COSTCO Corporate Formally Bans Firearms

Bikenut said:

We are not as close as you would like to portray us as. I made no bones that, unlike you, I do not patronize a business I know has an anti gun policy just because it is convenient or I could save some money.

Case in point... the local Taco Bell that is close (cheap to drive to) has an anti gun manager so I drive 20 miles, intentionally drive 20 miles, each and every time I want tacos.

As I said before ..... my line does not involve the words "convenient" or "save a few bucks".

But you have already said that you will shop at Costco because it is convenient (you won't drive further) and you can save some money there.

We are NOT as close as you are hoping to portray us as Charles.

And your attempt to portray us as being close is, in my not so humble opinion, a very weak attempt to elevate your position by diminishing mine.

Click to expand...

Your attempt to distance us is an attempt to elevate your position and diminish mine.

If you believe that you driving 20 miles to buy tacos is advancing the cause of RKBA, more power to you.

I could elevate my position and diminish yours by pointing out that the odds are very good that the business you are driving to has no better corporate policy than the local one and that time and money wasted driving 40 miles round trip could be far better spent advancing RKBA by instead using that time and money to make a few extra drives to the State capital.

If we need to post more links to Janet Jackson's "What Have You Done for Me Lately" video we can because I won't take a back seat to your nor most anyone else in terms of personal time, money, and effort expended in advancing social and legal respect for our RKBA.

If you are patronizing national chains you ARE patronizing businesses with anti-gun policies. That you choose to be willfully ignorant of them, or believe there is some material difference between an employment policy and a policy directed at customers, doesn't change that.

I shop at Costco. Their anti-gun employment policy is the same as the anti-gun employment policy of virtually every other large or chain employer in this nation. Their customer/member policy is un-enforced, not actively broadcast to customers, and of no more practical effect than the lack of policy at some competitor down the street.

Here we sit quibbling over how bad an anti-gun policy has to be before we won't patronize. I'm just waiting for the really pure RKBA activist to come along and let us know how he refuses to patronize businesses that don't have an active, pro-RKBA policy.

Charles

sudden valley gunner said:

Seems he is suggesting two wrongs make a right. They break property rights here so I should be able to too!

Click to expand...

Or perhaps, "he" simply believes in playing by the rules at hand. The designated hitter rule may be stupid or violate some purity of baseball. But when you're playing in an American League stadium, you either avail yourself of that rule or you suffer real disadvantage.

Looked at another way, so long as property rights can be infringed only in ways that benefit what we might overly-simply call "liberal" causes, there will be little reason for that side of the spectrum to limit their demands to infringe property rights. When it is demonstrated that infringements go both ways, then both sides have a personal reason to rethink how much infringement they really want to support.

In an analogous arena, Christian bakers are being forced to provide wedding cakes that promote homosexual unions. However, so far, homosexual bakers have been free to refuse to create wedding cakes that disparage homosexual unions. When both sides are forced to create and sell cakes promoting messages they find offensive, then both sides will have cause to respect the right of bakers to operate their businesses as they see fit.

Charles

utbagpiper said:

Your attempt to distance us is an attempt to elevate your position and diminish mine.

snip...Charles

Click to expand...

piper, you have proven over and over again, and now once again that whenever your perception of reality is challenged, even slightly, nothing stands in your way so you resort to appear patronizing to thus satisfy your narcissistic streak and you know perfectly well there is absolutely no way anybody can elevate themselves up to or be equal to your perceived grandiose status.

and now with the cake again...sigh

ipse

cjohnson44546 said:

As soon as they open it to the public at large, they must forgo some of their rights.

Click to expand...

Why must they? Why cannot a business choose to associate with portions of the public?
What twisted way of thought would require someone to bow to an all or nothing ultimatum from you?

twoskinsonemanns said:

Why must they? Why cannot a business choose to associate with portions of the public?
What twisted way of thought would require someone to bow to an all or nothing ultimatum from you?

Click to expand...

In principle, I agree with you, within the limits of public safety. I think we should eliminate anti-discrimination laws and let the market decide. I believe most businesses would NOT discriminate on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, etc.

Or, maybe I'm wrong. Demonstrably, given the legal ability to do so, virtually all businesses discriminate against employees who would otherwise carry a gun for self-defense. There are several large businesses with either overt anti-gun policies for customers or who have made "requests" not to carry (visible) firearms into their stores.

