any issue about my sidearm which I have worn openly or under a jacket (which becomes visible after jacket removed for haircut).

Just a canned response today finally:

"Mr. Polynikes,
Thank you for contacting us. While Cost Cutters respects the right of individuals to carry firearms; we are focused on the comfort of our guests and staff and have chosen to exercise our right to ban all weapons, including guns, on this premises. We regret any inconvenience this may cause.

Sincerely, Sara
Guest Services"

So... it does appear to be a corporate supported policy, though not every location is apparently posted. They're not getting off that easy. Replied already:

"Sara,
Would you mind elaborating for me on what steps Cost Cutters does take to protect patrons in your stores? How does Cost Cutters protect people from another incident like the one in Sioux Falls, SD last year? It would seem to me that only people who are interested in obeying the law would respect your company's decision, thereby creating a resistance free zone for anyone looking to cause others harm.

Does this "No Weapons" policy extend to members of law enforcement as well? If not, why extend a double standard to citizens who have undergone the same background checks and often even more extensive training then a police officer has?

Furthermore, I am confused as to how a concealed firearm has any impact on the "comfort" of employees or other guests. A concealed weapon will never be seen by these individuals unless they are already being threatened by an armed criminal. A firearm, like a pocket knife or a hammer or a baseball bat is just a tool. It is not a weapon until it is used as such.

Unfortunately, until such time as Cost Cutters treats fairly those guests who only wish to protect themselves and their families while on your premises, Cost Cutters will continue to be listed in various public databases as a business that does not support the rights of citizens. Please keep in mind as well that by disarming law abiding guests, Cost Cutters could be opening the door for litigation in the event that someone who could've otherwise defended themselves is injured or killed by an armed criminal. Please consider these concerns and, if you are unable to answer them, kindly direct them to someone who can discuss the matter more thoroughly.

Kind regards,
Polynikes"

Mine's not posted in Colorado, and I have carried in there before. I have had the same gal cut my hair (what's left of it LOL) for a number of years now.

Polynikes said:

Just a canned response today finally:

"Mr. Polynikes,
Thank you for contacting us. While Cost Cutters respects the right of individuals to carry firearms; we are focused on the comfort of our guests and staff and have chosen to exercise our right to ban all weapons, including guns, on this premises. We regret any inconvenience this may cause.

Sincerely, Sara
Guest Services"

So... it does appear to be a corporate supported policy, though not every location is apparently posted. They're not getting off that easy. Replied already:

"Sara,
Would you mind elaborating for me on what steps Cost Cutters does take to protect patrons in your stores? How does Cost Cutters protect people from another incident like the one in Sioux Falls, SD last year? It would seem to me that only people who are interested in obeying the law would respect your company's decision, thereby creating a resistance free zone for anyone looking to cause others harm.

Does this "No Weapons" policy extend to members of law enforcement as well? If not, why extend a double standard to citizens who have undergone the same background checks and often even more extensive training then a police officer has?

Furthermore, I am confused as to how a concealed firearm has any impact on the "comfort" of employees or other guests. A concealed weapon will never be seen by these individuals unless they are already being threatened by an armed criminal. A firearm, like a pocket knife or a hammer or a baseball bat is just a tool. It is not a weapon until it is used as such.

Unfortunately, until such time as Cost Cutters treats fairly those guests who only wish to protect themselves and their families while on your premises, Cost Cutters will continue to be listed in various public databases as a business that does not support the rights of citizens. Please keep in mind as well that by disarming law abiding guests, Cost Cutters could be opening the door for litigation in the event that someone who could've otherwise defended themselves is injured or killed by an armed criminal. Please consider these concerns and, if you are unable to answer them, kindly direct them to someone who can discuss the matter more thoroughly.

Kind regards,
Polynikes"

Click to expand...

While I don't agree with Cost Cutters policy, I disagree with your point about LEO being allowed to carry in Cost Cutters. I have seen this argument used before on this site in regards to the same issues. First, let me say that if Cost Cutters wants to ban even LEO from carrying (unless on duty, while investigating a call in Cost Cutters, in which case they can't) they can, it's their right, even if we don't agree with it. However, if they want to make that exception for LEO I believe that it is not discriminatory towards a private citizen with a permit. I am not saying that LEO's are special, but they are different and it is a different situation. How you say? Well first, An LEO is an Official and it is a LEO duty to investigate crimes on or off duty. Any crime that may occur in Cost Cutters and a firearms is required for this in case it is needed. It is not a citizen's responsibility to investigate crimes, intervene nor can they detain or make arrests and charge someone with a crime. A priviate citizen has no authority and does not act in an official capacity. Secondly, a firearm is part of a LEO's uniform, just as is a badge and ID, etc. It is a tool that is part of his job like a carpenter with a hammer, and must be worn and in some cases must be worn off duty. You may agree with me or not but I offer a different way to look at it instead of the way it is used here.

LESGTINCT said:

While I don't agree with Cost Cutters policy, I disagree with your point about LEO being allowed to carry in Cost Cutters. I have seen this argument used before on this site in regards to the same issues. First, let me say that if Cost Cutters wants to ban even LEO from carrying (unless on duty, while investigating a call in Cost Cutters, in which case they can't) they can, it's their right, even if we don't agree with it. However, if they want to make that exception for LEO I believe that it is not discriminatory towards a private citizen with a permit. I am not saying that LEO's are special, but they are different and it is a different situation. How you say? Well first, An LEO is an Official and it is a LEO duty to investigate crimes on or off duty. Any crime that may occur in Cost Cutters and a firearms is required for this in case it is needed. It is not a citizen's responsibility to investigate crimes, intervene nor can they detain or make arrests and charge someone with a crime. A priviate citizen has no authority and does not act in an official capacity. Secondly, a firearm is part of a LEO's uniform, just as is a badge and ID, etc. It is a tool that is part of his job like a carpenter with a hammer, and must be worn and in some cases must be worn off duty. You may agree with me or not but I offer a different way to look at it instead of the way it is used here.

Click to expand...

It is not an LEO's job to investigate crime off duty. It is also not an LEO's job to intervene whether they or on or off duty. Their first priority is their own safety. Couple that with the court rulings that police have not duty to protect the individual citizen and were left with the fact that we are responsible for ourselves. Businesses making it okay for LE to carry while not acting in their official capacity may be legal, but it is not right.

You are also mistaken in your belief that a private citizen has no authority and that they can not make an arrest.

C.R.S. 16-3-201. Arrest by a private person
A person who is not a peace officer may arrest another person when any crime has been or is being committed by the arrested person in the presence of the person making the arrest.

Very well said Beau

Beau said:

It is not an LEO's job to investigate crime off duty. It is also not an LEO's job to intervene whether they or on or off duty. Their first priority is their own safety. Couple that with the court rulings that police have not duty to protect the individual citizen and were left with the fact that we are responsible for ourselves. Businesses making it okay for LE to carry while not acting in their official capacity may be legal, but it is not right.

You are also mistaken in your belief that a private citizen has no authority and that they can not make an arrest.

C.R.S. 16-3-201. Arrest by a private person
A person who is not a peace officer may arrest another person when any crime has been or is being committed by the arrested person in the presence of the person making the arrest.

Click to expand...

I have to agree with you Beau. A citizen does in fact have those rights and can execute them when needed. You are correct that the LEO's have no obligation for the protection of civilians, only law enforcement. So in that regard, I feel that the reply to corporate is justified. Just as we, as citizens, have the right to take our business somewhere else. I have seen several times where citizens have made a real change by simply not buying some company's services or goods. IMHO.