COSTCO Corporate Formally Bans Firearms

[solus]

Just for the record, as some seem to think otherwise, my decision to carry concealed most of the time has absolutely nothing to do with Costco or Walmart or any other business. None whatsoever. I don't do it to sneak into a business that has posted some sign (such signs are rare where I live) nor do I do it because of something some LEO said, some customer, some manager, or some anything. I have my reasons, they are no one's business but mine, I owe no one any explanation, and could care less what others think.

and yet you are out here trying to get absolution with this post, especially since you '...could care less what others think!!'

my discussion centers on you CC'g on property you know is posted.

ipse

 

[SouthernBoy]

and yet you are out here trying to get absolution with this post, especially since you '...could care less what others think!!'

my discussion centers on you CC'g on property you know is posted.

ipse

First off, I don't need any absolution from anyone on this site. I'm perfectly fine the way I am.

As for the Costco I have entered, I have never seen any signs there. At least nothing posted in any conspicuous locations. If a sign is not in an obvious place, I don't waste time looking for one. And I don't go into businesses that have posted signs when armed unless I have a damned good reason to do so.

 

[utbagpiper]

Hyperbole and not addressed in my post(s).

Are you suggesting that gun free zones without real security do NOT pose a heightened risk to the life, limb, and safety of the innocent, unarmed persons there in?

You patronize a business that does not respect your RKBA, while there is a comparable business that respects your RKBA.

That comparable business is not materially better at respecting RKBA. Both deny RKBA to employees under threat of termination. And while Costco has a policy on paper, they have never made any effort whatsoever to enforce it against me.

Are you going to complain that someone lives in a sub-division with un-enforceable CC&Rs that discriminate against Jews, blacks, or Mormons?

You should focus your advocacy efforts in UT to enacting legislation denying a employer the right to peaceably control his property (business) as he sees fit, mandating that employees cannot be denied their RKBA while on the job, if they choose to do so. You clearly do not recognize the right of a property owner to peaceably control his property as he sees fit, and such a law would be consistent with your position on property rights.

Do you really think it is your place to tell me how to spend my time? Wait, we have meme for that around here:

[video=youtube;r9uizdKZAGE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9uizdKZAGE[/video]

Seriously Three thoughts:

1-Creating a situation that endangers innocent life and limb isn't "peaceful".

2-Were we living in Libertopia I'd not propose legal limits on private businesses banning guns as the first limit on their absolute property rights. But we're not, and so long as every other minority gets legal protection, I see no reason why gun carries should be the only group against which discrimination is ok.

3-I've already helped get parking lot preemption passed into law. In most cases, employers in Utah may not take negative employment action against an employee who has a gun in his car parked in the company parking lot. If I could pass law preventing employee gun bans, I'd do so. I do what I can when I can. Politics is the art of the possible.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

Ah yes, the good ole "I can't do everything, so I'll do nothing" rationale to supporting a known anti-gun business like Costco.

Nope. I can't do everything, so I'll do what I believe is most effective. I trust you do likewise.

Alternatives that don't include supporting anti gun companies.

Name an alternative that isn't anti-gun to one degree or another.

It does, of course, require some backbone. Guess there is always a downside to having integrity.

And there is a downside to being a sanctimonious ass on the internet. Of course neither of us would violate forum rules by lobbing personal insults at the other, so this is all just speaking generally.

Find me a nationwide chain that isn't anti-gun and we can talk. Until then, it is just a small difference in where you like to draw your lines.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

Costco or Sam's Club, not, hospital or no medical treatment.

Interestingly, hospitals are about the only place in Utah that consistently post "No Guns" signs. They carry no force of law here and I ignore them. If I am visiting a patient, I OC and have never had an issue. When I am acting as an advocate for a patient, I CC just to make sure I don't cause a distraction to his care or my ability to advocate for him. When I am a patient, I don't carry.

I draw my line at private residences and house of worship. These are truly private property and deserving of my utmost respect.

When it comes to private businesses, I draw the line at ACTIVELY attacking my RKBA. "Actively attacking" means lobbying for bad laws, supporting the brady bunch, etc. It does not include an unenforced, mostly un-noticed policy against customers carrying guns. It cannot include a policy against employees carrying guns as that would eliminate virtually every chain in the nation.

