Costco is officially anti-gun, anti-CCW
- Thread starter BlackOpsSec
- Start date
- Status
I agree with that, regardless of the reason.
All I can say is that, here in California, fear of lawsuits and high insurance premiums are a major driver in nearly every action taken by businesses, HOA's, etc. That does influence the approach you want to take.
If a business does something overtly political, I'd say get really aggressive up-front. Let them know you want your stores to stay out of politics, or support your side, and that doing otherwise is at their peril.
If a business does something out of a fear of liability, however, a more rational, lower-key approach -- firm but polite -- would be appropriate.
This is true of pretty much everything in this country in present days. The legal system has really screwed up a lot of our country by entertaining and pursuing frivolous lawsuits. Everything (including things dictating insurance premiums) is dictated by fear of law suits. It doesn't matter what it is... business, medicine, insurance, fast food, commercials, disclaimers in instruction manuals, warnings for plastic bags, etc.
Everybody is afraid of Sam Bernstein and the rest of the ambulance chasers, and it's all because our legal system allowed such law suits as McDonald's being sued for their coffee being hot. Now they have to put a warning on a coffee cup. All of those ridiculous warnings are everywhere because some idiot somewhere either tried to or did sue over what is painfully obvious to anyone with a pulse.
We, as a society, need some major tort reform to end frivolous law suits. We need to make it harder for a frivolous law suit to become an instant winning lottery ticket. The powers that be in the judicial system need to stop entertaining these ridiculous law suits. If this ever happens, places like Costco will have one less reason to put up signs like that. That said, I still think it's BS that they put that sign up.
Somewhat OT, but I've gotta respond....
There are many exapmles of frivoulous lawsuits, and many examples wehre they are successful. The McDonald's coffee suit isn't one of them.
McDonald's coffee pots kept coffe at 208 F. They had paid thousands of workman's comp claims over the years to employees badly burned by coffee. They'd had thousands of customer complaints, and even paid (out of court) for injuries sustained by the public from the coffee. They'd even been fined by several state safety departments. Why? Because it was cheaper to keep quietly paying docotr bills than to remove hundreds of thousands of coffee pots and replace them with ones that kept the coffee at a sane temperature.
The woman who's suit became (wrongly) the poster child for junk lawsuits filed suit asking for medical bills and 6 month's lost wages, after skin grafts and all the rest. The jury, after reviewing the full history of the thing, decided to punish McDonalds by making it more expensive to continue than to change. Speaking the only laguage a corporation understands. Niether the plaintiff, nor her lawyer, nor the judge, asked for a punitive damage award.
Finally, the judgement was substantially reduced on appeal, as almost always happens with these large, news-making punitive awards.
There are lots and lots of examples of this kind of behavior. Companies often disregard correctable, life-endangering flaws in their products because they calculate the risks as being smaller than the cost of fixing it. The Pinto, Vioxx, the Dalkon shield, the list goes on and on. Punitive damage awards reverse that calculation, and that's often a good thing.
If you're looking for an example of frivolous lawsuits, please find a better one. It's not hard. The woman in Arizona who sued God for 100K after she was struck by lightning comes immediately to mind...
As to the topic, you've got to evaluate the consequences of ignoring that sign, based on the laws where you live. It's their property, they can post it if they wanna. Me, I shop at Costco, because I like a business that offers me low prices while at the same time paying their workers decent wages and giving them benefits. Given the choice between an unposted Sam's Club and a posted Costco, I'd shop at the Costco. Why? Because while I dislike Costco's firearms policy, I dislike WalMart's policies and practices even more. You've got to make your choices, and there aren't any perfect ones.
--Shannon
There are many exapmles of frivoulous lawsuits, and many examples wehre they are successful. The McDonald's coffee suit isn't one of them.
McDonald's coffee pots kept coffe at 208 F. They had paid thousands of workman's comp claims over the years to employees badly burned by coffee. They'd had thousands of customer complaints, and even paid (out of court) for injuries sustained by the public from the coffee. They'd even been fined by several state safety departments. Why? Because it was cheaper to keep quietly paying docotr bills than to remove hundreds of thousands of coffee pots and replace them with ones that kept the coffee at a sane temperature.
