OC in lancaster. Confrontation with Costco manager

To read large chunks of the transcript, together with highly relevant background analysis that places it in perspective:

http://statelymcdanielmanor.wordpress.com/category/erik-scott-case/

I cc in Costco. Sam's sucks compared to Costco, at least in FL. Else I would do business with a less antigun company.

77zach said:

I cc in Costco. Sam's sucks compared to Costco, at least in FL. Else I would do business with a less antigun company.

Click to expand...

Am I wrong, or are you openly admitting violating the rights of the property owners for your own reasons? Does this break the law in FL? If so, in addition to breaking the law, your above post violates OCDO rules.

I shop at Sam's precisely because they respect my carry. I do not shop at Costco precisely because they do not.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Because costco does not post no firearms in their rules or at the entrances I do not believe 77zach is doing anything wrong. If someone sees his gun and they ask him to leave he would be in danger of trespass if he refuses to leave and if he returns.
Costco is shady with their hidden rule.
I am now happy to drive a few more miles to BJ's.

It is clear that he knows of Costco's no-guns policy, yet he carries. I don't know Florida law, but in some States that could be a crime. Does Florida require explicit notice, via sign or verbally, for carry to be a crime? Or is simple knowledge that carry is barred sufficient to constitute a crime?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Nightmare said:

I've never seen a People of Costco site full of people that look like Wall-Martians. I have never seen a Wall Martian armed. In Charleston, SC, Great Wall Mart preceded Costco by some years. As soon as Costco was established we had a business membership.

Click to expand...

In open carry states it's vary common. I do it all the time. try googling.

eye95 said:

It is clear that he knows of Costco's no-guns policy, yet he carries. I don't know Florida law, but in some States that could be a crime. Does Florida require explicit notice, via sign or verbally, for carry to be a crime? Or is simple knowledge that carry is barred sufficient to constitute a crime?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Click to expand...

Not sure about FL, but in NC it has to be conspicuously posted if you are CC and if OC, even if posted, will not result in much other than a trespass if confronted afterwards.

eye95 said:

It is clear that he knows of Costco's no-guns policy, yet he carries. I don't know Florida law, but in some States that could be a crime. Does Florida require explicit notice, via sign or verbally, for carry to be a crime? Or is simple knowledge that carry is barred sufficient to constitute a crime?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Click to expand...

Florida law does not sanction the use of "No Guns" signs for the imposition of criminal charges. The only manner one could get in legal trouble in this respect is to ignore a personally communicated request to leave the property. Then it is technically trespassing (while armed is a felony) however, the vast majority of LEA have policies not to arrest unless they give the individual the trespass warning themselves or have one on file, and it is very rare for a SA to prosecute in situations where it's only 'my word against his'.

A property owner has no legal authority to prevent an armed individual (or anyone else for that matter) from entering their "Open to the public" business. Same applies to any other property that is 'accessible to the public, like most homes in subdivisions. It's perfectly legal to walk onto someone's property (Baring fencing, very specific/detailed 'No Trespassing' signage or other considerations contained in our very detailed/specific trespass statutes) and until you have been personally told to leave, you cannot be charged with trespass.

Now they can set up metal detectors and/or pat-downs once on their property and then require folks to comply with their request to not carry failure to comply with that request will be followed by a demand to leave the property and the resultant legal problems that could result in ignoring that request. But there is no legal mechanism to prevent someone from entering the 'Open to the public' property.

eye95 said:

Am I wrong, or are you openly admitting violating the rights of the property owners for your own reasons? Does this break the law in FL? If so, in addition to breaking the law, your above post violates OCDO rules.

I shop at Sam's precisely because they respect my carry. I do not shop at Costco precisely because they do not.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Click to expand...

Many of us openly violate these policies. I have no problem in doing so, period. My choice of manner and method of protection of self and family trumps someone else's so-called property rights. Simple as that.

papa bear said:

Costco is an anti American company. that don't believe in citizens defending them selves

the LV police staged a shooting and got away with it. i don't care waht the offical papers say, they were set
by the offenders (why didn't the LEOs have to have a drug test). but that's in the past. nothing we can do about it now

really moving on

Click to expand...

There is no standard/authoritah under which shooters (at least in my jurisdiction) are required to take a drug test. That holds true for cops and noncops. I've investigated plenty. There is certainly nothing to prevent a shooter (or anybody else under the sun) to volunteer to take a drug test. Heck, you could volunteer for one right now.

Why should the LEO's have to have a drug test if involved in the shooting? Is there some policy that requires it?

