• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Companies in clear violation of Constitutionally-protected civil rights

mnrobitaille

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Messages
313
Location
Kahlotus, WA
As most everyone knows, Costco has, as part of their membership agreement, the following:

Costco policy prohibits firearms to be brought into the warehouse, except in the case of authorized law enforcement officers.

I decided to use the Contact Us form on Costco.com & ask them why they are willing to violate a civil right, & below is the response I got:

Thanks for writing in. I'm happy to explain our policy about guns and personal firearms.

Costco Wholesale is a membership-only warehouse club. It isn't open to the general public. As such, it restricts membership to qualified individuals who agree to our membership conditions. We have the right, and the obligation to our members, to enact and enforce our membership rules.

At Costco, we don't believe it's necessary to bring firearms into the warehouses, except in the case of authorized law enforcement officers. For the protection of all our members and employees, we feel this is a reasonable and prudent precaution to ensure a pleasant shopping experience and safe workplace.

Our primary goal at Costco Wholesale is to keep our members happy. If you believe that our policy restricting members from bringing firearms into our warehouses is unfair or excessively burdensome, or you cannot agree to abide by this policy, Costco will promptly refund your annual membership fee in full upon request. Thank you for your understanding.

So apparently, they are justifying that they are a private organization that can pick & choose what civil rights they will honor.

Aside from most movie theater chains, what other businesses are like Costco & wishing that their premises be "victim-rich zones"??
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Yes, and?

COSTCO is a voluntary membership. They can prohibit anyone they choose from wearing sports jerseys promoting competing teams, or anyone wearing socks with sandals, or women from wearing skirts above the knee. Likely they could refuse permission to those with beards or bald men if they so chose to do so, as long as someone agreed to their rules.

They cannot and did not make anyone do anything; they merely presented their membership rules and someone had to voluntarily agree to them. Much like an officer searching a motorist's automobile, there is no Constitutional issue if the motorist voluntarily agreed to the search.

Good luck in any civil suit alleging a Constitutional violation that you voluntarily agreed to permit by signing the membership application.
 
Last edited:

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
OP, please excuse the pedagogic sarcastic reply from the loquacious Gentleman from Georgia. He simply cannot help himself.
Simply stated only the government can violate individual rights.. Private entities need not abide by the Constitution..

My .02
Regards
CCJ
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
That's odd, I'd swear there have been two or three civil suits alleging private companies of violating the Constitution's 14th Amendment.

GN, please cite the 14th amendment cases you referenced..

You're up late tonight, you must be studying for the GED exam.. Don't stress out, I heard it gets easier after the 3rd time.

I"m playing chess on line against two opponents however if you need any assistance with your studies feel free to query..

My .02
CCJ
 
Last edited:

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
GN, please cite the 14th amendment cases you referenced..

You're up late tonight, you must be studying for the GED exam.. Don't stress out, I heard it gets easier after the 3rd time.

I"m playing chess on line against two opponents however if you need any assistance with your studies feel free to query..

My .02
CCJ

I'll gladly make use of your experience re obtaining a GED.
 
Last edited:

gutshot II

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2017
Messages
768
Location
Central Ky.
As most everyone knows, Costco has, as part of their membership agreement, the following:



I decided to use the Contact Us form on Costco.com & ask them why they are willing to violate a civil right, & below is the response I got:



So apparently, they are justifying that they are a private organization that can pick & choose what civil rights they will honor.

Aside from most movie theater chains, what other businesses are like Costco & wishing that their premises be "victim-rich zones"??

Tens of thousands of them. If you look around, I am sure that you will be able to find plenty. I'd start with Buffalo Wind Wings and work from there. Try looking at almost any hospital and then move on to your local Target. There are enough to keep you busy for a long time.
 

mnrobitaille

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Messages
313
Location
Kahlotus, WA

Tens of thousands of them. If you look around, I am sure that you will be able to find plenty. I'd start with Buffalo Wind Wings and work from there. Try looking at almost any hospital and then move on to your local Target. There are enough to keep you busy for a long time.

I've had no issues OCing in Buffalo Wild Wings here, or any issues in both Target stores I frequent. If I remember right, the corporate response from Target is that they will abide by local/state rules/regulations?

I learned from the Chase branch I frequent, that they follow state/local rules, after asking them about the policy, as I mentioned to them about what happened at the Spokane Valley branch last Thursday (posted in the Washington State thread under "Eastern WA OC Report").