The woman who's suit became (wrongly) the poster child for junk lawsuits filed suit asking for medical bills and 6 month's lost wages, after skin grafts and all the rest. The jury, after reviewing the full history of the thing, decided to punish McDonalds by making it more expensive to continue than to change. Speaking the only laguage a corporation understands. Niether the plaintiff, nor her lawyer, nor the judge, asked for a punitive damage award.
Finally, the judgement was substantially reduced on appeal, as almost always happens with these large, news-making punitive awards.
There are lots and lots of examples of this kind of behavior. Companies often disregard correctable, life-endangering flaws in their products because they calculate the risks as being smaller than the cost of fixing it. The Pinto, Vioxx, the Dalkon shield, the list goes on and on. Punitive damage awards reverse that calculation, and that's often a good thing.
If you're looking for an example of frivolous lawsuits, please find a better one. It's not hard. The woman in Arizona who sued God for 100K after she was struck by lightning comes immediately to mind...
As to the topic, you've got to evaluate the consequences of ignoring that sign, based on the laws where you live. It's their property, they can post it if they wanna. Me, I shop at Costco, because I like a business that offers me low prices while at the same time paying their workers decent wages and giving them benefits. Given the choice between an unposted Sam's Club and a posted Costco, I'd shop at the Costco. Why? Because while I dislike Costco's firearms policy, I dislike WalMart's policies and practices even more. You've got to make your choices, and there aren't any perfect ones.
--Shannon
carebear
Member
Not posted in Alaska either. Signs prohibiting have to be of a certain size and wording to be valid or you haven't committed a violation of the carry law, which has specific penalties.
However, in the end, a store has the right to refuse service for any or no reason and if you don't comply and the cops are called it'd be trespassing (eventually).
In general, if they ask you to leave, you gotta go.
However, in the end, a store has the right to refuse service for any or no reason and if you don't comply and the cops are called it'd be trespassing (eventually).
In general, if they ask you to leave, you gotta go.
Guns_and_Labs
Member
I have to ask: in what jurisdiction did she file, and how did she serve the defendant?
DerringerUser
Member
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2006
- Messages
- 238
Dammit. Not im gonna feel guilty for shopping there. It really blows that they're anti-2A, they have great prices and great products. I wish these stores would just stay neutral on polotics.
Optical Serenity
Member
Strange, just spoke to someone I know who works for them and he said they don't have any anti-gun policies in their corporate that he's ever seen.
he also made a good point. He said they make the bulk of their money on membership, and finance services to businesses. He said if you already have a membership, they make very little profit on most items you purchase in the store.
he also made a good point. He said they make the bulk of their money on membership, and finance services to businesses. He said if you already have a membership, they make very little profit on most items you purchase in the store.
Guns_and_Labs
Member
Well, I can actually see a rational point here. If there is a shooting onsite, Costco can try to defend itself, saying that they took all reasonable precautions, posted signs, etc. It's likely to be ineffective, but why not try?
On the other hand, I would also advise my client that they not take the sign too seriously, and adopt a "don't ask, don't tell" approach to lawful CCW.
Rem700SD
Member
The important question you need them to answer is "if your policy prevents me from defending myself, are you accepting responsibility for my protection, i.e. liability?" That would make my attorney feel..safer. If he says yes...
I used to work for Price Club.Price Club was bought out by Costco in 92-93.Both have anti firearms poliicies.the PC that I worked at in VA had a sign over the front door.It dissapeared during one of the renovations.My shift started at 2am.I carried various weapons in my car the entire time I worked there.No way would I drive to work without some backup.I didn't carry on my person because it was too uncomfortable.Most everyone else carried a weapon.we used to show them off in the parking lot before mgtm showed up to let us in.The jamaicans carried machetes.Well used machetes........... 
ZeSpectre
Member
-------------begin quote-------------
The important question you need them to answer is "if your policy prevents me from defending myself, are you accepting responsibility for my protection, i.e. liability?" That would make my attorney feel..safer. If he says yes...
