COSTCO Corporate Formally Bans Firearms

FreeInAZ · Jun 11, 2015

Folks - feed a Troll .... Expect Troll crap by the buckets full!!!
Just saying...

FTG-05 · Jun 11, 2015

utbagpiper said:
Nope. I can't do everything, so I'll do what I believe is most effective. I trust you do likewise.

Name an alternative that isn't anti-gun to one degree or another.

And there is a downside to being a sanctimonious ass on the internet. Of course neither of us would violate forum rules by lobbing personal insults at the other, so this is all just speaking generally.

Find me a nationwide chain that isn't anti-gun and we can talk. Until then, it is just a small difference in where you like to draw your lines.

Charles

I'm neither being an ass nor sanctimonious when saying it takes backbone in order to support the 2nd amendment - and that specifically includes not supporting known anti-gun companies like costco. It means growing up and deciding what's important for both myself, my family and my country. Supporting a known anti-gun company isn't it.

Sams and Walmart are two companies (or one) that definitely are not anti-gun.

But I can understand why the costco-deniers are butthurt about being called out on their support of costco; I'd be butthurt too if my support for the 2nd amendment could be compromised by nothing more than a $1.98 hot dog special......

There are only two places I have to go where I can't carry: the local court house (vehicle licenses and titles) and the hospital. Everywhere else I OC my S&W 329PD. If they don't want me there because of my gun, fine, then they don't get my time, money or patronage.

But again, here we go with the backbone thing. Oh well, can't get away from it. Sorry but that's the truth. You should try it sometime.

utbagpiper · Jun 11, 2015

FTG-05 said:
Sams and Walmart are two companies (or one) that definitely are not anti-gun.

Talk about being a denier.

Sams and Walmart both have no-gun employment policies. Or is that ok since it doesn't affect you personally?

While Walmart recently won the legal case against the shareholders who wanted to end sales of all guns, I'll remind you that back in 1993 Walmart ended sales of handguns:

NY Times article said:
because its marketing surveys indicated a majority of customers now feel "uncomfortable" shopping for lingerie, sofas, lawn rakes and teddy bears in the same place where revolvers and semiautomatic pistols are stocked. "

"They don't want to be around them," said Don Shinkle, a spokesman for Wal-Mart, with headquarters in Bentonville, Ark.

And there is an entire thread in the Washington State section about an OCer being invited to leave a Sam's Club because of his gun. http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?123860-Canceled-My-Sam-s-Club-Membership

Try again to find a "definitely ...not anti-gun" business to patronize while feeling ever so holier-than-thou. Or, keep justifying shopping at a store that suspends sales of perfectly legal handguns because they prefer to make money from those who are "uncomfortable" buying housewares next to handgun sales.

Charles

J_dazzle23 · Jun 11, 2015

Just a thought guys- diverging from the thought process of what "should" be and going to what "is".....

Why is it that it is such a hot topic to push property rights for owners at the expense of being able to carry a lawfully possessed gun on the property, but nobody bats an eye at anti-discrimination laws for any other profiled demographic?

I understand that this is a GUN site, not a gay/gender/race/etc rights site, but seriously-

Are you guys as active about giving the property owner absolute rights concerning these things as you are concerning people concealed carrying into costco?

Bikenut · Jun 11, 2015

J_dazzle23 said:
Just a thought guys- diverging from the thought process of what "should" be and going to what "is".....

Why is it that it is such a hot topic to push property rights for owners at the expense of being able to carry a lawfully possessed gun on the property, but nobody bats an eye at anti-discrimination laws for any other profiled demographic?

I understand that this is a GUN site, not a gay/gender/race/etc rights site, but seriously-

Are you guys as active about giving the property owner absolute rights concerning these things as you are concerning people concealed carrying into costco?

While I may not get involved in the present anti discrimination laws I'm not advocating for more anti legislation laws just because I would be the one benefiting from those laws.