If you were involved in a shooting, would you volunteer for a drug test? I suspect with many people, if there were specific articulable facts that led to suspicion they were on drugs when the shooting happened, and they weren't, they might feel it's better to CYA and take a drug test, to take that wind out of the sails, especially for a civil trial where it would be more of an issue.

There might be some PD out there that has a policy requiring ofc's involved in a shooting to take a drug test, but I've never heard of such a thing.

That's groovy that you are moving on, and nobody is requiring you to respond, but since you threw it out there into the intertoobs, this question about why the cops didn't take a drug test, I feel it is my duty to set the record straight

1) I see no specific articulable facts to suspect they were on any drugs
2) I am not aware of any agency that requires their ofc's to submit to drug tests when in a shooting, and if las vegas metro doesn't require it , that would be par for the course
3) you clearly don;'t like the conclusions of the investigations into the shooting, but that's no excuse to "cast asparagus" with this drug test thang

notalawyer said:

Many of us openly violate these policies. I have no problem in doing so, period. My choice of manner and method of protection of self and family trumps someone else's so-called property rights. Simple as that.

Click to expand...

It ain't a right if it trumps another's rights. It's just doing whatever the hell you want regardless of anyone else. I can't respect that.

Rights, by definition, cannot be in conflict with each other. Therefore, if you think you have the right to carry on to the property of another when he believes that he has the right to enforce your legal inability to do so, one of you must be wrong. I submit that you are.

If you'd like the logical explanation, I can give you that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

carrying a fire violates no one else's rights and there is no such thing as "private property rights" in a business open to the public. how ever Costco is a membership and closed to the public

but what they don't know won't hurt them. just be careful that you don't get executed like others have.

papa bear said:

carrying a fire violates no one else's rights and there is no such thing as "private property rights" in a business open to the public. how ever Costco is a membership and closed to the public

but what they don't know won't hurt them. just be careful that you don't get executed like others have.

Click to expand...

depends on the state the costco is located in. in michigan, costco is required to allow non-members in to purchase alcohol and/or prescriptions.

Is a cop required to submit to a blood test after he is involved in a wreck?

smellslikemichigan said:

depends on the state the costco is located in. in michigan, costco is required to allow non-members in to purchase alcohol and/or prescriptions.

Click to expand...

Good point--Alabama too. Anyway, it is his opinion that "businesses open to the public" [his phrase, not a legal term] have no property rights, not the current legal reality, nor the Liberty-minded principle on which this nation was founded.

The legal reality is that very specific rights have been legislated away or taken away by the courts under the theory of a "public accommodation." There is no federal law, and I know of no State law (there may be one), that has legislated away owners' right to dictate no guns on their private property.

Such a law would (or does) violate the principle of private property rights, as does current law restricting an owner's right to discriminate against a "protected class."

Folks who truly support Liberty also support the fundamental rights of others. That poster does not.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

In Alabama, at least as of the last time I was there, there was a huge sign over the alcohol stating that State law required Sam's to sell alcohol to non-members. Don't know the code. Don't care. Sam's believes that to be the law. If it ain't, call 'em on it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

eye95 said:

It ain't a right if it trumps another's rights. It's just doing whatever the hell you want regardless of anyone else. I can't respect that.

Rights, by definition, cannot be in conflict with each other. Therefore, if you think you have the right to carry on to the property of another when he believes that he has the right to enforce your legal inability to do so, one of you must be wrong. I submit that you are.

If you'd like the logical explanation, I can give you that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Click to expand...

It ain't a right if it trumps another's rights.

Click to expand...

Right. You're so-called property rights ends where mine begins - in my pockets, on my person, etc.

If you'd like the logical explanation, I can give you that.

Click to expand...

I gave a legal explanation that you requested, don't need/want your 'logic'.

Wastinbait said:

I spend a few thousand a year at costco.

Click to expand...

You should thank the manager for educating you... now you know better. :banana:

Costco is one of the black sheep, a unicorn among businesses. Your dollars will have much more fun playing with friends in the hands of companies who want them.

notalawyer said:

Right. You're so-called property rights ends where mine begins - in my pockets, on my person, etc.

Click to expand...

So, it's cool if I come on your property carrying a bunch of radioactive material in my pockets?

lol. Get over yourself! You aren't more important than property owners, and your rights don't trump theirs just because you clearly only value your own. :lol:

Private club......sort of. But, when has Costco denied a membership to anyone, let alone a protected class? I'm sure they have revoked a membership though I can not prove this. "We" know about their anti-liberty position and we need to spread the word. Violating their property right is anti-liberty.