A business open to the public already has legal limits on their ability to discriminate. My discretely carried firearm imposes zero burden on their property rights. My ability to defend myself and my family grossly outweighs their supposed "right" to ban an otherwise perfectly legal, discrete item. They might just as well presume to ban insulin pumps.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

I guess I just don't understand how folks who say they support the right to bear arms are willing to give money to businesses that are against the right to bear arms.

Then you are not reading the posts here with a desire to understand.

Do you shop at businesses that disarm their employees? Is this not also "anti-gun"?

When a business uses its profits to actively attack my RKBA, I have to boycott. If a business simple extends it anti-gun employment policy to also cover customers, but doesn't even make an attempt to enforce that policy against customers, and does nothing to actively attack RKBA with lobbying or other actions, how is it materially any more anti-RKBA than the business down the street that "only" disarms its employees?

Charles

 

[Bikenut]

Then you are not reading the posts here with a desire to understand.

Do you shop at businesses that disarm their employees? Is this not also "anti-gun"?

When a business uses its profits to actively attack my RKBA, I have to boycott. If a business simple extends it anti-gun employment policy to also cover customers, but doesn't even make an attempt to enforce that policy against customers, and does nothing to actively attack RKBA with lobbying or other actions, how is it materially any more anti-RKBA than the business down the street that "only" disarms its employees?

Charles

Perhaps I'm reading your posts (especially post # 11) incorrectly Charles but it appears to me you are justifying supporting businesses you know are against the right to bear arms because shopping there is convenient and you save money using the rationale that nearly all businesses are against the right to bear arms to some degree so it is OK to shop there as long as their policies don't affect you personally, or you can avoid having those policies affect you by sneaking your gun in. And justifying it further by using the reasoning that the money you save by supporting a business that is against the the right to bear arms can be spent fighting for the right to bear arms. Is that a correct assessment of your position?

Bear in mind that knowingly and intentionally adding to a the profits of a business that is slightly against the right to bear arms above a business that is rabidly against the right to bear arms is still supporting a business that is against the right to bear arms. While the business that is slightly against the right to bear arms may not have a policy that affects you personally (or you can avoid that policy by sneaking your gun in) or may not use their profits to support anti gun politicians they are still using their profits, the profits that you helped them to have, to continue their slightly anti right to bear arms policies since the contribution from gun owners/carriers to those profits might be enough for the business to open yet another business with the same slightly anti gun policy.

Doesn't matter what rationale is used to justify it.... it is the "I intentionally shop at a business I know is against the right to bear arms because it is convenient and I personally save money while I complain about businesses that are against the right to bear arms." part that I don't understand.

And it is the willingness of those gun owners/carriers who compromise their support of the right to bear arms just for convenience and to save a few bucks that helps keep those anti right to bear arms business policies alive and well.

Not to mention this whole discussion is an insight as to why it is impossible for gun owners/carriers to have any major political power since, to what appears to be quite a few gun carriers, convenience and saving a few bucks is more important than standing firm and united.

 

[OC for ME]

Are you suggesting that gun free zones without real security do NOT pose a heightened risk to the life, limb, and safety of the innocent, unarmed persons there in?

No, you are. I did not address this topic. I have been exceedingly clear, in multiple threads, a business that does not allow me to OC on their property will not receive my business.

That comparable business is not materially better at respecting RKBA. Both deny RKBA to employees under threat of termination. And while Costco has a policy on paper, they have never made any effort whatsoever to enforce it against me.

Your dedication to the defenseless employees is commendable. But OT for this thread.

Are you going to complain that someone lives in a sub-division with un-enforceable CC&Rs that discriminate against Jews, blacks, or Mormons?

Hyperbole and OT.

Do you really think it is your place to tell me how to spend my time? Wait, we have meme for that around here:

Originally Posted by OC for ME You should focus your advocacy efforts in UT to enacting legislation denying a employer the right to peaceably control his property (business) as he sees fit, mandating that employees cannot be denied their RKBA while on the job, if they choose to do so. You clearly do not recognize the right of a property owner to peaceably control his property as he sees fit, and such a law would be consistent with your position on property rights.