In any event, I think people should be free to open and operate businesses that cater to whatever segment of the market they like, mostly refusing service and employment as they see fit.

But I don't think a pro-RKBA position requires anyone else to agree with me on this. And I recognize that the vast majority of society does disagree with me. They believe anti-discrimination laws are both good and necessary.

My personal choice is not to work to repeal anti-discrimination laws, but rather to extend those laws to cover the law-abiding gun owner/carrier. If the other team can use designated hitters, I should be able to do so as well. Maybe this eventually leads to everyone deciding it is time to let the market decide rather than government mandating. If not, at least we are all on level footing knowing that we can walk into a business and receive services despite the owners' irrational fears or bigotries against our perfectly legal, normal, peaceful conduct.

Charles

protias said:

I find it interesting they are more than willing to sell GUN safes...

http://www.costco.com/hardware-safes.html?ddkey=http:CatalogSearch

Click to expand...

HAHA!! That's hilarious! :lol: Talk about a contradiction

utbagpiper said:

-snip-

My personal choice is not to work to repeal anti-discrimination laws, but rather to extend those laws to cover the law-abiding gun owner/carrier. If the other team can use designated hitters, I should be able to do so as well. Maybe this eventually leads to everyone deciding it is time to let the market decide rather than government mandating. If not, at least we are all on level footing knowing that we can walk into a business and receive services despite the owners' irrational fears or bigotries against our perfectly legal, normal, peaceful conduct.

Charles

Click to expand...

In other words:

-Hooray for my gun rights and to hell with your private property rights. In fact... I'll work to have Daddy government force you to bow down to my gun rights.-

Followed by rationalization to justify it.

Done with you Charles.

Bikenut said:

In other words:

-Hooray for my gun rights and to hell with your private property rights. In fact... I'll work to have Daddy government force you to bow down to my gun rights.-

Followed by rationalization to justify it.

Done with you Charles.

Click to expand...

I support RKBA and OC. That I don't agree with you on the extent of private property rights is a side issue...or should be on an RKBA board. If you want to get bent out of shape so be it. But this isn't a libertarian or anarchist site. Conservative and even liberal and statist social views are every bit as valid as are libertarian views on every issue other than RKBA/OC.

If you want to discriminate against blacks or gays I have no heartburn with you being fined under current law. If you want to hire children to work in factories, or fail to maintain proper safety standards in your coal mine, or chain fire doors shut to reduce a little shoplifting, then yes, to hell with your supposed "private property rights" and I'm happy to have you thrown in jail for endangering human life. I believe people who elevate property rights above life and limb are despicable, immoral scum who should not be permitted to walk the streets of civil society. And I happen to believe something a little more forceful than boycotts, market forces, or social scorn are warranted to prevent people from profiting in such murderous ways from those too desperate to really have much choice.

Life, Liberty, and Property (ie "pursuit of happiness") are at least co-equal. And protection of life trumps property. That is why it is generally illegal to use deadly force in defense of mere property.

Charles

cjohnson44546 said:

There are some different opinions on property rights here…

To me, its more like this.

The property owner has the right to keep everyone off their property for whatever reason they choose, or the right to open it to the public.

As soon as they open it to the public at large, they must forgo some of their rights. They must know they are choosing to forgo these rights when they open their property to the public. What these rights are, are not agreed upon by everyone of course, but I don't think they should be able to personally restrict someone from coming on, unless that person has done something wrong there, that causes a problem (a problem is not some other person there going "i don't like that person or what items they have"). Much like the "protected class" idea. To me, someone having a weapon as a means of self defense is NOT a valid reason for people to be barred access, and I don't believe the owner of the property opened to the public should be allowed to ban weapons for self defense in almost all circumstances.

Click to expand...

What a ridiculous statement.

It would be as silly as this one. "People have the right of free speech until they start talking to the public, when they do so they forgo some of that right".

Here's a hint if your opinion of what a right is infringes upon my rights..........its not a right.

The OP's topic.

since9 said:

... Until Costco reviews the findings from the Centers for Disease Control report on Gun Violence in America[SUP]1[/SUP] and revise their position to match reality -- armed citizens make for a polite society -- I will not be renewing my membership. As with all so-called "gun-free zones," Costco is no longer safe!

Click to expand...

No guns, no money.

You patronizing Costco, contrary to their explicit desire that your gun is not welcome, is not considerate of the well being of our fellow citizens, who may patronize Costco because it is a gun free zone. Folks go to Costco for the same reason you do and the no gun policy is likely unknown to them.