However I have made mention in that long rant I posted earlier that those anti discrimination laws are just as much of infringements upon property rights as gun control laws are infringements upon the RKBA.

sudden valley gunner · Jun 11, 2015

J_dazzle23 said:
Just a thought guys- diverging from the thought process of what "should" be and going to what "is".....

Why is it that it is such a hot topic to push property rights for owners at the expense of being able to carry a lawfully possessed gun on the property, but nobody bats an eye at anti-discrimination laws for any other profiled demographic?

I understand that this is a GUN site, not a gay/gender/race/etc rights site, but seriously-

Are you guys as active about giving the property owner absolute rights concerning these things as you are concerning people concealed carrying into costco?

I am. I want to know who the bigots are so I can make different choices to those who will not sell based on racism, homophobia, or xenophobia. or what have you.

In a way the current laws hides and protects business owners from paying the price for their bigotry.

sudden valley gunner · Jun 11, 2015

Aknazer said:
Well to be fair, you do give up some of your free speech right once you start talking to the public. You can't yell "Fire!" or commit libel, etc.

To me generally speaking, the line is where you start using your right to physically affect those around you. So intentionally inciting a riot or panic, intentionally spreading lies, etc. But a store choosing who to allow in or turn away doesn't pass that line and as such I'm against anti-discrimination laws (exceptions would be for things like life-saving aid such as a hospital).

I knew that would come up. Nightmare did a fine and succinct job of surmising the truth.

If you understand rights don't overlap you understand you don't have the right to put others into harm. So yes even if there is no fire, or you want to commit libel it really isn't exercising a right when it harms others.

J_dazzle23 · Jun 11, 2015

sudden valley gunner said:
I am. I want to know who the bigots are so I can make different choices to those who will not sell based on racism, homophobia, or xenophobia. or what have you.

In a way the current laws hides and protects business owners from paying the price for their bigotry.

That is a fair response. Warning- im playing devils advocate here-

You think that would have gone down 1950 with African American discrimination?

sudden valley gunner · Jun 11, 2015

Just so people who think having a no gun for employee policy as anti gun automatically. They may not be recognizing that many insurance companies make that part of the agreement to insure a company. It may not actually be that the company is anti weapon.

J_dazzle23 · Jun 11, 2015

sudden valley gunner said:
Just so people who think having a no gun for employee policy as anti gun automatically. They may not be recognizing that many insurance companies make that part of the agreement to insure a company. It may not actually be that the company is anti weapon.

Very good point. Realistically......I'd be willing to bet that's reality more often than most would suspect.

Which makes me wonder why the insurance companies don't hire better actuaries

sudden valley gunner · Jun 11, 2015

J_dazzle23 said:
Very good point. Realistically......I'd be willing to bet that's reality more often than most would suspect.

Which makes me wonder why the insurance companies don't hire better actuaries

It is quite common, I found it amazing to that Insurance companies who are known for crunching those numbers would jump to that wrong conclusion.

What made me look into it years ago was my friend was a district sales manager for an auto parts store. He carried, but couldn't reveal it, he allowed his employees to carry but wasn't supposed to "know". He was the one that told me it was the insurance company that had the policy. Not the company which was actually pro RKBA.

solus · Jun 11, 2015

J_dazzle23 said:
Just a thought guys- diverging from the thought process of what "should" be and going to what "is".....

Why is it that it is such a hot topic to push property rights for owners at the expense of being able to carry a lawfully possessed gun on the property, but nobody bats an eye at anti-discrimination laws for any other profiled demographic?

I understand that this is a GUN site, not a gay/gender/race/etc rights site, but seriously-

Are you guys as active about giving the property owner absolute rights concerning these things as you are concerning people concealed carrying into costco?

haven't been in or on chic fil a property in over 15 years...

been card carrying member and active in HRC since, oh, bout 94 advocating and personally supporting their causes.