You have posted, repeatedly, that you do not recognize a property owner's right to peaceably control his property.

Seriously Three thoughts:

1-Creating a situation that endangers innocent life and limb isn't "peaceful".

Full Definition of PEACEABLE
1a: disposed to peace: not contentious or quarrelsome, b: quietly behaved
2: free from strife or disorder

Full Definition of PEACEFUL
1: peaceable (1)
2: untroubled by conflict, agitation, or commotion: quiet, tranquil
3: of or relating to a state or time of peace
4: devoid of violence or force

2-Were we living in Libertopia I'd not propose legal limits on private businesses banning guns as the first limit on their absolute property rights. But we're not, and so long as every other minority gets legal protection, I see no reason why gun carries should be the only group against which discrimination is ok.

You do not recognize a property owner's right to peaceably control his property now, I do not expect that your position would change in a Libertopia society.

3-I've already helped get parking lot preemption passed into law. In most cases, employers in Utah may not take negative employment action against an employee who has a gun in his car parked in the company parking lot. If I could pass law preventing employee gun bans, I'd do so. I do what I can when I can. Politics is the art of the possible.

Charles

Well done. +1 to you Sir.

Interestingly, hospitals are about the only place in Utah that consistently post "No Guns" signs. ...

Charles

Conflating retail choices with hospitals.

If there were no criminal sanctions attached to those two environments I have little doubt that you would carry into those two potentially gun free zones, that create a situation that endangers innocent life and limb, because you ignore a property owner's right to peaceably control their property as they see fit.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Socialism takes many forms. The most insidious is the one that gives the illusion of private property.

 

[Bikenut]

-snip-
2-Were we living in Libertopia I'd not propose legal limits on private businesses banning guns as the first limit on their absolute property rights. But we're not, and so long as every other minority gets legal protection, I see no reason why gun carries should be the only group against which discrimination is ok.
-snip-

Charles

Are you suggesting that all the laws that infringe upon the property owner's right to control their property by either granting or denying permission to enter that allow legal protection to certain classes of people should be repealed?

I certainly hope you are not suggesting those who support the right to bear arms should ask the government to make gun carriers a protected class of people by passing laws that infringe upon the property owner's right to deny entry to their property just because it isn't ........ fair?

After all.... supporters of the right to bear arms are well aware of, and fight against, the anti gunners who want the government to infringe upon the right to bear arms with gun control laws that those anti gunners want because it furthers their desire to "feel" safe... so I hope you are not suggesting supporters of the right to bear arms would want the government to infringe upon the right to control private property with laws that infringe upon the property owner's right to grant/deny entry to those who carry guns because it furthers some gun carrier's desire to shop where they can conveniently save some money.

 

[FreeInAZ]

Oh boy - ok on a positive note - had a late lunch with another open carrier at SAMS club recently. Not a word said, no one called the cops (that we know of), no police came in, no women, kids, or crotchety old men (myself included), ran for the doors screaming in terror.

My point: it's Costco's right to be STUPID. It's my right to go somewhere else that isn't & respects my right to self defense.

 

[utbagpiper]

so it is OK to shop there as long as their policies don't affect you personally, or you can avoid having those policies affect you by sneaking your gun in. ...

Bear in mind that knowingly and intentionally adding to a the profits of a business that is slightly against the right to bear arms above a business that is rabidly against the right to bear arms is still supporting a business that is against the right to bear arms. While the business that is slightly against the right to bear arms may not have a policy that affects you personally

...
Doesn't matter what rationale is used to justify it.... it is the "I intentionally shop at a business I know is against the right to bear arms because it is convenient and I personally save money while I complain about businesses that are against the right to bear arms." part that I don't understand.

I'm glad you've focused on the part about the policy not personally affecting me, because it is the point I keep trying to make, right along with the part about a business being slightly more or less anti-RKBA.

Do you shop at businesses that prohibit their employees from carrying guns? If so, how do your words above jive with your actions?

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

No, you are. I did not address this topic. I have been exceedingly clear, in multiple threads, a business that does not allow me to OC on their property will not receive my business.

