Costco official statement - they are anti-gun, anti-CCW

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Dave, our country has limited the rights of private property owners when they violate the rights of citizens. It was the claim years ago that a private property owner might discriminate in his or her store on the basis of race.

That went by the wayside. Now, I know there are some folks around who would argue that the property owner still in his business should be able to discriminate on the basis of race. But that is not acceptable.

I opine that discriminating on the basis of gun carrying is a similar violation based on our rights and thus should not be allowed.

Since they pay higher taxes - they should be able to afford to protect themselves.

Anyway, the Costcos here don't have that sign and I don't belong anyway - so what!!

[Bill T]

As "Harry Calahan" once said, "Well I'm just all broken up about their rights!" Bill T.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Harry Callahan also had a quote about a naked man running with his ..... out -hopefully he won't run into the private property castle where you can't defend yourself.

[Bill T]

"Harry Callahan also had a quote about a naked man running with his ..... out"

It was in "Dirty Harry" when the Mayor of San Francisco questioned him about some trouble he had during an arrest he made. His reply was, "When I see a naked man chasing a woman down a dark alley with a butcher knife and a *******, I don't think he was out collecting for the Red Cross." To which the Mayor replied, "I think he's got a point." Bill T.

[paramedic70002]

Since when do property rights trump human rights?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

That is sometimes a view of the more rightist political folk. They have that castle mentality where they are king and no others that don't pass their standards have rights on their land.

As I said, some folks thought that gave them the right to discriminate in their businesses. They used property rights as an excuse for blatant bigotry.

You still find such living on hills with piles of MREs, waiting for the Red Chinese and zombies.

My position is that if you have a business open to the public, you cannot ban the right of self-defense except for some highly technical reason. For example, no just wearing your shoulder holster with your 38 when you are getting a nude massage.

[David Armstrong]

Dave, our country has limited the rights of private property owners when they violate the rights of citizens.

Yes, I think I mentioned that earlier, that private property owners could not act in violation of rights established through law. However carrying a firearm is not a protected right, and CCW holders are not a protected class.

I opine that discriminating on the basis of gun carrying is a similar violation based on our rights and thus should not be allowed.

Huh?? You are going to equate the voluntary and arbitrary decision to carry a firearm with a demographic such as race? That is quite a stretch, IMO, considering the 2nd Amendment hasn't even the status of being incorporated. There is no legal doctrine that I'm aware of to support such a position.

Since they pay higher taxes - they should be able to afford to protect themselves.

So you would means test people's ability to avail themselves of puiblic services??
I understand your position, but to me the property owner is not denying service at all, just saying if you want service, here are the rules I expect you to follow. Sort of "No shirt, no shoes, no service."

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I think we differ on the meaning of rules. No shirt, no pants are behaviorial rules and not infringements on basic human rights. No shirt, no pants is hygenic in nature. No blacks - no guns are not behaviorial in my sense as while gun carrying is a behavior, it is more the instantiation of a basic human right.

Would a store be able to ban folks on NO crosses, no Yarmulkas? If they didn't pose some kind of physical risk, banning them would be religious discrimination. In the MRI, your cross would be a risk.

Thus, the property owner can forbid behaviorial aspects. I'm in favor of all guns must stay concealed in the store but the right to defend is fundamental.

While repeating myself, when you are open to the public - you can set behaviorial standards that do not violate human rights or for specific safety reasons. I don't believe you can set behavioral standards that violate rights if you decide that your store is not your private castle but a public space.

Similar arguments have been made about space in malls and airports. Organizations have argued that while private or government property, they have become the equivalent of the public square of old. Thus, folks could express themselves there if they did not engage in some obnoxious behavior. Thus, the precedent of extending rights to private places that become public in utilization is not unknown.

Now, this is too intellectual. How about will my 38 in a shoulder holster be sufficient when zombies attack the mall as I've seen in several movies. If I can't carry in the mall - who will stop the zombies?

[David Armstrong]

No blacks - no guns are not behaviorial in my sense as while gun carrying is a behavior, it is more the instantiation of a basic human right.