-------------end quote-------------
Oh that's GREAT! Somebody should send a reply to the Costco email and ask them that question. I'd LOVE to see what their response is to that question.
The important question you need them to answer is "if your policy prevents me from defending myself, are you accepting responsibility for my protection, i.e. liability?" That would make my attorney feel..safer. If he says yes...
-------------end quote-------------
Oh that's GREAT! Somebody should send a reply to the Costco email and ask them that question. I'd LOVE to see what their response is to that question.
I imagine the response would simply be along these lines:
"No, we accept no responsiblility for your protection if you choose to enter our stores. We regretfully understand if you choose to decline patronizing Costco due to our no firearms policy. However, you are always welcome to to shop in any of our stores provided you are unarmed while on the premesis."
longeyes
member
"Sigh?" Congratulations, you've mastered Business 101, your masters must be very proud of you, you are now a credentialed bizbot.
Look, if you really want to believe that once you start working for a corporation you are no longer an individual human being with responsibility for you and what happens around you, that's your--excuse the expression--business, but don't look around you and wonder what's happening to your society while you're busy making money in an alleged vacuum. That "vacuum" is and was a social fiction. When a "corporate culture" runs afoul of the law and of the needs of the nation it becomes expendable, no matter how "profitable" it may be. There are more measures of wealth and well-being than the P&L.
Last edited:
Dravur
Member
again.....
a business does not have a soul, it cannot make decisions...... I hope that is simple enough for you.... The PEOPLE running these businesses make decisions that can hurt or help the business. The business, in and of itself cannot do this and are completely devoid of feelings.
Some businesses are RUN to the detriment of themselves and /or their employees. Some businesses are run to the great joy of their employees, shareholders and management.
But, and here is the rub.... Businesses do not have any other thing to do but to make money... The people who run a business are people, with all their failings. Some of the people can be socialists, or conservatives, but a business is neither.
Corporations are not the focus of evil that so many socialists complain about... When Wal-mart makes the decision to stop selling guns, for example, they are doing it for a reason that may be valid or not. They may be putting something else int here that sells better or they may cave to government or legal pressure.. This is a decision the people who run the business make, but it has absolutely nothing to do with a business or corporation being evil.
Corporations who move jobs offshore are simply responding to the fact that manufacturing costs in this country are higher than in others and to compete, they move off shore. Is that evil or wrong? no. that means we have made ourselve uncompetitive in the global market. Our businesses, run by people must adapt and stay competitive.
Businesses never operate in a vaccuum. They must compete every day and deal with other corporations, regulations from the state and yes, they must worry about the P&L. Theoretically, they should be doing this within the letter of the law. The only business that operates in a vaccuum is the government which does not have to compete and can compel the minions to pay for whatever they want based on the barrell of a gun.
a business does not have a soul, it cannot make decisions...... I hope that is simple enough for you.... The PEOPLE running these businesses make decisions that can hurt or help the business. The business, in and of itself cannot do this and are completely devoid of feelings.
Some businesses are RUN to the detriment of themselves and /or their employees. Some businesses are run to the great joy of their employees, shareholders and management.
But, and here is the rub.... Businesses do not have any other thing to do but to make money... The people who run a business are people, with all their failings. Some of the people can be socialists, or conservatives, but a business is neither.
Corporations are not the focus of evil that so many socialists complain about... When Wal-mart makes the decision to stop selling guns, for example, they are doing it for a reason that may be valid or not. They may be putting something else int here that sells better or they may cave to government or legal pressure.. This is a decision the people who run the business make, but it has absolutely nothing to do with a business or corporation being evil.
Corporations who move jobs offshore are simply responding to the fact that manufacturing costs in this country are higher than in others and to compete, they move off shore. Is that evil or wrong? no. that means we have made ourselve uncompetitive in the global market. Our businesses, run by people must adapt and stay competitive.
Businesses never operate in a vaccuum. They must compete every day and deal with other corporations, regulations from the state and yes, they must worry about the P&L. Theoretically, they should be doing this within the letter of the law. The only business that operates in a vaccuum is the government which does not have to compete and can compel the minions to pay for whatever they want based on the barrell of a gun.