And I refuse to work in any coal mines. But I still support laws requiring a minimum level of safety for those who do.

Do you believe an gun ban on the honor system makes a business safer, or less safe for customer and employees than would respecting RKBA?

Your dedication to the defenseless employees is commendable. But OT for this thread.

No. It is quite central to my thought process. You do not get to limit the discussion to just those topics of interest to you.

Hyperbole and OT.

No, and no. Rather, it is inconvenient for you to deal with.

You have posted, repeatedly, that you do not recognize a property owner's right to peaceably control his property.

I've NEVER posted any such thing. That is your dishonest, dishonorable attempt to put your words into my mouth. I do not recognize any right for a business to create hazardous working or shopping conditions. An unenforced gun ban creates hazardous conditions.

You do not recognize a property owner's right to peaceably control his property now, I do not expect that your position would change in a Libertopia society.

I think it rather presumptuous of you to declare what my positions would be under various circumstances. I've declared frankly what my position would be were we to be living in Libertopia. It is rude to call me a liar without evidence.

Well done. +1 to you Sir.

Thank you. We are quite pleased by the protections that Parking Lot Preemption provides to employees who would otherwise have to choose between violating a corporate policy and risking being fired, being unarmed from the time they left home until they returned again, or effectively removing themselves from corporate employment.

Conflating retail choices with hospitals.

What is the difference? Most hospitals in Utah are privately owned. A fair bit of care received in a hospital is elective, or could be obtained at a clinic. You have not limited your approval of violating hospital gun free zones to only essential or emergency services, but seem have given a blanket endorsement of carrying if legal despite anti-gun policies.

I suspect you've simply decided YOU are going to carry into hospitals and so that is ok, while you have decided that Costco is not ok.

If there were no criminal sanctions attached to those two environments I have little doubt that you would carry into those two potentially gun free zones, that create a situation that endangers innocent life and limb, because you ignore a property owner's right to peaceably control their property as they see fit.

This is utter and total BS. A legally carried, discrete firearm "endangers innocent life and limb" if a corporate lawyer in NYC or Seattle doesn't approve of that gun in a store located in SLC, Utah??!?!? Did you get that line from Sarah Brady's ghost?

Give it a rest. I don't need your approval, and you're not going to brow beat me into accepting your extreme libertarian view of what property owners should be allowed to do.

Charles

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Are you suggesting that all the laws that infringe upon the property owner's right to control their property by either granting or denying permission to enter that allow legal protection to certain classes of people should be repealed?

I certainly hope you are not suggesting those who support the right to bear arms should ask the government to make gun carriers a protected class of people by passing laws that infringe upon the property owner's right to deny entry to their property just because it isn't ........ fair?

After all.... supporters of the right to bear arms are well aware of, and fight against, the anti gunners who want the government to infringe upon the right to bear arms with gun control laws that those anti gunners want because it furthers their desire to "feel" safe... so I hope you are not suggesting supporters of the right to bear arms would want the government to infringe upon the right to control private property with laws that infringe upon the property owner's right to grant/deny entry to those who carry guns because it furthers some gun carrier's desire to shop where they can conveniently save some money.

Seems he is suggesting two wrongs make a right. They break property rights here so I should be able to too!

 

[Bikenut]

I'm glad you've focused on the part about the policy not personally affecting me, because it is the point I keep trying to make, right along with the part about a business being slightly more or less anti-RKBA.

Do you shop at businesses that prohibit their employees from carrying guns? If so, how do your words above jive with your actions?

Charles

You asked so I will answer....

Unlike you... when I have a choice I do not knowingly and intentionally support a business that I know has anti gun policies just because it would be convenient or I would save a little money.

 

[OC for ME]

And I refuse to work in any coal mines. But I still support laws requiring a minimum level of safety for those who do.

Do you believe an gun ban on the honor system makes a business safer, or less safe for customer and employees than would respecting RKBA?

The level of safety for customers at a business I do not patronize, due to their no gun policy, is of no direct concern to me.

No. It is quite central to my thought process. You do not get to limit the discussion to just those topics of interest to you.

I have limited my discussion to the topic as found in the op.

No, and no. Rather, it is inconvenient for you to deal with.

It is respectful to the OP, and generally "required" to attempt to stay on topic here on OCDO.

I've NEVER posted any such thing. That is your dishonest, dishonorable attempt to put your words into my mouth. I do not recognize any right for a business to create hazardous working or shopping conditions. An unenforced gun ban creates hazardous conditions.

You repeatedly claimed such in this thread. http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?129343-Individual-rights-v-governent-intervention

I think it rather presumptuous of you to declare what my positions would be under various circumstances. I've declared frankly what my position would be were we to be living in Libertopia. It is rude to call me a liar without evidence.

It is not presumptuous to cite what you stated. You ignore a property owner's right to peaceably control his property now, Costco, why would you respect it in Libertopia? Would not a Costco exist in Libertopia?

Thank you. We are quite pleased by the protections that Parking Lot Preemption provides to employees who would otherwise have to choose between violating a corporate policy and risking being fired, being unarmed from the time they left home until they returned again, or effectively removing themselves from corporate employment.

You are most welcom. We here in MO have bigger fish to fry where the restoration of our RKBAs is concerned and what you have achieved in UT, while likely a small victory to some, makes me envious of UT to a small degree. Again +1 to you Sir.

What is the difference? Most hospitals in Utah are privately owned. A fair bit of care received in a hospital is elective, or could be obtained at a clinic. You have not limited your approval of violating hospital gun free zones to only essential or emergency services, but seem have given a blanket endorsement of carrying if legal despite anti-gun policies.

My point is even more bolstered if the property is private. Unfortunately hospitals are more closely aligned with a sole source service provider due to they not being on darn near every street corner.

I suspect you've simply decided YOU are going to carry into hospitals and so that is ok, while you have decided that Costco is not ok.

I did not state that and anyone here can read my posts and glean this fact.

What I stated just a few post back:

No, you are. I did not address this topic. I have been exceedingly clear, in multiple threads, a business that does not allow me to OC on their property will not receive my business.

Your are free, of course, to ignore my postings. You are also free to address topics that I have not addressed.

This is utter and total BS. A legally carried, discrete firearm "endangers innocent life and limb" if a corporate lawyer in NYC or Seattle doesn't approve of that gun in a store located in SLC, Utah??!?!? Did you get that line from Sarah Brady's ghost?

No, Costco's own policy. They claim that guns in their store elevates the risk of harm to their customers. You disagree and as such you ignore their policy. You ignore Costco's right to set the conditions of entry onto their property. Which is irony of the highest order.

I've NEVER posted any such thing.

Give it a rest. I don't need your approval, and you're not going to brow beat me into accepting your extreme libertarian view of what property owners should be allowed to do.

Charles

Extreme libertarian view...hmm. Confirmation that you have not read my posts except to view them through the prism of your view of what rights you will respect and those that you will not respect. Ask SVG how extreme a libertarian I am. Or...better yet, how about reading what I posted on this "Libertopia" you rail against.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...ividual-rights-v-governent-intervention/page4

 

[cjohnson44546]

There are some different opinions on property rights here…

To me, its more like this.

The property owner has the right to keep everyone off their property for whatever reason they choose, or the right to open it to the public.

As soon as they open it to the public at large, they must forgo some of their rights. They must know they are choosing to forgo these rights when they open their property to the public. What these rights are, are not agreed upon by everyone of course, but I don't think they should be able to personally restrict someone from coming on, unless that person has done something wrong there, that causes a problem (a problem is not some other person there going "i don't like that person or what items they have"). Much like the "protected class" idea. To me, someone having a weapon as a means of self defense is NOT a valid reason for people to be barred access, and I don't believe the owner of the property opened to the public should be allowed to ban weapons for self defense in almost all circumstances.

 

[utbagpiper]

Unlike you... when I have a choice I do not knowingly and intentionally support a business that I know has anti gun policies just because it would be convenient or I would save a little money.

I appreciate the answer, but I think it is a little weak. Or in other words, I think we are a lot more alike than you want to admit.

