Costco prohibit carry - No signs posted

[Oldgringo]

Hi everyone,

I do have License to Carry and went to Costco today carrying concealed. I wore a t-shirt with another button shirt on top to conceal my Glock 17. One of employee accidentally bumped into me and she felt I have a gun underneath my shirt. She told me Costco do not allow carrying weapon in the store. I told her that there is no sign in front of the store that prohibit carrying a firearm and I told her I have a license to carry. After I checked out and as I walking out the door a manager runs after me and told me the same thing. I told him I have a license to carry and there is no sign any place prohibit me from carrying. He told me that Costco does not need to have a sign to prohibit carrying firearm; he also told me when I signed up for membership it stated in the policy.

Can business legally prohibit people from carrying firearms without a 30.06 or 30.07 sign?

Thanks

You've also now been verbally notified by a manager and can never carry legally again in that Costco.

ALSO....

PLEASE resist the impulse to educate business owners/managers so that they know more efficiently how to keep ALL of us out of their stores!! Just STOP it.

If they don’t know that their signs have no value, too dang bad. It's their JOB to know. It's NOT your job to help them figure out how to infringe upon our rights.

FTR, I carry in Costco every time I go. It’s not 30.06/07 posted, so I don’t care. And I don’t inform people that I’m carrying. Unless you showed that employee your gun, he/she literally had no knowledge of what you were carrying. If asked, you could have said that it was your cellphone, or an insulin pump, or a portable cardiac monitor, or whatever. It’s none of her business to ask, so you’re under no obligation to tell her. Tell her whatever will make her go away.

Once again, I must agree with TAM in every aspect. Don't ask, don't tell.

[ScottDLS]

We had this very discussion a few years ago.

Costco enters into a contractural agreement with its members concerning the conditions of membership which you as a member agree to. Since it is a private company the entrance onto which is based on membership they can restrict membership by contract. Failure to follow the contractural entrance requirements allows them to withhold membership.

But let’s explore this a little. Let’s say you carry, they find out, and remove you from their list of persons they give consent to enter to. Now what do you have. At that point your relationship with Costco is one of a private person wanting to gain entrance onto private property. They have a right under 30.05 and the sovereignty doctrine ( which states that an owner can withhold consent for any reason or no reason at, as long as it does not involve one of the nine protected classes) to say no, you can’t come in. ostensibly because you are not a member. Ok fine.

They have that right except when the sole reason for withholding consent is for entrance onto the property with a handgun. 30.05(f)

(f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was forbidden; and
(2) the person was carrying:
(A) a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411,
Government Code, to carry a handgun; and
(B) a handgun:
(i) in a concealed manner; or (ii) in a shoulder or belt holster.

So under this theory...if you are a member and carry you violate a membership policy which can result in losing your membership. If you lose you membership and are thus prohibited from entering because you are no longer a member, where but for the sole reason of carrying a legally authorized gun, you otherwise meet all other membership conditions ( as evidenced by the fact that just 10 minutes ago you were a member in good standing) then you are being prohibited from entering onto a private property for the sole reason of carting a legally carried gun.

Under this theory it seems they must then notify you under .06 or .07.

So on the one hand a voluntary agreement by you and your integrity in keeping your word is what stops you from carry. On the other hand, once having been stripped from being a member they can’t restrict any LTC from entering based solely on them carting a gun.

This may be a wild analysis but it seems proper.

Tex

It’s much simpler than that. If they do not post a sign or otherwise provide notice IAW 30.06/7... member/non-member, black or white, alien or citizen, if you have a LTC, you are not committing a crime by entering carrying under the authority of your LTC. You could have taken a solemn oath on a Torah/Koran/Bible and signed in blood while clicking your heals together over their membership agreement, but it matters not (except presumably between you and your Maker). And if you are one of the “elect”, Peace Officer, “Fed”, etc. not only can they not exclude you for carrying, as Steve R points out Costco is committing a fineable civil offense by excluding you. If you are a vaguely defined Volunteer Emergency Response Person (VERP) you cannot even be excluded via 30.06/7, and 30:05 doesn’t apply.