No, not all things are relative, especially where individual liberty and the peaceable exercise of rights are concerned...in my opinion.

Not sure why you believe a property owner bears the burden to be sure that you recognize his conditions of entry. Costco believes that your gun makes for a unsafe environment.

You disagree with Costco's desire. You demand a cite.

I appreciate that. Thank you. ...

Click to expand...

You are most welcome Sir.

sudden valley gunner said:

What a ridiculous statement.

It would be as silly as this one. "People have the right of free speech until they start talking to the public, when they do so they forgo some of that right".

Here's a hint if your opinion of what a right is infringes upon my rights..........its not a right.

Click to expand...

I open (open house) my home (property) to perspective home buyers (public).

The public is invited...no?

Do I now forgo some of my property rights?

OC for ME said:

I open (open house) my home (property) to perspective home buyers (public).

The public is invited...no?

Do I now forgo some of my property rights?

Click to expand...

Nope. You set the conditions.

sudden valley gunner said:

Nope. You set the conditions.

Click to expand...

which are enforceable for cause leading to your ejection from the property.

ipse

A rather long rant not directed at any individual(s)..........

It always saddens me to see folks willing to compromise their support of the right to bear arms by intentionally shopping at a business they know is anti gun just because that business is convenient for them and/or they can save a little money...and they haven't been personally caught sneaking in a gun against the business owner's wishes.

I find it extremely dismaying to see the extent that some folks will go to in order to find, and articulate arguments for, excuses to justify their decision to put convenience and/or saving money ahead of their support for the right to bear arms.

It is also discouraging to see so many folks not understand that "open to the public" does not mean the property is open to all persons but really means the property owner has given his permission to enter only to those individual members of the public who agree to abide by the conditions of that invitation.

We are all familiar with the "no shoes, no shirt, no service" property owner rule that informs individual members of the public who wish to enter that those who are not wearing shoes and/or are not wearing shirts do not have the owner's permission to enter. Those who enter without shoes and/or without a shirt are not given service (often told to come back when they are dressed appropriately but could be thrown out permanently) because they do not have permission to be there without shoes or shirt. And the same holds true about a "no guns" rule informing individual members of the public who wish to enter that those who are carrying guns do not have permission to enter as long as they are carrying a gun (often told to come back when they are are not carrying a gun but could be thrown out permanently).

"Open to the public" only means those who agree to abide by the owner's rules/conditions have permission to enter and those who do not agree (don't wear shoes/shirts and/or sneak in a gun) do not have permission to be there. It is that simple. And sadly, many folks who carry guns against the owner's wishes are well aware the property owner will throw them out if the property owner knew they were carrying a gun which is why those folks know it is necessary to... sneak.. their gun in.

And... all the laws that require the property owner to grant entry to certain classes of people are just as much infringements upon private property rights as gun control laws are infringements upon the RKBA. But then... just as those certain classes of folks would consider those laws (infringements upon property rights) to be a good thing because they benefit from them ... there are some gun owner's/carriers who would also like to have laws (infringements upon property rights) because they would benefit from them.... all the while complaining about laws that infringe upon the RKBA.

Folks can use any kind of excuse or argument necessary to justify trading support of the right to bear arms for convenience and/or saving money but that doesn't detract from the fact that it is hypocritical to expect the right to bear arms be respected while intentionally disrespecting the property owner's right to control (grant or deny permission) who is allowed in/on his property.

End rant...........

sudden valley gunner said:

What a ridiculous statement.

It would be as silly as this one. "People have the right of free speech until they start talking to the public, when they do so they forgo some of that right".

Here's a hint if your opinion of what a right is infringes upon my rights..........its not a right.

Click to expand...

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).

Bikenut said:

A rather long rant not directed at any individual(s)..........

snip cuz everyone read it! if not find it...

end rant...........

Click to expand...

+1 thanks for taking the time to post

now grabbing popcorn and slushy await'g

ipse

OC for ME said:

I open (open house) my home (property) to perspective home buyers (public).

The public is invited...no?

Do I now forgo some of my property rights?

Click to expand...

Under current law, yes you do. Try to deny entry or refuse a sale to a buyer based on the buyer's race, religion, disability, or marital/family status or, in a growing number of areas, sexual orientation.

Ask your real estate agent to tell you the racial makeup of a neighborhood, or to only show you houses in areas with particular demographics and watch him squirm or flat out tell you he can't legally do either of those things.

