Costco policy bans guns!

OFCC Action Alert (email alert) | 12/14/04 | KimRife

[KimRife]

Saw enough "Costco" Topics here, figured there would be some interest: Received this from Chad Baus of OFCC yesterday:

The following was sent to OFCC - writer isn't a CCW-Talker, but said I could post this sans his name:

Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 13:27:56 -0500 Subject: Costco To: info@ofcc.net

Hello,

Costco as a CPZ yesterday. I also e-mailed them to find out why. I am forwarding their response.

Thanks, XXXXXXX

>From: customerservice@costco.com >Subject: RE: Warehouse Questions or Suggestions [APZ2004120900003499] >Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 08:47:42 -0800 > >To reference this e-mail in the future, please make >note of the tracking number listed in the subject >heading. This message may be monitored for quality >assurance. >--------------------------------------------------- > > >Dear XXXXXXX, > >Thank you for e-mailing Costco Wholesale. > >I am sorry but that is a corporate wide policy sent >down from our CEO. > >Thank you. > >Sincerely, > >Elizabeth H. >Member Service Phone Agent >ext.1716 >customerservice@costco.com > > -----Original Message----- >From: IMCReply >Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 9:20 AM >To: Elizabeth Hovanes >Subject: Warehouse Questions or Suggestions > >Note this message was submitted through the costco.com >web site customer >suggestion page on 12/9/2004 12:00:00 AM at >09:19:10.1535192. >==================================================== >Comment/Suggestion/Request/Question Text: > > I went to your store in Mayfield Heights, Ohio >yesterday. I noticed that a sign prohibiting concealed >weapons permit holders from bringing their weapons into >the store. Is this a corporate policy? Do >you do this >in other states that allow concealed carry? Ohio is one >of forty five states that allow it. Ohio law requires >individuals with these permits to take extensive >training and undergo background check. >These are not the people you should worry about. A >person with criminal intent will ignore that sign. I am >also a member of BJ's and Sam's >Club. Neither of them >have posted these signs. If this sign stays up, >I will not be renewing my menbership. > >I have forwarded this information to the Ohioans for >Concealed Carry >website. They will place your store in >the "do not patronize" list. >=====================================================

It would be GREAT if anyone in a state OTHER THAN Ohio, would stop by the Costco nearest you next time you are in the area. See if they have a sign. If yes OR no post it here, or e-mail me at:kkacer@catlover.com with the address sate and your zip code (I can find the store zip that way and makes it easier for you).

And if anyone would care to let Costco know what you think: Member Services: 800-774-2678

Web address: http://www.costco.com

Costco's corporate mailing address is: PO Box 34331 Seattle, WA 98124

Costco's corporate offices are located at: 999 Lake Drive Issaquah, WA 98027

Have at.

[mvpel]

Considering that a firearm is the most effective tool for self-defense, in that 98% of the times that a firearm is used for self-defense it is not even fired, then denying the right to carry one is tantamount to severely crippling the right to self-defense for many people.

Not everyone can fight hand-to-hand.

[Conspiracy Guy]

If we get a Costco here I will go there and tell them I'm not gonna shop there.

[paul51]

I hate smoking bans imposed by government. It should be up to the business owner. I put gun rights in the same category

I don't and therein is the difference. RKBA is protected by the constitution. Right to smoke isn't

[NJ_gent]

"Now cite the source of your contrary information."

You've made an uncited claim of a statistical probability. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not on those who disbelieve it. If you sue me for something, and your entire case is, "well I say you did do it; prove you didn't!", the case isn't going to go your way.

[Conspiracy Guy]

Show me your RKBA on someone else's private property and I'll listen.

[KimRife]

ArrogantBustard wrote:
To: KimRife
I haven't seen any "No Guns" signs in any of three Costco outlets in Virginia ... If I do see them, and they stay up after protest, I'll be shredding my Costco card.
They have the right to ban guns on their property.

I have the right to only do business with sane people.
_______________________
Amen.

[paul51]

We are not talking about private property. We are talking about costco or other businesses open to the public.

[KimRife]

Auntie Dem replied to Poohbah:

To: Poohbah
You've made it clear that you have no respect for anyone else's property rights.
Why should I respect his property rights? He doesn't respect my right to self defense. IMHO my right to self defense trumps his private property rights.

Because of (maybe only partly because) of my conservative character, I will responsibly discharge (no pun intended) my CCW permit and right to self defense.

It's too bad he can't responsibly exercise his property rights.
_______________

I reply:
I've got to say that when one "opens up" one's property to "the public" and pretty much any Tom, Dick or Harry can enter your property, that you have then FORFITED "some"
of your "property rights" and in THESE instances, I think that anyone's right to self defense should then "trump" the property owner's rights.

So Joe invites me to his house, but only if I come unarmed, well then I have a choice, I do NOT go over to Joes, or I do so unarmed, BUT, IMO Sears or Walmart or COSTCO shouldn't be able to "uninvite" me should I choose an otherwise lawful, responsible choice - to go armed.

Now IF, (and only if) said company has several armed GUIARDS, metal detectors and other security every 25-45' inside ANND OUTSIDE of the store - then that's fine. But Krogers caved because they saw the business they were loosing as well as how they were opening themselves up to litigation since at LEAST 4 incidents of car theft, mugging and kidnapping took place ON THEIR PROPERTY (in the parking lots) of various stores in OHIO in 2 WEEKS! 2 Incidents were in the Cincinnati area I cannot recall where the other 2 took place.

[KimRife]

The key here, IMO when you say: "If I decide that I don't want guns in my house (fat chance of that), do you feel you have the right to sneak guns in anyway? Your personal freedoms are limited while you're on the property of another person."

Is the word PERSON. IMO, when it is a COMPANY the INDIVIDUAL's rights (in this case, anyway) should "trump" the "Company's rights". ESPECIALLY when said "company" is otherwise "open to the public". JMO, YMMV.

[P-Chan Penny]

I noticed that some posts lists Costco as "open to the public", but this is not the case. Costco is a membership warehouse, and is therefore not open to the public, just it's members.

[packrat01]

portions of the building leak hydrogen dioxide

dihydrogen monoxide, perhaps?

[NJ_gent]

"Is the word PERSON. IMO, when it is a COMPANY the INDIVIDUAL's rights (in this case, anyway) should "trump" the "Company's rights". ESPECIALLY when said "company" is otherwise "open to the public"."

While I'm very much against the common thinking in the modern-day US judicial system that companies are the same as people, I do believe that having control over private property is vital to any business. Can I walk around Wal-Mart advertising competitors' prices and locations? Can I distribute leaflets to their customers about what scumbags the members of the board are? Should a bunch of Muslims be able to walk into a store and toss down their prayer rugs to pray toward Mecca when it's cold outside? That's all first amendment stuff, right?

Should someone be able to walk into the store I work in waving a gun around (not that any responsible gun owner would do that)? Some states allow only open-carry. Should banks be forced to allow people openly carrying guns to wander about while the tellers spend every stress-filled minute with their finger on the 'buzzer'? Should airports be forced to allow people to wander about with guns at the ready?

I'm as pro-second amendment as the next guy, but that provides us protection against government taking away the right to own and possess guns, not against private property owners deciding who takes what on their property. If you don't want to abide by the decisions and policies set by a private property owner, then the only decent solution is to not go onto that property.

[packrat01]

I haven't seen any "No Guns" signs in any of three Costco outlets in Virginia

maybe you should ask if it's store policy? Apparently, the CEO sez so...

Just because there's no sign, doesn't mean it's not a company-wide policy. If it is policy, and you continue to support them in it; you'll be helping COSTCO keep the signs up in Ohio.

[KimRife]

Do you only wear your seat belt when crossing dangerous intersections where an accident is LIKELY to occur, or do you wear it at all times? (Or not at all in the Free States where it isn't something you may be arrested for NOT wearing)? I wear mine all the time, NOT because I expect to be IN an accident, but because I am aware that an accident can occur anywhere at any time. Just like crime. NO place is EXEMPT (though certainly there are places where it is less likely). Come on!

[KimRife]

I know what you are saying.

I'm just SO vehemently anti-corporation (basically most larger companies, not the little guys) regarding another matter - I'm quite comfortable "trampling" on them a bit for a change. I freely admit I am not QUITE "rational" on this point, but I've been pissed about this unrelated matter for a few years now, and really I don't see an end in the next 5 years or so.

While I do agree with the example YOU cited (that a company should be able to prevent them from occurring on "their" property, I do NOT on the CHL issue. Why? it is NOT in ANY way "interfering" with their ability to do business. It is legal in the rest of the state (in the 34-45 states where it is ;). Do you think that they should be able to "remove me" for wearing a t-shirt that says, "God Loves You" or "George Bush in '04" or John Kerry in '04"? (pick the one you'd be the least against ;)

See, I don't. In ANY of those cases. Shoot even an "Allah Loves You" is okay w/me - NOW if said wearer is also attempting to hand out flyers for their particular t-shirt -THAT's DIFFERENT, especially so if they are bothering customers trying to "give them a "Jesus Loves You Booklet" or a "John KERRY bumper sticker" etc... OR if one is screaming the same message on the t-shirt - again, SURE it's "free Speech" but that "free speech" is disruptive to the business CONDUCTING business. Legally carrying a concealed firearm is NOT "interfering" with business.

IMO, apples and oranges. ;)

[ezo4]

Interesting I go the one where there HQ is located. Ill look for a sign

[ezo4]

Both times I have been in a leathal situation were in very unexpected areas and times. You will never know when and where a random act of violence will happen. I was lucky.

So I carry all the time. Everytime. Everyday. Allways!

Ill probably go the rest of my life with out ever having to defend myself. But when that .000000001% time happens again. Ill be prepared and ready. Not like last time

[Conspiracy Guy]

A business is a private property. If you don't understand that there is no reason to continue.

[jonathonandjennifer]

>>>I am in Iloinois. The only legal way to carry a gun here is to be in another State!! So you are as vulnerable as me, huh? Maybe we need a nice set up golf clubs? The unarmed man's/woman's iron?

You got me thinking; what would mayor Daly do if many poeple in Chicago started to carry a baseball bat around with them?

[absalom01]

If you respectfully, cordially and politely advocate electing Hillary Clinton President in 2008, I will order you to leave my property, and you will either comply or be arrested for trespassing.

In California, if your property is a "place of public accomodation" (eg, the area in front of a supermarket), your rights as a property owner are rather more restricted than this. Here, the property owner has a choice: he can a) stop being a place of public accomodation (ie, go out of business), or b) permit peaceful assembly and political activity (eg, picket lines, signature gathering, advocating the election of Her Heinousness, etc. etc. etc.)

Not saying that this is right, mind you, but just thought it would be worth pointing out that the strong private property rights you assert don't exist anymore in many parts of the US.