2002 left a major national health care association because they believed reparative therapy was a viable modality to assist GLBT individuals who are confused about their orientation. my understanding at least 25% of the membership followed my lead.

while at a major aerospace entity, stood up and assisted in the lower up to corp HR push for equality of same sex partners.

so J, guess you could say I am personally active in the ensuring other discrimination issues are brought to the forefront with businesses.

ipse.

solus · Jun 11, 2015

sudden valley gunner said:
Just so people who think having a no gun for employee policy as anti gun automatically. They may not be recognizing that many insurance companies make that part of the agreement to insure a company. It may not actually be that the company is anti weapon.

to build on that OSHA has instituted violence in the work place to assure companies tow the line for the insurance underwriters. at that point the antis rally around the no violence by federal mandate and zealously pursue enforcement.

ipse

J_dazzle23 · Jun 11, 2015

solus said:
haven't been in or on chic fil a property in over 15 years...

been card carrying member and active in HRC since, oh, bout 94.

2002 left a major national health care association because they believed reparative therapy was a viable modality to assist GLBT individuals who are confused about their orientation. my understanding at least 25% of the membership followed my lead.

while at a major aerospace entity, stood up and assisted in the lower up to corp HR push for equality of same sex partners.

so J, guess you could say I am personally active in the ensuring other discrimination issues are brought to the forefront with businesses.

ipse.

I'm glad that you have been active in speaking with where your dollars go. But that's not what I'm asking.

I'm asking (generally) if people have been actively promoting the right of those businesses (like the ones you mentioned) to be able to discriminate based on any other demographic other than individuals exercising their right to carry a firearm.

You have shown that you personally will not support a business that discriminates opposing your own moral judgements- which I agree with. But do you champion for these businesses to be able discriminate based on whatever they want, like many here have advocated concerning properly holstered firearms, based on the concept of "control of one's own property?"

solus · Jun 11, 2015

J_dazzle23 said:
I'm glad that you have been active in speaking with where your dollars go. But that's not what I'm asking.

I'm asking (generally) if people have been actively promoting the right of those businesses (like the ones you mentioned) to be able to discriminate based on any other demographic other than individuals exercising their right to carry a firearm.

You have shown that you personally will not support a business that discriminates opposing your own moral judgements- which I agree with. But do you champion for these businesses to be able discriminate based on whatever they want, like many here have advocated concerning properly holstered firearms, based on the concept of "control of one's own property?"

to your query, as i believe it read...(if not get the 4x4 and hit me again !!)
understand as an minor individual cog, chic's dead president could care less what i said about his business operation but i also have enough smarts to recognize, it is their private business to run and 'control their property' as they see fit.

if they don't want GLBT, or ppl of color, or OC/CC firearms, that is a business decision they make but then they must accept the economic consequences of that decision. btw, i chose my support, e.g., blacks have NCAA leadership so do not actively participate, but if a national chain discriminate against blacks, then i do not provide my $$$ to the business entity.

i also, once i become cognizant of a discrimination policy, such as the Costco no firearm policy, I do not flaunt it by CC'g in the store as if it is a game of nah nah nah...i have my gun on and you can't see it...nah nah nah... (oh wait, piper says he poorly CCs to allow his firearm to be exposed when in costco didn't he? nawwlllll do not play games like that)

remember, as i am but one small individual cog in the HRC's wheel, and as i pointed out somewhere out here in forum land...the various GLBT national campaigns has in 45 years accomplished tremendous national strides for GLBT citizens, and i'm sorry to say, even far more than all the states individual firearm efforts have realized.

ipse

J_dazzle23 · Jun 11, 2015

solus said:
to your query, as i believe it read...(if not get the 4x4 and hit me again !!)
understand as an minor individual cog, chic's dead president could care less what i said about his business operation but i also have enough smarts to recognize, it is their private business to run and 'control their property' as they see fit.