[The Annoyed Man]

Hi everyone,

I do have License to Carry and went to Costco today carrying concealed. I wore a t-shirt with another button shirt on top to conceal my Glock 17......

Slightly off topic, but it does speak to concealing in a "non-permissive" environment, so I just wanted to revisit this one point.....

I have a Glock 17. I LOVE my Glock 17. It’s a really good pistol. Also, I gave up trying to conceal my Glock 17. Full duty-sized guns are why the concealed carry market is dominated by compact and subcompact guns like the G19 and smaller. I can fairly easily conceal the G17 when wearing heavier winter clothing, or at the very least a heavy fabric jacket-like Carhartt shirt I have. But a button-collar lightweight shirt isnt going to do it.....and I’m a man of "prosperous" proportions who typically wears loose-fitting untucked collared shirts over an OWB-carried pistol. If concealment is my goal, then I don’t carry anything larger than a G19, and frequently carry something even smaller like a G26 or G43.

When I was carrying polymer-framed .45s, I did the same thing.....I carried either a compact XDM45, or a subcompact XDS45.

Now I realize that I’m blessed and was able to afford more than one pistol, and not everybody can do that. But for those who can’t, this kind of dilemma in Costco (and other "non-permissive" locations) is a powerful reason for NOT buying a full duty-sized double-stack pistol for your first gun, IF you intend to conceal-carry it. It can be done, but it’s more difficult to do so. And what do you give up by picking a G19 instead of a G17? You lose 2 rounds of capacity....going from 17+1 to 15+1. Unless you’re in an extended gunfight With multiple opponents, the loss of 2 rounds doesn’t matter—especially for a magazine-fed semiauto which can be reloaded fairly quickly. Full-sized single-stack pistols like 1911s are somewhat exempted from this analysis by virtue of their slender profiles. But the 1911 (which I also own and like) isn't really a beginner's gun, and first-time buyers more commonly buy polymer-framed double-stack guns than 1911s.

It’s worth noting that Glock submitted a variation of the G19 for military trials, not a G17, because part of the requirement was concealability. Sig won the contract because the modularity of its system permitted swapping frame sizes to allow concealment when necessary. Unless the new buyer intends to either (1) open carry their gun more often than not, or (2) use it only for home defense so concealment simply isn’t an issue, full sized duty guns don’t make the best choice for a first time gun buyer who can only afford, or only wants to own, one gun.

My G17 has been relegated to mostly home defense use, and—range trips excepted—99.9% of the time it sits on the top shelf of a gun cabinet in my bedroom with a suppressor attached. When I do carry it, I make no attempt to actually conceal it, other than maybe with a winter coat or jacket.

To the OP, if you’re able to afford to do so, maybe you should consider obtaining either a G19 or a G26 (or both), and then you’d be able to still use your G17 magazines as backup if you needed them.

Just a thought. I now return you to the scheduled programming.

[eyedoc]

Hi everyone,

I do have License to Carry and went to Costco today carrying concealed. I wore a t-shirt with another button shirt on top to conceal my Glock 17......

Slightly off topic, but it does speak to concealing in a "non-permissive" environment, so I just wanted to revisit this one point.....

I have a Glock 17. I LOVE my Glock 17. It’s a really good pistol. Also, I gave up trying to conceal my Glock 17. Full duty-sized guns are why the concealed carry market is dominated by compact and subcompact guns like the G19 and smaller. I can fairly easily conceal the G17 when wearing heavier winter clothing, or at the very least a heavy fabric jacket-like Carhartt shirt I have. But a button-collar lightweight shirt isnt going to do it.....and I’m a man of "prosperous" proportions who typically wears loose-fitting untucked collared shirts over an OWB-carried pistol. If concealment is my goal, then I don’t carry anything larger than a G19, and frequently carry something even smaller like a G26 or G43.