I know Toys'R'Us is a big one for being a "Victim-rich zone", as well as Jack in the Box (ironic with Jack in the Box, as a few of the locations here have been robbed by illegal CCers).
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,331
Location
Valhalla
--snipped-- Target stores I frequent. If I remember right, the corporate response from Target is that they will abide by local/state rules/regulations?

Target stores are private property and neither OC nor CC is impacted by local laws/regulations. They are free to make their own decisions.

That said, what they have done is to "request" that guns not be carried in their stores. If they are, they will look the other way and not take any action.

https://corporate.target.com/article/2014/07/target-addresses-firearms-in-stores
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,488
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
These businesses operate at the pleasure of the state. They are licensed by the state. So, the state makes the rules that these businesses operate under. That applies to all private businesses open to the public and even by membership only.

Your home does not exist at the pleasure of the state. Some states say to exclude firearms from a store a sign must be posted. Other states say signs have no force and effect of law. And many combinations thereof.
 

OC Freedom

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2014
Messages
646
Location
ADA County, ID
These businesses operate at the pleasure of the state. They are licensed by the state. So, the state makes the rules that these businesses operate under. That applies to all private businesses open to the public and even by membership only.

Your home does not exist at the pleasure of the state. Some states say to exclude firearms from a store a sign must be posted. Other states say signs have no force and effect of law. And many combinations thereof.

Correct.

Commercial property open for business to the public is different than private property that is not open to the public. I can indeed refuse entry based on someones race alone at my home, but a commercial business may not by law. What we need to do is require the same laws that apply to race as to the open carry of firearms.
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
Correct.

Commercial property open for business to the public is different than private property that is not open to the public. I can indeed refuse entry based on someones race alone at my home, but a commercial business may not by law. What we need to do is require the same laws that apply to race as to the open carry of firearms.
Folks complain about how many infringements the government has put upon the citizen's right to bear arms and yet there are those who would applaud the government adding more infringements upon the private property right to refuse entry just because they like that particular infringement.

"Open to the public" does not mean anyone and everyone has the right to enter. It only means each individual member (each individual person) of the public will be allowed to enter IF they abide by all the rules/policies the property owner imposes in exchange for his permission to enter.

Make no mistake. The government imposed laws that a commercial private property owner cannot refuse entry to certain people(s) are just as much of an infringement upon the private property owner's right to control who, how, and why, the private property is used as are gun control laws are on who, how, why, and even where the right to bear arms is used.

And just because a certain segment of the population agrees with a private property or gun control infringement because they benefit from it doesn't change the fact that it is still an infringement upon a right.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,907
Location
here nc
this subject has been chased around the trees so many times the 'ghi' is starting to freely flow...

there are still citizens who believe they are above adherence to respect those private property restrictions.

as pointed out by CoL, the State has allowed these restrictions to manifest, so until we can get the legislators to change existing statutes, lawful citizens will continue to be subjected to these issues.

bottom line, if there are owner restrictions imposed, take your hard earned money elsewhere ~ period!
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
this subject has been chased around the trees so many times the 'ghi' is starting to freely flow...

there are still citizens who believe they are above adherence to respect those private property restrictions.

as pointed out by CoL, the State has allowed these restrictions to manifest, so until we can get the legislators to change existing statutes, lawful citizens will continue to be subjected to these issues.

bottom line, if there are owner restrictions imposed, take your hard earned money elsewhere ~ period!
I, for one, not only abide by the infringements on private property rights called laws governing who property owners cannot keep out just as I abide by the infringements upon the right to bear arms called gun control laws but I also respect the rules and policies of the property owners who deny entry to those not protected by those laws (infringements) by taking my business/money elsewhere.

But I do understand that infringements are infringements whether I agree, or disagree, with them and I also understand that I cannot.. at least in good conscience... complain about infringements upon the right to bear arms while supporting infringements upon private property rights (or any other right for that matter) just because I might benefit from those infringements.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

gutshot II

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2017
Messages
768
Location
Central Ky.
I, for one, not only abide by the infringements on private property rights called laws governing who property owners cannot keep out just as I abide by the infringements upon the right to bear arms called gun control laws but I also respect the rules and policies of the property owners who deny entry to those not protected by those laws (infringements) by taking my business/money elsewhere.

But I do understand that infringements are infringements whether I agree, or disagree, with them and I also understand that I cannot.. at least in good conscience... complain about infringements upon the right to bear arms while supporting infringements upon private property rights (or any other right for that matter) just because I might benefit from those infringements.