SAG0282
Member
Shameful, but a) I dont shop there and wouldnt because of this, and b) even if I did, that signs holds ZERO legal weight in my state.
longeyes
member
AGAIN...
No, it's simple enough for you, though. Believe it or not, it's not difficult to grasp that there are human beings running a non-human entity called a business. It's interesting to see that you can disconnect the people running a business and informing its culture from the business itself. No doubt that explains a great deal about the kind of country we have evolved and why we can't quite seem to grasp all too often why America is having the problems it's having. I don't recall attacking businesses; I am calling to account those who participate in them and, unfortunately, also hide behind them.
No, it's simple enough for you, though. Believe it or not, it's not difficult to grasp that there are human beings running a non-human entity called a business. It's interesting to see that you can disconnect the people running a business and informing its culture from the business itself. No doubt that explains a great deal about the kind of country we have evolved and why we can't quite seem to grasp all too often why America is having the problems it's having. I don't recall attacking businesses; I am calling to account those who participate in them and, unfortunately, also hide behind them.
Dravur
Member
so...
as a business entity, according to your mind, they should do the things that may not contribute to the bottom line, perhaps causing the business to fail all to go to whatever pet cause that you have determined that they should join in. Who makes that decision for the business? The people running the business or the all mighty government or special interest group that does not have the businesses' best interest at heart?
So, if a labor union, say at ford or GM has hurt business sooooo bad that they cannot afford to make cars and trucks and Toyota and Subaru can afford to make cars better and cheaper, we should be forced to buy a Ford or GM, just because it is good for the country <which, FYI, it is not> Should a benign government force the people and businesses to be generous with bennies and pay when that same strategy will cause a business to go out of business? I believe France does this and they are the model for efficiency and global commerce. <crap, dripping Sarcasm on the floor>
Who is this mythical person that is going to make all our dreams come true in this economy? Should we nationalize all companies that we dont agree with?
Sorry, Capitalism is the best system. Incentives matter in this world. Businesses will come and go, fail and succeed, but the notion that businesses should be required to respond to some ethereal notion of goodness is just plain silly.
as a business entity, according to your mind, they should do the things that may not contribute to the bottom line, perhaps causing the business to fail all to go to whatever pet cause that you have determined that they should join in. Who makes that decision for the business? The people running the business or the all mighty government or special interest group that does not have the businesses' best interest at heart?
So, if a labor union, say at ford or GM has hurt business sooooo bad that they cannot afford to make cars and trucks and Toyota and Subaru can afford to make cars better and cheaper, we should be forced to buy a Ford or GM, just because it is good for the country <which, FYI, it is not> Should a benign government force the people and businesses to be generous with bennies and pay when that same strategy will cause a business to go out of business? I believe France does this and they are the model for efficiency and global commerce. <crap, dripping Sarcasm on the floor>
Who is this mythical person that is going to make all our dreams come true in this economy? Should we nationalize all companies that we dont agree with?
Sorry, Capitalism is the best system. Incentives matter in this world. Businesses will come and go, fail and succeed, but the notion that businesses should be required to respond to some ethereal notion of goodness is just plain silly.
I don't shop at Costco, so I don't care about their policies. However, if I disaree with a stores policy, I have the option of not shopping there. They are free to make certain policies, such as no firearms, and I am free to spend my money elsewheres. Or I could just not carry a gun into a store and go shopping. Choice is mine.
The 2nd Amemdment has nothing to do with CCW, it says we have the right to keep and bear arms to maintain a well regulated Militia so we can be called upon, by Congress, to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions (Art. I, Sect. 8, Cl. 15). The reason why I own firearms is Amendment IV. We have a right to be secure in our persons, houses...etc. How better to secure yourself and home than with a few locks and some guns? I know that the 2nd Amenedment is the favorite one with this audience and few people will agree with my viewpoint, but look at the 4th Amendment and see if you can interpret it to say you have the right to carry firearms to "be secure". (I didn't see Costco mentioned in the Constitution... lol)
The 2nd Amemdment has nothing to do with CCW, it says we have the right to keep and bear arms to maintain a well regulated Militia so we can be called upon, by Congress, to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions (Art. I, Sect. 8, Cl. 15). The reason why I own firearms is Amendment IV. We have a right to be secure in our persons, houses...etc. How better to secure yourself and home than with a few locks and some guns? I know that the 2nd Amenedment is the favorite one with this audience and few people will agree with my viewpoint, but look at the 4th Amendment and see if you can interpret it to say you have the right to carry firearms to "be secure". (I didn't see Costco mentioned in the Constitution... lol)
carebear
Member
While I disagree in detail with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment (it sounds basically like Cornell's "new" yet discredited "civic right" concept), I do agree that the 2nd has nothing to do with the right of Costco to bar carry on their property.
