Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 31

Thread: Cox Corporate Policy is No Guns

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797

    Cox Corporate Policy is No Guns

    So I went into my local Cox store to set up internet and I noticed that all of their doors have "No Firearms" signs on them. I asked the guy behind the counter about it and he told me that it's always been corporate policy, but that something recently happened (he didn't know what) that caused their store to finally put up signs. He acknowledged that only LACs would obey the signs, but restated it was corporate policy. When I asked him for a copy he said they didn't have one on hand but I was more than welcome to contact corporate for it.

    I plan to contact corporate this week, but has anyone else seen "No Weapon" type signs on their local Cox stores?

  2. #2
    Regular Member Badger Johnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,217
    I don't understand why, having seen the signs, you asked a clerk about them. What's to ask?

    You might research the law in OK about signage (must be 1/2" tall lettering, for example?), to insure they are legally applied. If no metal detectors, just carry anyway, just don't be obvious.

    If I'm taking a snack into a movie, I don't contact the ticket takers to see if it's 'allowed'.

    If you 'ask' then you can't claim you didn't see them. Do you ask if shirts, shoes and underwear are required in 7-11?

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Badger Johnson View Post
    I don't understand why, having seen the signs, you asked a clerk about them. What's to ask?

    You might research the law in OK about signage (must be 1/2" tall lettering, for example?), to insure they are legally applied. If no metal detectors, just carry anyway, just don't be obvious.

    If I'm taking a snack into a movie, I don't contact the ticket takers to see if it's 'allowed'.

    If you 'ask' then you can't claim you didn't see them. Do you ask if shirts, shoes and underwear are required in 7-11?
    Rule #15 - the one you agreed to when you joined OCDO:

    •(15) WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY: Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts.
    As for why one might ask corporate about their policy? It's been the route that has changed a few policies. Not asking, not engaging in dialogue, is just a guarantee that things will remain the same.

    stay safe.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Badger Johnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,217
    A sign is not a law. You are not a moderator, though you may play one on OCDO.
    Last edited by Badger Johnson; 06-12-2011 at 07:29 AM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961
    Quote Originally Posted by Badger Johnson View Post
    A sign is not a laW.
    +1

    v
    Very true for the Commonwealth.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Badger Johnson View Post
    A sign is not a law. You are not a moderator, though you may play one on OCDO.
    one may be along soon enough.

    stay safe.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Badger Johnson View Post
    I don't understand why, having seen the signs, you asked a clerk about them. What's to ask?

    You might research the law in OK about signage (must be 1/2" tall lettering, for example?), to insure they are legally applied. If no metal detectors, just carry anyway, just don't be obvious.

    If I'm taking a snack into a movie, I don't contact the ticket takers to see if it's 'allowed'.

    If you 'ask' then you can't claim you didn't see them. Do you ask if shirts, shoes and underwear are required in 7-11?
    I think that not asking to be able to maintain the plausible deniability that claiming not to have seen the sign would permit is despicable. If you see the sign, respect the property rights of the sign-poster and don't carry. Make your own informed decision as to whether or not to enter based on your own values.

    Personally, I will go in, I will ask, I will express my opinion of such short-sightedness, I will leave, I won't return, and I will contact corporate.

    I won't ignore the rights of the property-owner and hide behind the subterfuge of I-didn't-see-the-sign. That is morally reprehensible.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    I think that not asking to be able to maintain the plausible deniability that claiming not to have seen the sign would permit is despicable. If you see the sign, respect the property rights of the sign-poster and don't carry. Make your own informed decision as to whether or not to enter based on your own values.

    Personally, I will go in, I will ask, I will express my opinion of such short-sightedness, I will leave, I won't return, and I will contact corporate.

    I won't ignore the rights of the property-owner and hide behind the subterfuge of I-didn't-see-the-sign. That is morally reprehensible.
    +1

    We ask that others respect our right to open carry. What in that gives the right to run roughshod over the rights of others?

  9. #9
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622
    There as of late has been a growing tendency to direct remarks personally rather than to the subject.

    1) Moderation IS the responsibility of all posters. Such is not only practical, but we are specifically charged by the site owners to be active in that area.

    2) Negative attitudes/remarks directed towards other users not only is counter productive to good order but injurious to OCDO.

    3) The intent of the rules is to allow freedom of expression and encourage open discourse without exerting a heavy hand, but the option remains and will redoubtably be exercised again so take heed. I fail to see where these policies should be burdensome or difficult to understand.

    4) Post responsibly and do so with an attitude and tone that would not offend your grandmother or your pastor. Each of us own the words we post here. Be part of the solution, not contributory to the problem.

