COSTCO Corporate Formally Bans Firearms

boundlessdyad said:

Not sure what you mean? It is concealed when I am in Costco so the antis wont see it. I am not flaunting moral superiority or even trying to make a point about 2A. For me it is just a personal choice. I feel protecting my loved ones is more important than obeying a store policy.

Click to expand...

Kind of like this?

http://www.abajournal.com/news/arti...ng_armed_fellow_walmart_shopper_who_has_a_co/

http://www.guns.com/2014/09/26/conc...les-lawsuit-after-movie-theater-arrest-video/

protias said:

Kind of like this?

http://www.abajournal.com/news/arti...ng_armed_fellow_walmart_shopper_who_has_a_co/

http://www.guns.com/2014/09/26/conc...les-lawsuit-after-movie-theater-arrest-video/

Click to expand...

Nope, nothing like that. Concealed means concealed. Your examples of 2 individuals who do not know how to properly conceal firearms have no bearing on me. I usually carry 2 guns on a daily basis and they are effectively concealed at all times. I support the rights of individuals to do as they see fit as long as they aren't breaking the law or hurting anyone. I support open carry and concealed carry as there are situations where either one can make more sense than the other.

Nightmare said:

Store policy has the force of law, trespass law.

Click to expand...

Actually, no, this is not entirely true. Depending on what state you are in, signs or "policy" have no weight of law (as is the case in Washington state). As many here will point out, if asked/told to leave then leave. If you stay after being asked/told to leave, THEN you are trespassing. I don't see anyone advocating violating the law here when someone states that they have or will disregard a store/corporate policy unless said policy has the full weight of established law backing it up (again, Washington state does not provide that backup).

For me, this is a moot point as I don't spend money at Costco anyway.

Nightmare said:

Store policy has the force of law, trespass law.

Click to expand...

Not in Utah. URS 76-6-206 sets a pretty high bar for trespass in a place of public accommodation that is open to the public. It requires that entry first be "unlawful" and there is nothing unlawful in Utah about carrying a gun legally but in violation of the policies of a business open to the public. Having entered or remained unlawfully, a person must then intend to cause problems or commit crimes of some sort. Furthermore there is an affirmative defense against a commercial trespassing charge if the property was open to the public and the person's "conduct did not substantially interfere with the owner's use of the property".

It isn't even clear that a request to leave from a place of public accommodation for no other reason than the unwanted presence of a firearm would be sufficient for a commercial trespassing charge to stick. However, if asked to leave, leaving quickly and quietly and not returning with an unwelcome gun is all but entirely assured to prevent any criminal charges, much less a conviction. In 20 years of political activism in Utah I'm not aware of a single charge, much less conviction, for commercial trespass for someone violating a no-gun policy in a store, while actually going about his shopping.

Obviously, laws vary by States and in some States and under some circumstances (proper signage, for example) a private policy at a business has full force of law.

But not in Utah. In Utah there are only two cases where private gun bans have force of law:
1-At private residences;
2-Inside houses of worship.

In both cases "proper" notice must be given for the law to take effect. Proper is legally defined and for churches includes--among other more common options--being listed on one of our Government maintained webpages as having banned guns.

But business property, places of public accommodation enjoy no such benefits.

It is perfectly legal for me to carry into Costco stores in Utah. It is perfectly legal for them to revoke my membership if they discover me and want to do so. But even that would not necessarily keep me out of their stores. Under law, pharmacies cannot limit services to members and so are open to to everyone.

As gun owners and OCers, we are responsible to KNOW the laws that affect us.

I've spent 20 years reading Utah gun laws, figuring out how to repeal the bad laws while strengthening the good laws, and even helping to craft some of the language to move us incrementally toward proper respect for RKBA. Feel free to ask questions. But it would be likely be a mistake for you to think you know more of Utah gun laws than I.

Now, if someone is just butt sore about some gun owners patronizing Costco despite a (generally) non-enforced gun ban, they should say so directly.