It's a private property rights issue, government shouldn't be telling private companies who they can or can not serve or hire for any reason.
It's a private property rights issue, government shouldn't be telling private companies who they can or can not serve or hire for any reason.
Anteater1717
Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2006
- Messages
- 586
And i was waiting for kirkland brand firearms
DesertShooter
Member
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2006
- Messages
- 129
The Southland Corporation ("7-11" convenience stores) also has a "No guns allowed" policy, franchise-wide.
Several years ago, as a LEO, I responded to a "robbery just occurred" radio call at a "7-11" store. The clerk didn't WANT me inside the store, even though I was in full police uniform, because I was armed! I had to ask that clerk if he he had asked the ARMED robbery suspect to leave the store!
His reply? A very meek "No"!
Guns have been "demonized". NRA members are looked upon as being "ultra-right wing 'militia' members"!
Oh, if you own guns and have small children, you're looked upon as being an "irresponsible" parent!
I remember back when I was 7 or 8 years old (I'm now 60), and my teacher asked all of us to stand and tell the class about what we had done over the weekend. When it was my turn, I proudly stood up and reported that my dad and I had gone target shooting in the desert. The teacher didn't flinch one bit, and even said something along the lines of, "Oh, you must have had a fun time!". Now? I'd probably expelled or suspended from school, and my parents would be investigated for "neglect" by the Department of Children's Services!
Guns are "evil"? When will the idiots figure out that PEOPLE are evil, and not just the "bad guys" should be able to be armed?
Several years ago, as a LEO, I responded to a "robbery just occurred" radio call at a "7-11" store. The clerk didn't WANT me inside the store, even though I was in full police uniform, because I was armed! I had to ask that clerk if he he had asked the ARMED robbery suspect to leave the store!
His reply? A very meek "No"!
Guns have been "demonized". NRA members are looked upon as being "ultra-right wing 'militia' members"!
Oh, if you own guns and have small children, you're looked upon as being an "irresponsible" parent!
I remember back when I was 7 or 8 years old (I'm now 60), and my teacher asked all of us to stand and tell the class about what we had done over the weekend. When it was my turn, I proudly stood up and reported that my dad and I had gone target shooting in the desert. The teacher didn't flinch one bit, and even said something along the lines of, "Oh, you must have had a fun time!". Now? I'd probably expelled or suspended from school, and my parents would be investigated for "neglect" by the Department of Children's Services!
Guns are "evil"? When will the idiots figure out that PEOPLE are evil, and not just the "bad guys" should be able to be armed?
George S.
Member
None of the Costco stores in my area have any signs posted that state that firearms are not allowed. In any event, if your weapon is concealed then nobody should know in the first place.
Sometimes it's so hard to find an employee to help with a question or problem, I can't imagine that they would even be looking for armed citizens. Even the checkout people are too busy to watch people.
It would be too funny to see Costco install metal detectors at their entrances. At my local stores, all of the shopping carts are kept outside and they are metal. Everybody and their brother going into the stores has car keys, cell phones, and who knows what else. It would take hours to get people into the store when they open in the morning.
Sometimes it's so hard to find an employee to help with a question or problem, I can't imagine that they would even be looking for armed citizens. Even the checkout people are too busy to watch people.
It would be too funny to see Costco install metal detectors at their entrances. At my local stores, all of the shopping carts are kept outside and they are metal. Everybody and their brother going into the stores has car keys, cell phones, and who knows what else. It would take hours to get people into the store when they open in the morning.
- Status