    This is becoming a serious issue and I assure you it will not be ignored.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Badger Johnson View Post
    I don't understand why, having seen the signs, you asked a clerk about them. What's to ask?

    You might research the law in OK about signage (must be 1/2" tall lettering, for example?), to insure they are legally applied. If no metal detectors, just carry anyway, just don't be obvious.

    If I'm taking a snack into a movie, I don't contact the ticket takers to see if it's 'allowed'.

    If you 'ask' then you can't claim you didn't see them. Do you ask if shirts, shoes and underwear are required in 7-11?
    I asked because first I wanted to know if it was just a store policy or a corporate policy. After that my intent was (and still is) to contact corporate to try and get them to either change their policy, or if it wasn't their policy, then get them to get the store to take down the signs. If one doesn't ask the questions then things will never change. Additionally, I will respect their wishes just as how if someone were to come into my house or my store I would expect the same from them.

    Also the signs are posted at chest height, on the doors, and are like 6"x9". So really the only way you couldn't see them would be if you were legally blind and at which point you shouldn't be carrying anyways.

  11. #11
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer
    the only way you couldn't see them would be if you were legally blind and at which point you shouldn't be carrying anyways.
    When I took the UT class from some guy in MN, he told us about a student he'd had who was legally blind, & had to go to court to get the Sheriff to follow the "shall-issue" law (which says nothing about being able to see). He knew he couldn't shoot unless he had a hand on the attacker, so knew where he was & that the person was definitely attacking.
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    When I took the UT class from some guy in MN, he told us about a student he'd had who was legally blind, & had to go to court to get the Sheriff to follow the "shall-issue" law (which says nothing about being able to see). He knew he couldn't shoot unless he had a hand on the attacker, so knew where he was & that the person was definitely attacking.
    That's crazy. OK requires range-time so that wouldn't work for the OK permit, but I still wouldn't want the blind man carrying if it was that bad. I mean I just don't see how it would be reasonable to expect you can grab your attacker, much less grab them AND pull a gun on them w/o them reacting. Now if he could make out shapes and what not, but was legally blind because he can't read things (I have a stigmatism and w/o my glasses I have like 20/400 because the fine lines of letters bleed together, but I can still identify things w/o them), but needing a hand on the perp to be able to shoot them just seems like a bad idea to carry a gun. Taser or knife, sure, but not a gun imo.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    1,098
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    That's crazy. OK requires range-time so that wouldn't work for the OK permit, but I still wouldn't want the blind man carrying if it was that bad. I mean I just don't see how it would be reasonable to expect you can grab your attacker, much less grab them AND pull a gun on them w/o them reacting. Now if he could make out shapes and what not, but was legally blind because he can't read things (I have a stigmatism and w/o my glasses I have like 20/400 because the fine lines of letters bleed together, but I can still identify things w/o them), but needing a hand on the perp to be able to shoot them just seems like a bad idea to carry a gun. Taser or knife, sure, but not a gun imo.
    Why another weapon, but not a gun? Contact range is contact range, regardless of tool.

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    ...despicable...reprehensible.
    Really? Those are pretty strong words.

    Moving on.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by PavePusher View Post
    Why another weapon, but not a gun? Contact range is contact range, regardless of tool.
    Because some weapons operate off of contact like a tazer or knife. Plus if you jam a gun into someone then you run the risk of unseating the slide and not being able to fire the gun. There is also the issue of one not being able to see what is behind your target when firing a gun.

    I'm not against him being able to carry a weapon, I simply think there are safer/more effective weapons for him to use that are still effective (or at least as effective as a blind person can be).

  16. #16
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    Because some weapons operate off of contact like a tazer or knife. Plus if you jam a gun into someone then you run the risk of unseating the slide and not being able to fire the gun. There is also the issue of one not being able to see what is behind your target when firing a gun.

    I'm not against him being able to carry a weapon, I simply think there are safer/more effective weapons for him to use that are still effective (or at least as effective as a blind person can be).
    Train the way you are going to fight. There are schools that teach contact distance handgun defensive shooting which IMHO incorporates techniques that everyone should learn and practice.

    Let's keep in mind that being "legally blind" does NOT necessarily mean totally sightless.
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 06-13-2011 at 10:17 PM. Reason: added
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  17. #17
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Lenexa, Kansas
    Posts
    423
    I agree with others back to the issue of not able to carry. Why would you in the first place make a scene about not able to carry into a business. If there is a sign on the property respect it and don't get cocky. If the corporate business does not want firearms in their place of business then dont. Even if there was no sign and they requested you to put your firearm in the vehicle please respect their request. Its not your property or business and you don't pay for that place to stay open (yes I know its a RETAIL store selling to the public). But in short to NOT make this an issue, if requested or sign posted don't get brody and challenge it. If its obvious that there is something wrong or funny of it then yes challenge it.