if they don't want GLBT, or ppl of color, or OC/CC firearms, that is a business decision they make but then they must accept the economic consequences of that decision. btw, i chose my support, e.g., blacks have NCAA leadership so do not actively participate, but if a national chain discriminate against blacks, then i do not provide my $$$ to the business entity.

i also, once i become cognizant of a discrimination policy, such as the Costco no firearm policy, I do not flaunt it by CC'g in the store as if it is a game of nah nah nah...i have my gun on and you can't see it...nah nah nah... (oh wait, piper says he poorly CCs to allow his firearm to be exposed when in costco didn't he? nawwlllll do not play games like that)

remember, as i am but one small individual cog in the HRC's wheel, and as i pointed out somewhere out here in forum land...the various GLBT national campaigns has in 45 years accomplished tremendous national strides for GLBT citizens, and i'm sorry to say, even far more than all the states individual firearm efforts have realized.

ipse

Weeeeellll.....you are right. We can probably tear a page out of the GLBT/LGBT/ awww hell..I don't know what it is officially now- anyway. Out of their book.

I'm quite glad you spend your money where you feel it should go. Even as a single person. It's a matter of principle. I get that.

Here's the 4x4

Would you (or anyone here) publicly advocate for these businesses to legally be able to discriminate however they please?

sudden valley gunner · Jun 12, 2015

solus said:
to build on that OSHA has instituted violence in the work place to assure companies tow the line for the insurance underwriters. at that point the antis rally around the no violence by federal mandate and zealously pursue enforcement.

ipse

Oh yes good point I forgot about that one too. L&I with WISHA, Washington's OSHA, has the no gun policy in there standard safety handout for businesses. I went to their offices and pointed out how that is unenforceable, they pretty much had to admit it was boiler plate and a suggestion.

OC for ME · Jun 12, 2015

]We, SVG, cjohnson44546, and myself, are referring to firearms. See post #83.

So, under the law, am I barred from denying entry into my home based only on a prospective buyer being armed? I have opened my home (open house) to the public.

OC for ME · Jun 12, 2015

sudden valley gunner said:
Oh yes good point I forgot about that one too. L&I with WISHA, Washington's OSHA, has the no gun policy in there standard safety handout for businesses. I went to their offices and pointed out how that is unenforceable, they pretty much had to admit it was boiler plate and a suggestion.

OSHA/WISHA mandates are meaningless. I am unaware of any state that I have traveled that bans the bearing of firearms by the owner of a business, or that owner permitting a employee to bear a firearm. OSHA/WISHA can pack sand. Insurance companies may deny service (coverage) based on any reason, or no reason. Typically, they will jack up your premium(s) because they need your money. Not admitting that those businesses likely have a far lower claim rate for things such a robbery and other crimes.

Anyway, the discussion is about guns and a property owner "discriminating" against a gun carrier. So, is Costco discriminating now? To some it seems that they are.

Deny you your claimed right and then you (royal) ignore their claim...hmm...

Seems it is a battle between claims.

utbagpiper · Jun 12, 2015

sudden valley gunner said:
It is quite common, I found it amazing to that Insurance companies who are known for crunching those numbers would jump to that wrong conclusion.

What made me look into it years ago was my friend was a district sales manager for an auto parts store. He carried, but couldn't reveal it, he allowed his employees to carry but wasn't supposed to "know". He was the one that told me it was the insurance company that had the policy. Not the company which was actually pro RKBA.

A couple of thoughts:

1-If a private individual is damaging RKBA by patronizing a business with a no-gun policy, isn't a business damaging RKBA by patronizing an insurance company that requires no-gun policies?

2-If "the insurance policy requires it" is a valid defense for having a no-gun policy, are we going to stop complaining about gun shows that don't allow the personal carry of loaded firearms into the show pursuant to what the gun-shows' insurance policy requires?

Charles

COSTCO Corporate Formally Bans Firearms

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Bikenut

Guest

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned