COSTCO Corporate Formally Bans Firearms

[solus]

OSHA/WISHA mandates are meaningless. I am unaware of any state that I have traveled that bans the bearing of firearms by the owner of a business, or that owner permitting a employee to bear a firearm. OSHA/WISHA can pack sand. Insurance companies may deny service (coverage) based on any reason, or no reason. Typically, they will jack up your premium(s) because they need your money. Not admitting that those businesses likely have a far lower claim rate for things such a robbery and other crimes.
Anyway, the discussion is about guns and a property owner "discriminating" against a gun carrier. So, is Costco discriminating now? To some it seems that they are.
Deny you your claimed right and then you (royal) ignore their claim...hmm...
Seems it is a battle between claims.

alas OC4M, the point about OSHA was to address the mentality of a specific reader who objects to employees not being allowed to carry firearms.

ipse

 

[sudden valley gunner]

OSHA/WISHA mandates are meaningless. I am unaware of any state that I have traveled that bans the bearing of firearms by the owner of a business, or that owner permitting a employee to bear a firearm. OSHA/WISHA can pack sand. Insurance companies may deny service (coverage) based on any reason, or no reason. Typically, they will jack up your premium(s) because they need your money. Not admitting that those businesses likely have a far lower claim rate for things such a robbery and other crimes.

Anyway, the discussion is about guns and a property owner "discriminating" against a gun carrier. So, is Costco discriminating now? To some it seems that they are.

Deny you your claimed right and then you (royal) ignore their claim...hmm...


Seems it is a battle between claims.

Oh they are meaningless at the time of my meeting with L& I I told them I was crossing that out of my safety packet they require me to have at work and that I encourage my employees to carry firearms.

They didn't argue, in fact one officer was so intrigued we looked up the WACS and RCWS relevant to it. He changed his mind even though he was the original officer that told me guns could be banned.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

alas OC4M, the point about OSHA was to address the mentality of a specific reader who objects to employees not being allowed to carry firearms.

ipse

+1

I think there are many business who simply ban guns from their employees because they are deluded into thinking they have to.

 

[Jeff Hayes]

There are some different opinions on property rights here…



or the right to open it to the public.



Then how do you justify a property owner that is open to the public being able remove someone for exercising one right but not another?

 

[cjohnson44546]

There are some different opinions on property rights here…



or the right to open it to the public.

Then how do you justify a property owner that is open to the public being able remove someone for exercising one right but not another?

You'll have to be more specific. The right to adequate self defense is about life and death and should not be overridden by someones else's right to feel comfortable (or whatever they feel). There are always times when one person's rights may interfere with another's rights, so the more important right has to take precedence. The same reason you shouldn't be allowed to kill someone to stop them from stealing property… multiple rights interfering with each-other.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

You can choose your right to self defense, by not going onto someones property who chooses to disarm you as part of its conditions of you being on its property.

Its pretty simple.

 

[solus]

You'll have to be more specific. The right to adequate self defense is about life and death and should not be overridden by someones else's right to feel comfortable (or whatever they feel). There are always times when one person's rights may interfere with another's rights, so the more important right has to take precedence. The same reason you shouldn't be allowed to kill someone to stop them from stealing property… multiple rights interfering with each-other.

for the most part it is not someone's comfort, but rather strictly business decisions, insurance underwriters say if you allow it will cost you $$$$$$$$ if you bar them it will cost you $$$ to obtain appropriate insurance coverage. most businesses are not large enough to sustain self-insurance status so must go the way of the underwriter.

trust me cj, the underwriter could give a rat's arse about your capability to adequately provide SD for you and your loved ones. it is strictly business.

and in the tarheel state, deadly force can not be used against those who are trespassing on or stealing your property.

jeff, the manager, property owner doesn't like the look of your jib... your wittle butt is asked to leave the property...

ipse

 

[utbagpiper]

Deny you your claimed right and then you (royal) ignore their claim...hmm...

Seems it is a battle between claims.

You can choose your right to self defense, by not going onto someones property who chooses to disarm you as part of its conditions of you being on its property.

Its pretty simple.

Since the discussion--for some--seems to be at least as much about respecting others' claimed property rights as it is about contributing to the profit margin of supposedly anti-RKBA businesses, let me ask a question not so much related to RKBA, but very much related to property rights, and that comes up from time to time with regard to retail business practices.

How do various folks react to store polices or practices of asking to see your receipt as you exit the store (presumably) after paying for your merchandise?

How many willingly comply with such requests vs how many ignore or refuse those requests? How many ignore or refuse the requests on the theory that the store can't legally require you to show your receipt?

On the flip side, how many avoid the requests to inspect receipts entirely by not doing business with stores that have a policy or even regular practice of asking for receipts as you exit the store?

Charles