The very same thoughts that have been in my head, you have properly put into words. Great job. Short, to the point and completely correct. This forum would be much better off, if all our members could express their thoughts so succinctly.
 

mnrobitaille

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Messages
313
Location
Kahlotus, WA
Gun-Free Zones in Violation of Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 ??

So the general consensus is that entities like Costco, Simon Malls, & all other gun-free/"victim-rich" zones is allowed due to private property rights, what about 18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights??

18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;  or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured--

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both;  and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Unless someone can say otherwise, how 18 U.S. Code § 241 is written, the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, which is, as stated earlier is a "Natural Law", but is also classified as a Constitutionally-protected Civil Right/Civil Liberty, cannot be infringed upon.
 

mikeyb

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2013
Messages
554
Location
Bothell
So the general consensus is that entities like Costco, Simon Malls, & all other gun-free/"victim-rich" zones is allowed due to private property rights, what about 18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights??



Unless someone can say otherwise, how 18 U.S. Code § 241 is written, the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, which is, as stated earlier is a "Natural Law", but is also classified as a Constitutionally-protected Civil Right/Civil Liberty, cannot be infringed upon.

Slight derail here... but that code should be applied to "protesters" who are prohibiting people from travelling on the roadways. Blocking intersections, roadways, etc.

A business is not a person, so I don't think the code would be applicable.
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
So the general consensus is that entities like Costco, Simon Malls, & all other gun-free/"victim-rich" zones is allowed due to private property rights, what about 18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights??

18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;  or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured--

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both;  and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Unless someone can say otherwise, how 18 U.S. Code § 241 is written, the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, which is, as stated earlier is a "Natural Law", but is also classified as a Constitutionally-protected Civil Right/Civil Liberty, cannot be infringed upon.
The private property owner of a business is not doing anything to "injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate" anyone but is offering a simple agreement/contract to any individual member of the public who wants to have his permission to enter his property.

If a person wishes to have the private property owner's permission to enter a store/business then, in order to gain the owner's permission, that person must agree to abide by any and all rules, policies, and conditions before having permission to enter including a no guns rule. In other words the person voluntarily agrees to not exercise his right to carry a gun in exchange for the owner's permission to enter the owner's property. And it isn't necessary to sign any agreement since merely entering serves as tacit agreement (Check your state's laws for clarification since laws vary!).

And if a person does not agree to abide by the rules/policies and conditions but enters carrying a gun anyway then they do not have the owner's permission to be on/in that property and is trespassing. If the owner catches them already trespassing by carrying a gun against his rule/policy then he can have them removed/thrown out/perhaps arrested and, at least in Michigan (check your state's laws for clarification since laws vary from state to state!), can have them arrested for trespass without having to say a word of notification to them (ask them to leave) because, while no guns signs do not have any force of gun law in Michigan (check your state's laws for clarification since laws vary from state to state!), his sign/posted rules IS legal notification of trespass and carries the force of trespass law.

Again, I am not an attorney and if a resident of Michigan has any question about what I just posted let me suggest they contact an attorney in Michigan for clarification. And it would be wise for folks to seek clarification of trespass law in their own state(s) and any state(s) they might visit.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
So the general consensus is that entities like Costco, Simon Malls, & all other gun-free/"victim-rich" zones is allowed due to private property rights, what about 18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights??
Read it more closely, please..
18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;  or....

Were you injured, either physically or mentally by any person or person at Costco?

Were you oppressed; was there any harsh and authoritarian treatment?

Were you threatened? Did anyone state an intention to take hostile action in retribution for something you did or didn't do? Were you menaced, intimidated, browbeaten, bullied, blackmailed in any manner?

Were you intimidated? Did the person at the Costco customer service desk attempt to frighten or overawe you in order to force you to sign their membership application?

Did a group disguise themselves with a mask or by other means, and enter your yard to try and prevent you from making an application to join Costco or deny you any other right secured by the Constitution?
 
Last edited:

gutshot II

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2017
Messages
768
Location
Central Ky.
So the general consensus is that entities like Costco, Simon Malls, & all other gun-free/"victim-rich" zones is allowed due to private property rights, what about 18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights??



Unless someone can say otherwise,
how 18 U.S. Code § 241 is written, the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, which is, as stated earlier is a "Natural Law", but is also classified as a Constitutionally-protected Civil Right/Civil Liberty, cannot be infringed upon.

Otherwise.
 
Top