When I was carrying polymer-framed .45s, I did the same thing.....I carried either a compact XDM45, or a subcompact XDS45.

Now I realize that I’m blessed and was able to afford more than one pistol, and not everybody can do that. But for those who can’t, this kind of dilemma in Costco (and other "non-permissive" locations) is a powerful reason for NOT buying a full duty-sized double-stack pistol for your first gun, IF you intend to conceal-carry it. It can be done, but it’s more difficult to do so. And what do you give up by picking a G19 instead of a G17? You lose 2 rounds of capacity....going from 17+1 to 15+1. Unless you’re in an extended gunfight With multiple opponents, the loss of 2 rounds doesn’t matter—especially for a magazine-fed semiauto which can be reloaded fairly quickly. Full-sized single-stack pistols like 1911s are somewhat exempted from this analysis by virtue of their slender profiles. But the 1911 (which I also own and like) isn't really a beginner's gun, and first-time buyers more commonly buy polymer-framed double-stack guns than 1911s.

It’s worth noting that Glock submitted a variation of the G19 for military trials, not a G17, because part of the requirement was concealability. Sig won the contract because the modularity of its system permitted swapping frame sizes to allow concealment when necessary. Unless the new buyer intends to either (1) open carry their gun more often than not, or (2) use it only for home defense so concealment simply isn’t an issue, full sized duty guns don’t make the best choice for a first time gun buyer who can only afford, or only wants to own, one gun.

My G17 has been relegated to mostly home defense use, and—range trips excepted—99.9% of the time it sits on the top shelf of a gun cabinet in my bedroom with a suppressor attached. When I do carry it, I make no attempt to actually conceal it, other than maybe with a winter coat or jacket.

To the OP, if you’re able to afford to do so, maybe you should consider obtaining either a G19 or a G26 (or both), and then you’d be able to still use your G17 magazines as backup if you needed them.

Just a thought. I now return you to the scheduled programming.

I can comfortably conceal my 16 shot 10mm para under a t shirt while wearing shorts.

[The Annoyed Man]

Hi everyone,

I do have License to Carry and went to Costco today carrying concealed. I wore a t-shirt with another button shirt on top to conceal my Glock 17......

Slightly off topic, but it does speak to concealing in a "non-permissive" environment, so I just wanted to revisit this one point.....

I have a Glock 17. I LOVE my Glock 17. It’s a really good pistol. Also, I gave up trying to conceal my Glock 17. Full duty-sized guns are why the concealed carry market is dominated by compact and subcompact guns like the G19 and smaller. I can fairly easily conceal the G17 when wearing heavier winter clothing, or at the very least a heavy fabric jacket-like Carhartt shirt I have. But a button-collar lightweight shirt isnt going to do it.....and I’m a man of "prosperous" proportions who typically wears loose-fitting untucked collared shirts over an OWB-carried pistol. If concealment is my goal, then I don’t carry anything larger than a G19, and frequently carry something even smaller like a G26 or G43.

When I was carrying polymer-framed .45s, I did the same thing.....I carried either a compact XDM45, or a subcompact XDS45.

Now I realize that I’m blessed and was able to afford more than one pistol, and not everybody can do that. But for those who can’t, this kind of dilemma in Costco (and other "non-permissive" locations) is a powerful reason for NOT buying a full duty-sized double-stack pistol for your first gun, IF you intend to conceal-carry it. It can be done, but it’s more difficult to do so. And what do you give up by picking a G19 instead of a G17? You lose 2 rounds of capacity....going from 17+1 to 15+1. Unless you’re in an extended gunfight With multiple opponents, the loss of 2 rounds doesn’t matter—especially for a magazine-fed semiauto which can be reloaded fairly quickly. Full-sized single-stack pistols like 1911s are somewhat exempted from this analysis by virtue of their slender profiles. But the 1911 (which I also own and like) isn't really a beginner's gun, and first-time buyers more commonly buy polymer-framed double-stack guns than 1911s.