I think that is where we differ. One situation is related to who you are, the other is related to something you want to do. Why should your "want to do" trump my "want to do"?

Would a store be able to ban folks on NO crosses, no Yarmulkas?

Probably not, given the fact that religous expression IS considered a basic human right and protected in the U.S. Given a recent ruling on wearing a veil in school, that might not be as solid as it once seemed, BTW. However, CCW does not rise to that standard.

If they didn't pose some kind of physical risk, banning them would be religious discrimination. In the MRI, your cross would be a risk.

But that is what the store owner is saying, that in their opinion the firearm does pose some kind of risk that they do not want to have on their property.

but the right to defend is fundamental.

Given that, which I tend to agree with, you then have to show that carrying a gun is fundamental to the ability to be defend, which is a pretty lofty burden, I would think. And again, as mentioned before, if you feel you are unsafe there is no obligation or requirement on your part to put yourself in danger--you can go to another store.

I don't believe you can set behavioral standards that violate rights if you decide that your store is not your private castle but a public space.

But you can. A store can restrict your rights to free speech and prohibit the handing out of flyers, as one example.

Thus, the precedent of extending rights to private places that become public in utilization is not unknown.

I would question whether there is a valid comparison between public-access commons and a particular store. But in addition, unless I have missed a case, in situations such as the mall and the airport the rights can be curtailed as long as they do not discriminate in kind (ie, the Girl Scouts can solicit for funds so the Boy Scouts can too, but you can prohibit a political group handing out "vote for me" material).

Now, this is too intellectual. How about will my 38 in a shoulder holster be sufficient when zombies attack the mall as I've seen in several movies. If I can't carry in the mall - who will stop the zombies?

It certainly is becoming much to intellectual. So, yes, your .38 will do the job just fine as long as you only load it with 158 grain LSWC +P ammo and carry 234 rounds of spare ammo with you (remember Murphy, better to have it and not need it, etc.). And if the mall prohibits, no problem--the Mall Ninja will save the day!

[Bud Helms]

Hey, guys, this ain't no Zombie thread and it better not turn into one.

[Paul B.]

Glockamolie said, "I wish there was a Costco around here, so I could not shop there because of their policy, instead of not shopping there because there isn't one."

If you are really from Houston TX, there certainly is a Costco sgtore there. In fact, I think there are two. My son-in-law is a magager at one of them. In fact I was inside one of the stores the last time I was there in Houston.
Paul B.

[obiwan1]

I went to my local BJs last Friday. I looked carefully - no signs. I don't care about company policy if there's no signs. So there's an option if you won't go to Costco. By the way, I do go to Costco as I stated before - with my friends.............

[71Commander]

http://www.buyblue.org/node/721/view/summary

Costco is as blue as blue can get. Even if they allowed firearms , I wouldn't shop there. 99% of their campaign donations go to Democrats.

[westphoenix]

Originally Posted by tenntucker

http://www.buyblue.org/node/721/view/summary

Costco is as blue as blue can get. Even if they allowed firearms , I wouldn't shop there. 99% of their campaign donations go to Democrats.

The no guns sign is what got me started with the other thread.
This and a few other things (which I don't have links to) were pointed out to me about Costco and their anti-gun contributions. That is why I decided not to shop there.

[Nathan]

So, anyone want to place bets on when the first Costco mass shooting happens?

The issue I have is they believe this policy stops or slows the carrying of guns in their stores. In OH, it really just ensures criminals carry unopposed. It also makes them a target rich environment for the next whack job who wants to shoot fish in a barrel like the college, school and movie theater shootings have shown us....people who want to send a message this way will look for these kinds of safe havens for their terrorist attacks. To a certain extent, the property owner ought to be held accountable as they are aiding the criminal's plan.

Frankly, I would like to see the insurance companies add this into the calculation. By banning guns, they go beyond reasonable and customary. If I were an insurance company, I would want a bump in premium to cover this added liability.

[Tom Servo]

Zombie thread from 2006. A lot of things can change in six years.