I fully understand the point of view that you should be able to sell to, rent to, or do business with whomever you want, declining to do so for whatever reasons may strike your fancy. But the vast majority of our fellow citizens do not accept that your rights extend that far and current anti-discrimination laws reflect this.

I understand and respect those who set a lower bar than I do for what triggers them to boycott a business on RKBA issues. Whether that bar is respect for property rights or denying profit, I understand.

Some of the rest of you really should make an effort to at least try to understand differing points of view. We are not enemies.

Charles

Bikenut said:

Folks can use any kind of excuse or argument necessary to justify trading support of the right to bear arms for convenience and/or saving money but that doesn't detract from the fact that it is hypocritical to expect the right to bear arms be respected while intentionally disrespecting the property owner's right to control (grant or deny permission) who is allowed in/on his property.

Click to expand...

1-Hypocrisy is being tossed around pretty freely here. Is it hypocrisy to demand respect for RKBA while refusing to respect someone's claimed right to engage in human sacrifice? Why? Because the NAP, FAP, LAP or some other theory of rights you accept doesn't include any "right" to engage in human sacrifice?

Calling your RKBA allies "hypocrites" because they disagree with your on property rights, or immigration "rights", or elective abortion "rights", or any other non-RKBA topic does at least as much to damage RKBA as someone spending money in Costco or Sam's Club (BOTH deny their employees the ability to carry a gun for self-defense).

2-When black Americans were being mistreated, refused service at lunch counters, refused purchase of homes in "white only" neighborhoods, they didn't just slink away. When homosexuals were being refused jobs and housing they didn't just take their money elsewhere. Taking money elsewhere is ONE aspect of how to change policy. But sometimes, we need to change public opinion as much or more than we need to change any particular policy. Sometimes, we need to stand up for our natural rights to an effective self defense despite some mindless corporate policy.

I don't OC in Costco. But I am often casual enough about my "concealing" that unless we want to accept that nobody notices a poorly concealed gun, my firearm has been noticed in Costco. I've seen others carrying in Utah Costco stores. Here, it simply isn't an issue with either other customers nor with employees.

Most importantly, you're working very hard to create divisions among some of the most active RKBA supporters in the nation because a few of us disagree with you on Costco. Do you care more about being right? Or about relationships within the RKBA community to coordinate and work together?

Charles

drat no butter was put on...tho the slushy is good...

ipse

addendum: sorry, guess you didn't read my post on the other thread...but alas, again, you are incorrect, the GLBT community is, and has been, very strong about avoiding to the maximum extent possible those who are homophobic!

utbagpiper said:

1-Hypocrisy is being tossed around pretty freely here. Is it hypocrisy to demand respect for RKBA while refusing to respect someone's claimed right to engage in human sacrifice? Why? Because the NAP, FAP, LAP or some other theory of rights you accept doesn't include any "right" to engage in human sacrifice?

Calling your RKBA allies "hypocrites" because they disagree with your on property rights, or immigration "rights", or elective abortion "rights", or any other non-RKBA topic does at least as much to damage RKBA as someone spending money in Costco or Sam's Club (BOTH deny their employees the ability to carry a gun for self-defense).

2-When black Americans were being mistreated, refused service at lunch counters, refused purchase of homes in "white only" neighborhoods, they didn't just slink away. When homosexuals were being refused jobs and housing they didn't just take their money elsewhere. Taking money elsewhere is ONE aspect of how to change policy. But sometimes, we need to change public opinion as much or more than we need to change any particular policy. Sometimes, we need to stand up for our natural rights to an effective self defense despite some mindless corporate policy.

I don't OC in Costco. But I am often casual enough about my "concealing" that unless we want to accept that nobody notices a poorly concealed gun, my firearm has been noticed in Costco. I've seen others carrying in Utah Costco stores. Here, it simply isn't an issue with either other customers nor with employees.

Most importantly, you're working very hard to create divisions among some of the most active RKBA supporters in the nation because a few of us disagree with you on Costco. Do you care more about being right? Or about relationships within the RKBA community to coordinate and work together?

Charles

Click to expand...

Originally Posted by Bikenut

I find it extremely dismaying to see the extent that some folks will go to in order to find, and articulate arguments for, excuses to justify their decision to put convenience and/or saving money ahead of their support for the right to bear arms.

Click to expand...

Thank you for proving my point. Have a nice day.