    You need to be careful on how you proceed with open carrying cause it can easily turn into an issue and the police can arrest you even if there was no sign, BUT the company requested you leave then leave. Opencarry as we all know is a touchy subject to the public, lets not make it like were just trying to be bosses every where we go.
    Nothing better than a Glock.........except maybe another Glock!

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by DWCook View Post
    I agree with others back to the issue of not able to carry. Why would you in the first place make a scene about not able to carry into a business. If there is a sign on the property respect it and don't get cocky. If the corporate business does not want firearms in their place of business then dont. Even if there was no sign and they requested you to put your firearm in the vehicle please respect their request. Its not your property or business and you don't pay for that place to stay open (yes I know its a RETAIL store selling to the public). But in short to NOT make this an issue, if requested or sign posted don't get brody and challenge it. If its obvious that there is something wrong or funny of it then yes challenge it.

    You need to be careful on how you proceed with open carrying cause it can easily turn into an issue and the police can arrest you even if there was no sign, BUT the company requested you leave then leave. Opencarry as we all know is a touchy subject to the public, lets not make it like were just trying to be bosses every where we go.
    Huh? First off I was CCing because OC is illegal my state. Secondly I did respect their sign (my gun was actually at home because I had to go onto a military base afterwards and its illegal to bring a carry gun on base with few exceptions). Thirdly I simply inquired about the sign and then asked for a copy of corporate policy on the subject. Fourthly if one never talks (politely) to a store or corporate then one can never hope to change their policies.

    Also where do you get this idea that I was asked to leave or anything like that. And just because there's a sign posted doesn't mean that one shouldn't engage in talk about the sign, it simply means that you should honor the sign while on their premises so long as the sign is legal and the store isn't violating corporate policy.

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran Cavalryman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    308
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnH View Post
    +1

    We ask that others respect our right to open carry. What in that gives the right to run roughshod over the rights of others?
    I have to agree with this. It is disingenuous to beat the drum about your own rights while trampling those of others.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    Huh? First off I was CCing because OC is illegal my state. Secondly I did respect their sign (my gun was actually at home because I had to go onto a military base afterwards and its illegal to bring a carry gun on base with few exceptions). Thirdly I simply inquired about the sign and then asked for a copy of corporate policy on the subject. Fourthly if one never talks (politely) to a store or corporate then one can never hope to change their policies.

    Also where do you get this idea that I was asked to leave or anything like that. And just because there's a sign posted doesn't mean that one shouldn't engage in talk about the sign, it simply means that you should honor the sign while on their premises so long as the sign is legal and the store isn't violating corporate policy.
    You acquitted yourself well, both in the store and with this post. Bravo.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076
    Throughout history you find where certain rights trump other rights. The problem that most have is that they frame the Right to Keep and Bear Arms as a property right to the arms. This is completely wrong. The RKBA is the right to protect life and liberty, and as such does, through centuries of legal history, trump property rights. Just as a simple example take a look at the phrase "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness", note that life is the first right, as without life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are impossible. Also note that early drafts were worded "Life, Liberty and Property" indicating that the rights of Life and Liberty trump the rights of property.

    Attorney Mitch Vilos includes a very good treatise on this topic in his book on Utah gun laws.

    As for me, if a business does not respect my right to defend my life, I take my business and money elsewhere.

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    No right ever "trumps" another. Any action by an individual that would deprive another of his rights is, by definition, not a right.

    Careful analysis in every situation where an apparent conflict of rights exists will reveal that one of the actions is not actually a right. In analyzing the seeming conflict between the right to carry and the right to enjoy one's property, one of the two actions (carrying on the property of another or setting the rules for enjoying one's property to disallow carry) is not a right. Which one isn't?

    The key is to look at which action prevents the exercise of that portion of the other action that is an actual right.

    In order to protect the ability to carry on the property of another, it must be made unlawful to stop another from carrying on your property. That requires intervention by the government into the enjoyment of one's private property.

    On the other hand, in order to protect one's ability to keep guns off his property, the government needs no new laws. The necessary laws that government would need to have in place to protect one's property rights from others are already in place and widely accepted function of government among those who espouse Liberty: trespass laws. When a property owner disallows carry on his property, he does not stop anyone from carrying. He merely presents the carrier with a choice. The carrier may continue to carry and not visit the premises, or he can choose not to carry while he visits.

    In the case of carrying on another's property being protected by the force of law, no choice is presented. If one owns property, one must allow carry on it. The only choice is not to own, which is the antithesis of the right to enjoy property.

    There is no conflict of rights. There is no right trumping another. There is only, "I can't do what I want to do on his property. Make him let me." That is the exact opposite of government existing to protect our Liberty. It is government deciding which action is correct and which is not, without considering actual natural rights. That is tyranny.