Charles

Nightmare said:

Store policy has the force of law, trespass law.

Click to expand...

Not in my state. I can't make it any clearer I am not advocating violating a law. If asked to leave I would do so. I don't/won't stir stuff up by open carrying into an anti gun business.

utbagpiper said:

To each his own.

Does Sam's club allow their employees to carry? Why are you ok patronizing a store that doesn't respect their employee's safety?

Do the profits from Sam's club ever end up getting donated to anti-gun politicians?

Click to expand...

Non sequitur(s).

The property owner, Costco, does not desire firearms on their property other than LE personnel.

Citizens who choose to ignore a property owners wishes, intentionally, are citizens who do not recognize the right of a property owner to peaceably control their property as they see fit.

boundlessdyad said:

I carry in Costco (concealed) and will continue to do so. Store policy doesn't change law. I am law abiding, store rules don't change that.

Click to expand...

boundlessdyad said:

Not sure what you mean? It is concealed when I am in Costco so the antis wont see it. I am not flaunting moral superiority or even trying to make a point about 2A. For me it is just a personal choice. I feel protecting my loved ones is more important than obeying a store policy.

Click to expand...

boundlessdyad said:

Nope, nothing like that. Concealed means concealed. Your examples of 2 individuals who do not know how to properly conceal firearms have no bearing on me. I usually carry 2 guns on a daily basis and they are effectively concealed at all times. I support the rights of individuals to do as they see fit as long as they aren't breaking the law or hurting anyone. I support open carry and concealed carry as there are situations where either one can make more sense than the other.

Click to expand...

boundlessdyad said:

Not in my state. I can't make it any clearer I am not advocating violating a law. If asked to leave I would do so. I don't/won't stir stuff up by open carrying into an anti gun business.

Click to expand...

bound, by stating on a public forum you carry not one but two firearms against the property owner's express and known wishes is in fact advocating violating the law as well as serves a great disrespect to the others who do abide by the owners wishes. it also sets a very bad example to every current member as well as others who aren't members but just surfing this site looking for information and could lead to someone else being irresponsibly CC'g which could lead to their experiencing judicial events.

your explanation you carry concealed so the antis don't see you is pure bovine excrement and you know it as you state & cling to that belief just to justify it to yourself to continue your illegal activities.

if you are blatant bragging about violating costco's policy, where else do you CC, cuz of your egotistically mentality of 'concealed means concealed' where you know good and well it is against the owner's express wishes ~ opps never mind i just might not want to know.

ipse

OC for ME said:

Citizens who choose to ignore a property owners wishes, intentionally, are citizens who do not recognize the right of a property owner to peaceably control their property as they see fit.

Click to expand...

Only the anarchists believe a business owner should be permitted to control his property to the extent that it endangers life and limb.

Turns out I don't believe businesses open to the public should be permitted to chain fire doors shut, disable smoke detectors, or fail to maintain sprinkler systems.

For better or worse, the vast majority of the nation doesn't believe a business should be allowed to deny service to a person based on race, religion, gender, nor disability. In a growing number of areas even the most creative and personal of business owners are required to violate their freedom of conscience to provide creative goods and services in support of sexual conduct they find offensive.

What I have inside my waistband or pocket is really of no concern to a business owner. If he is concerned enough to put up metal detectors, I will avoid his business. If he is relying on the honor system, I will be prepared to defend myself while shopping.

Now, do feel free to explain to me how patronizing a business that denies self-defense to its employees is any better than patronizing a business that also has an unenforced policy against customers being able to defend themselves.

Charles

solus said:

bound, by stating on a public forum you carry not one but two firearms against the property owner's express and known wishes is in fact advocating violating the law

Click to expand...

Citation for law being violated is welcome.

In Utah (and Washington it seems) a no gun policy held by a business open to the public does not carry any force of law.

Nightmare said:

Is the Costco membership contract effective and constructive trespass notice?

Click to expand...

Not in Utah. Citations to the contrary are welcome.

And as previously noted, even non-members are perfectly free to walk into Costcos in Utah to make purchases at the pharmacy. Such persons don't even have a membership contract.

solus said:

bound, by stating on a public forum you carry not one but two firearms against the property owner's express and known wishes is in fact advocating violating the law as well as serves a great disrespect to the others who do abide by the owners wishes. it also sets a very bad example to every current member as well as others who aren't members but just surfing this site looking for information and could lead to someone else being irresponsibly CC'g which could lead to their experiencing judicial events.

your explanation you carry concealed so the antis don't see you is pure bovine excrement and you know it as you state & cling to that belief just to justify it to yourself to continue your illegal activities.

if you are blatant bragging about violating costco's policy, where else do you CC, cuz of your egotistically mentality of 'concealed means concealed' where you know good and well it is against the owner's express wishes ~ opps never mind i just might not want to know.

ipse

Click to expand...

A store policy at Costco is no more the law than a store policy at Target is. If the particular state law says it is illegal than I would not do it. That is not the case in my state. You are incorrect in stating that I break the law or advocate breaking it. If discovered and asked to leave I would most certainly do so. If I failed to do so than a trespassing charge would be appropriate.

In any event thank you for your concern. I'll get that ego checked too. [emoji6]

Wow non agression people believe property owners should be allowed to hurt patrons.....

utbagpiper said:

Only the anarchists believe a business owner should be permitted to control his property to the extent that it endangers life and limb.

Turns out I don't believe businesses open to the public should be permitted to chain fire doors shut, disable smoke detectors, or fail to maintain sprinkler systems.

For better or worse, the vast majority of the nation doesn't believe a business should be allowed to deny service to a person based on race, religion, gender, nor disability. In a growing number of areas even the most creative and personal of business owners are required to violate their freedom of conscience to provide creative goods and services in support of sexual conduct they find offensive.

What I have inside my waistband or pocket is really of no concern to a business owner. If he is concerned enough to put up metal detectors, I will avoid his business. If he is relying on the honor system, I will be prepared to defend myself while shopping.

Now, do feel free to explain to me how patronizing a business that denies self-defense to its employees is any better than patronizing a business that also has an unenforced policy against customers being able to defend themselves.

Charles

Click to expand...

100% correct… not sure why people think business owners can do anything they dang well please, customers have protection under the law as well.

utbagpiper said:

Only the anarchists believe a business owner should be permitted to control his property to the extent that it endangers life and limb.

Turns out I don't believe businesses open to the public should be permitted to chain fire doors shut, disable smoke detectors, or fail to maintain sprinkler systems.

For better or worse, the vast majority of the nation doesn't believe a business should be allowed to deny service to a person based on race, religion, gender, nor disability. In a growing number of areas even the most creative and personal of business owners are required to violate their freedom of conscience to provide creative goods and services in support of sexual conduct they find offensive.

What I have inside my waistband or pocket is really of no concern to a business owner. If he is concerned enough to put up metal detectors, I will avoid his business. If he is relying on the honor system, I will be prepared to defend myself while shopping.

Now, do feel free to explain to me how patronizing a business that denies self-defense to its employees is any better than patronizing a business that also has an unenforced policy against customers being able to defend themselves.

Charles

Click to expand...

Hyperbole and not addressed in my post(s).

You patronize a business that does not respect your RKBA, while there is a comparable business that respects your RKBA.

You should focus your advocacy efforts in UT to enacting legislation denying a employer the right to peaceably control his property (business) as he sees fit, mandating that employees cannot be denied their RKBA while on the job, if they choose to do so. You clearly do not recognize the right of a property owner to peaceably control his property as he sees fit, and such a law would be consistent with your position on property rights.

cjohnson44546 said:

100% correct… not sure why people think business owners can do anything they dang well please, customers have protection under the law as well.

Click to expand...

Because its their property. Customers have the same choice....

What law positive law? Which really isn't law at all.

Businesses survive by providing a safe place to conduct business, by providing a service to customers. It is socialist nonsense to promote this idea that wihtout the state they'd be harming their customers, or that the customers or idiotic sheep and helpless victims that need the great white savior to protect them from those evil capitalist.

OC for ME said:

Hyperbole and not addressed in my post(s).

You patronize a business that does not respect your RKBA, while there is a comparable business that respects your RKBA.

You should focus your advocacy efforts in UT to enacting legislation denying a employer the right to peaceably control his property (business) as he sees fit, mandating that employees cannot be denied their RKBA while on the job, if they choose to do so. You clearly do not recognize the right of a property owner to peaceably control his property as he sees fit, and such a law would be consistent with your position on property rights.

Click to expand...

+1 Why many don't understand rights at all since all rights are property rights. They believe in the progressive meme that rights come from the state.

utbagpiper said:

And where do you shop that isn't anti-RKBA to one degree or another? I am not aware of any major retailers that do not prohibit their employees from carrying. Or is it ok to patronize a business that leaves their employees defenseless so long as they have any position on you carrying?

Do you refuse to work for an employer who has an anti-gun policy? Or is it ok to contribute to the profit margin of some company that doesn't allow you to carry guns on the job?

Do you check the gun policies of the service providers who send out employees to work on your AC, plumbing, trim trees, or put in new concrete? Did the contractor who built your home have a policy respecting the ability of his employees to carry firearms on the job?

Does your favorite pizza delivery joint allow its drivers to carry firearms?

Does Tennessee have constitutional carry? How it adopted State preemption over federal laws regarding the intra-State manufacture of guns as has Montana? How many restrictions on RKBA are you supporting by living in and paying taxes to a State that doesn't perfectly respect your RKBA?

I believe that excepting possibly those who live in an area with an abundance of small, locally owned shops, and don't travel much, odds are that most all of us routinely patronize and/or work for companies that have less than perfect policies on RKBA and self-defense. Each of us has to determine where to draw the line.

I can respect those who draw the line in a different place than I do when it comes to boycotts.

I have a hard time with those who presume anyone who draws the line in a slightly different place than they do is some kind of "enemy".

Charles

Click to expand...

Ah yes, the good ole "I can't do everything, so I'll do nothing" rationale to supporting a known anti-gun business like Costco.

If you live in place that has a costco, then you live in a place that has alternatives. Alternatives that don't include supporting anti gun companies. It does, of course, require some backbone. Guess there is always a downside to having integrity.

Tagged....

OC for ME said:

Citizens who choose to ignore a property owners wishes, intentionally, are citizens who do not recognize the right of a property owner to peaceably control their property as they see fit.

Click to expand...

This is a interesting point for me to ponder. Once or twice a year I am faced with the choice of refusing the Little Lady's insistence we go to a movie, going unarmed, or intentionally ignore the theater's wishes and carry secretly.
I guess I always justify it to myself with the excuse that I am not directly hurting the property owner, but I do concede that I am ignoring his wishes.

solus said:

bound, by stating on a public forum you carry not one but two firearms against the property owner's express and known wishes is in fact advocating violating the law as well as serves a great disrespect to the others who do abide by the owners wishes. it also sets a very bad example to every current member as well as others who aren't members but just surfing this site looking for information and could lead to someone else being irresponsibly CC'g which could lead to their experiencing judicial events.

your explanation you carry concealed so the antis don't see you is pure bovine excrement and you know it as you state & cling to that belief just to justify it to yourself to continue your illegal activities.

if you are blatant bragging about violating costco's policy, where else do you CC, cuz of your egotistically mentality of 'concealed means concealed' where you know good and well it is against the owner's express wishes ~ opps never mind i just might not want to know.

ipse

Click to expand...

For me, it's everywhere that I choose to.

My right to choose the method and manner of self defense overrides everyone else's 'right' to attempt to abridge it.