What do you consider sufficient "choice" to avoid doing business with a company with anti-gun policies?

Do you order pizza (or other food) from a company that disarms its delivery drivers or other employees? Or do you make your own pizza (or other food)? You do have a choice.

How much extra will you spend, or much longer will you look to obtain needed or desired products, or much farther will you go to get them, before you decide the "choice" is no longer practical and it is ok to patronize a business that has some level of anti-RKBA policy?

Where do we each draw the line?

I make no bones that I don't much worry about certain things when it comes to my personal shopping decisions. I don't worry about no-gun employment policies. I don't worry about obscure corporate "requests" not to OC. Likewise, I don't really care much about un-enforced, mostly obscure corporate policies with no force of law against customers carrying at all.

Here is my line:

If a company takes measures to actively exclude my lawfully carried firearm, I will avoid doing business with them.

If a company actively attacks my legal ability to carry in public or to own guns, I will avoid doing business with that company.

If a company actively works for laws to give force to their company policy, I will avoid that company.

I also avoid businesses for lousy service, high prices, poor selection, and poor quality.

Some of you draw your line in a different place than I do. And that is ok with me. I just think you're trying to find some way to justify that your position is more moral or rational than is mine. I don't think you can do that except perhaps within your own belief systems. And even there, most often, that requires defining things (like what is choice) in certain ways.

Peace.

I don't think you're doing anything wrong by choosing to avoid Coscto, or Levi, Citgo, Band of America, or any of a dozen or three other corporations whose policies (RKBA or otherwise) run contrary enough to your views to trigger your boycott response.

Costco's policies, to date, do not rise to the level that I feel a need to avoid doing business with them.

Charles

 

[Bikenut]

I appreciate the answer, but I think it is a little weak. Or in other words, I think we are a lot more alike than you want to admit.

What do you consider sufficient "choice" to avoid doing business with a company with anti-gun policies?

Do you order pizza (or other food) from a company that disarms its delivery drivers or other employees? Or do you make your own pizza (or other food)? You do have a choice.

How much extra will you spend, or much longer will you look to obtain needed or desired products, or much farther will you go to get them, before you decide the "choice" is no longer practical and it is ok to patronize a business that has some level of anti-RKBA policy?

Where do we each draw the line?

I make no bones that I don't much worry about certain things when it comes to my personal shopping decisions. I don't worry about no-gun employment policies. I don't worry about obscure corporate "requests" not to OC. Likewise, I don't really care much about un-enforced, mostly obscure corporate policies with no force of law against customers carrying at all.

Here is my line:

If a company takes measures to actively exclude my lawfully carried firearm, I will avoid doing business with them.

If a company actively attacks my legal ability to carry in public or to own guns, I will avoid doing business with that company.

If a company actively works for laws to give force to their company policy, I will avoid that company.

I also avoid businesses for lousy service, high prices, poor selection, and poor quality.

Some of you draw your line in a different place than I do. And that is ok with me. I just think you're trying to find some way to justify that your position is more moral or rational than is mine. I don't think you can do that except perhaps within your own belief systems. And even there, most often, that requires defining things (like what is choice) in certain ways.

Peace.

I don't think you're doing anything wrong by choosing to avoid Coscto, or Levi, Citgo, Band of America, or any of a dozen or three other corporations whose policies (RKBA or otherwise) run contrary enough to your views to trigger your boycott response.

Costco's policies, to date, do not rise to the level that I feel a need to avoid doing business with them.

Charles

We are not as close as you would like to portray us as. I made no bones that, unlike you, I do not patronize a business I know has an anti gun policy just because it is convenient or I could save some money.

Case in point... the local Taco Bell that is close (cheap to drive to) has an anti gun manager so I drive 20 miles, intentionally drive 20 miles, each and every time I want tacos.

As I said before ..... my line does not involve the words "convenient" or "save a few bucks".

But you have already said that you will shop at Costco because it is convenient (you won't drive further) and you can save some money there.

We are NOT as close as you are hoping to portray us as Charles.

And your attempt to portray us as being close is, in my not so humble opinion, a very weak attempt to elevate your position by diminishing mine.

 

[utbagpiper]

The level of safety for customers at a business I do not patronize, due to their no gun policy, is of no direct concern to me.

Your choice. The well being of my fellow men and the society in which we all live is of concern to me.

As such, I do not believe it is "peaceful" for a business owner to maintain unsafe working or shopping conditions, nor to increase risks by any degree over irrational fears.

I have limited my discussion to the topic as found in the op.

It is respectful to the OP, and generally "required" to attempt to stay on topic here on OCDO.

As I have. I believe the topic in the OP is Costco's anti gun stance and what effect that should have on our patronage thereof.

You seem to believe the topic includes exactly what level of respect we each have for Costco's property rights.

I believe the topic includes a holistic view of what exactly constitutes "anti-gun" policies sufficient to boycott.

You repeatedly claimed such in this thread. http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?129343-Individual-rights-v-governent-intervention

No. You repeatedly put words in my mouth. What you believe constitutes "peacefully" controlling his property is not the end of the discussion on "peacefully."

It is not presumptuous to cite what you stated. You ignore a property owner's right to peaceably control his property now, Costco, why would you respect it in Libertopia? Would not a Costco exist in Libertopia?

I'm calling for a citation. And not merely to a 55 page thread, but to the specific post number where I said "I don't respect a right to peacefully control property". I disagree with you about what constitutes peaceful control of property. For example, unlike you, I don't think there is anything "peaceful" about using deadly force against simple trespassers.

If you are going to claim to cite what (you think) I've stated, then you are bound by consistency to also cite that I have consistently stated that were we in Libertopia, I would not propose the first restrictions on property rights.

You are most welcom. We here in MO have bigger fish to fry where the restoration of our RKBAs is concerned and what you have achieved in UT, while likely a small victory to some, makes me envious of UT to a small degree. Again +1 to you Sir.

I appreciate that. Thank you. We have done very well on the practical ability to legally carry and use a firearm for self defense. We need to get over the last big (State level) hurdle and eliminate the statutory need for a permit.

My point is even more bolstered if the property is private. Unfortunately hospitals are more closely aligned with a sole source service provider due to they not being on darn near every street corner.

Sole source? I have two major--and world-class--pediatric hospitals within sight of each other here. There are upwards of a dozen different hospitals within a 30 minute driving distance.

Besides, who cares if the hospital is "sole source"? Unless it enjoys a government monopoly, why is a private hospital any less entitled to your respect for property rights than is a grocery store?

If there were no hospital or grocery store at all in your town, you'd have to travel to the nearest such facility to obtain those services. So the first guy who opens such a facility gets less respect from you than does the 12th?

So in your paradigm am I more bound to respect the un-enforced anti-gun policy of a grocery store in an urban area, than I am the only grocery store in a rural town? That is interesting. I think what you are really saying here is that your convenience has something to do with how much respect you pay to the private property rights of merchants and service providers.

No, Costco's own policy. They claim that guns in their store elevates the risk of harm to their customers. You disagree and as such you ignore their policy. You ignore Costco's right to set the conditions of entry onto their property. Which is irony of the highest order.

First of all, my apologies. I thought you were claiming guns elevates the risk of harm. It was not clear to me you were quoting Costco.

To be clear, I do not "ignore" Costco's right to set the conditions of entry onto their property. I disagree about the limits and extent of those conditions as recognized in the culture and statutes of my home State.

Finally, you still have not explained what is "ironic" about my Costco's policy. Please tell me what the elements of this "irony" are.

Extreme libertarian view...hmm. Confirmation that you have not read my posts except to view them through the prism of your view of what rights you will respect and those that you will not respect. Ask SVG how extreme a libertarian I am. Or...better yet, how about reading what I posted on this "Libertopia" you rail against.

All things are relative my friend. I'm generally considered the stark-raving mad, cold-hearted, free market conservative. But compared to some of the anarchist and libertarian views expressed on OCDO as of late, I have found myself expressing support for some rather liberal, socialist positions.

I do not believe a business open to the public has any right to create or maintain unsafe conditions. An unenforced gun ban does exactly that. Not "peaceful" (indeed downright fraudulent for them to claim so), and not a right.

Charles