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    No right ever "trumps" another. Any action by an individual that would deprive another of his rights is, by definition, not a right.
    Pure bunk. The top three enumerated rights in our Declaration of Independence are "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," rights to which both I and a hypothetical gent standing outside my door possess in equal measure.

    He kicks in my door, violating my right to privacy, and steps inside, violating my right to be secure in my person. Both are considerably further down on the totem pole than one's right to life. I have the lights dimmed, as I'm watching a movie, and can only see his outline from the lights in the common area breezeway. Rather than taking a chance he might be pointing a gun at me and getting ready to fire, I rest on our state's castle law and send him on his way to meet the ultimate judge.

    In so doing, I just deprived him of all three rights. He's now dead, so right to life is out the window. Because he's dead, he can no longer move and might as well be wrapped in chains, so his right to liberty is out the window. Although he's dead, perhaps the ultimate judge will forgive him for his sins, or perhaps they weren't all that bad, so I can't speak about his happiness in the afterlife, if there is one. At the very least, however, I just ended his ability to pursue happiness in this life. If there's no afterlife, I ended his ability to pursue happiness for all time.

    So, according to the law, my right to privacy and security just trumped his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

    Careful analysis in every situation where an apparent conflict of rights exists will reveal that one of the actions is not actually a right.
    Which of us did not actually have a right or rights in the situation I described above? Some may say, "Well, he forfeited his rights when he kicked in your door." Really? All of them? If all he did was kick in my door then remain in the common area (breezeway), I would be exceeding the charter of my state's castle law if I shot him. Yet if an LEO had witnessed his act, they would have arrested him (bye-bye liberty) at which point my rights to privacy and security would have, under the law, trumped his right to liberty.

    "But he stepped inside your apartment!" Yes, in this hypothetical situation, he certainly did, which created the legal justification under my state's castle law for my rights (privacy, security) to trump his rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness).

    Regardless of how you mash it, a hierarchy of rights most certainly does exist, and some rights do indeed deprive others of their own rights.

    In analyzing the seeming conflict between the right to carry and the right to enjoy one's property, one of the two actions (carrying on the property of another or setting the rules for enjoying one's property to disallow carry) is not a right. Which one isn't?
    Neither. They are both rights.

    The key is to look at which action prevents the exercise of that portion of the other action that is an actual right.

    In order to protect the ability to carry on the property of another, it must be made unlawful to stop another from carrying on your property. That requires intervention by the government into the enjoyment of one's private property.

    On the other hand, in order to protect one's ability to keep guns off his property, the government needs no new laws. The necessary laws that government would need to have in place to protect one's property rights from others are already in place and widely accepted function of government among those who espouse Liberty: trespass laws. When a property owner disallows carry on his property, he does not stop anyone from carrying. He merely presents the carrier with a choice. The carrier may continue to carry and not visit the premises, or he can choose not to carry while he visits.

    In the case of carrying on another's property being protected by the force of law, no choice is presented. If one owns property, one must allow carry on it. The only choice is not to own, which is the antithesis of the right to enjoy property.

    There is no conflict of rights. There is no right trumping another. There is only, "I can't do what I want to do on his property. Make him let me." That is the exact opposite of government existing to protect our Liberty. It is government deciding which action is correct and which is not, without considering actual natural rights. That is tyranny.
    Isn't it far less complicated to simply say, "the rights of the property owner trumps many of the rights of those who're either invited guests or uninvited trespassers onto his property?"

    The way you put it is a clear violation of Occam's razor.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  24. #24
    Regular Member M-Taliesin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Aurora, Colorado
    Posts
    1,504
    Quote Originally Posted by Badger Johnson View Post
    Do you ask if shirts, shoes and underwear are required in 7-11?
    Howdy Badger!
    Oh, please don't go there. It brings up all manner of bad memories.
    You know they have signs that say: "no shirt, no shoes, no service."
    Well, I got in a bunch of trouble by not wearing pants.
    The sign didn't say anything about not wearing pants.
    But oh noooooooo. They hadda make a fuss about it.

    Blessings,
    M-Taliesin

  25. #25
    Regular Member M-Taliesin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Aurora, Colorado
    Posts
    1,504
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    There as of late has been a growing tendency to direct remarks personally rather than to the subject.
    <Snip>
    This is becoming a serious issue and I assure you it will not be ignored.
    Howdy Grapeshot!
    This is one of the most lucid posts I've seen put up lately. I hated to snip it down for brevity, as it seems brilliant to me.

    Thank you for a terrific post and well stated point of view.

    Blessings,
    M-Taliesin

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •