Join Date: June 7, 1999
Ben Shepherd and any others who might be interested:
I suspect that such policy decisions come from the corporate offices, and are not the wet dream of local store management.
In any case, the policy in question, which I disagree with, is a matter for the owners, it is the business that they own, and if it turns out to be a "publically owned company", stock having been sold to the general public, then the stock holders might have something to say to management, for instance, TAKE A HIKE.
Otherwise, and I have long wondered as to what might happen, legally speaking, in a case such as the following. You, being a good fellow or gal, are licensed by your state to carry a concealed weapon. In the course of doing some errands, shopping, that sort of thing, while about to enter the local Costco outlet, you notice their posted policy. O.K., you leave your "pet blaster" locked up in your car, and enter the store, defenseless, and innocent. Another person is not so disposed, for they, being a criminal, intent on robbery are armed. In the ensuing events, you are injured, possibly killed.
Would you, if you survived, or your family if you didn't, be able to bring action against Costco, for it was their stated policy that rendered you defenseless in their business premisis? Not being a lawyer, I cannot say. Does anyone know?
Of course, as I had noted in my earlier post, you the customer could have declined to patronize the merchant, Costco in this case, after all, there is likely nothing Costco sells that you couldn't buy elsewhere, perhaps a little more expensively, which brings us to a question I had asked earlier. Are gun owners really their own, worst enemies, or put in other terms, are a few pennies, nickles or dimes more important to you than principle? If it turns out that they are, go in peace friend, and may your chains rest lightly on your shoulders.
Many people complain about one aspect or another of Wal-Mart, yet these same people continue to patronize Wal-Mart or Wally World as it is also known. The savings they obtain there seem more important than principle to them. I've often wondered as to exactly how much money they actually save, which is another way of asking how cheaply are they willing to sell their principles, assuming that they had any. Of course, given that some find nothing at all problematic with Wal-Mart, the above considerations do not apply to them.
Might be interesting to find out if gun owners really are, their own, worst enemies.
End of rant.