It’s worth noting that Glock submitted a variation of the G19 for military trials, not a G17, because part of the requirement was concealability. Sig won the contract because the modularity of its system permitted swapping frame sizes to allow concealment when necessary. Unless the new buyer intends to either (1) open carry their gun more often than not, or (2) use it only for home defense so concealment simply isn’t an issue, full sized duty guns don’t make the best choice for a first time gun buyer who can only afford, or only wants to own, one gun.

My G17 has been relegated to mostly home defense use, and—range trips excepted—99.9% of the time it sits on the top shelf of a gun cabinet in my bedroom with a suppressor attached. When I do carry it, I make no attempt to actually conceal it, other than maybe with a winter coat or jacket.

To the OP, if you’re able to afford to do so, maybe you should consider obtaining either a G19 or a G26 (or both), and then you’d be able to still use your G17 magazines as backup if you needed them.

Just a thought. I now return you to the scheduled programming.

I can comfortably conceal my 16 shot 10mm para under a t shirt while wearing shorts.

I’d comfortably submit that you’re the exception rather than the rule if your concealment is truly effective. So.....how concealed is it? Sure, there’s no law against printing, but can you honestly say that it never prints? I’ve seen full sized guns that were "concealed" because the carrier had a t-shirt over it, but I could practically read the roll marks on the slide. I’m also able to "fit" my G17 under a t-shirt; and I tend to wear slightly oversized t-shirts untucked; but I’m smart enough to know that it doesn’t take a genius to spot the gun.

I mean, personally, I don’t care. I sometimes open carry. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it. I’m just personally more comfortable with CC than OC for most occasions. And if I’m going to bother to cover it up, then the whole point of concealment is non-detection. I’m not talking about the legal standard since OC is legal; and from that viewpoint, it matters little if it’s obvious there’s a gun under your shirt. I’m talking about concealment as a goal in a non-permissive environment.

IOW, if you don’t want to get booted out of Costco, then it works counter to your interests if your 10mm Para prints too much.....as evidenced by the OP's experience with a G17 (a similarly sized pistol). Just my opinion, and worth exactly what it cost you to read it.

[eyedoc]

Hi everyone,

I do have License to Carry and went to Costco today carrying concealed. I wore a t-shirt with another button shirt on top to conceal my Glock 17......

Slightly off topic, but it does speak to concealing in a "non-permissive" environment, so I just wanted to revisit this one point.....

I have a Glock 17. I LOVE my Glock 17. It’s a really good pistol. Also, I gave up trying to conceal my Glock 17. Full duty-sized guns are why the concealed carry market is dominated by compact and subcompact guns like the G19 and smaller. I can fairly easily conceal the G17 when wearing heavier winter clothing, or at the very least a heavy fabric jacket-like Carhartt shirt I have. But a button-collar lightweight shirt isnt going to do it.....and I’m a man of "prosperous" proportions who typically wears loose-fitting untucked collared shirts over an OWB-carried pistol. If concealment is my goal, then I don’t carry anything larger than a G19, and frequently carry something even smaller like a G26 or G43.

When I was carrying polymer-framed .45s, I did the same thing.....I carried either a compact XDM45, or a subcompact XDS45.

Now I realize that I’m blessed and was able to afford more than one pistol, and not everybody can do that. But for those who can’t, this kind of dilemma in Costco (and other "non-permissive" locations) is a powerful reason for NOT buying a full duty-sized double-stack pistol for your first gun, IF you intend to conceal-carry it. It can be done, but it’s more difficult to do so. And what do you give up by picking a G19 instead of a G17? You lose 2 rounds of capacity....going from 17+1 to 15+1. Unless you’re in an extended gunfight With multiple opponents, the loss of 2 rounds doesn’t matter—especially for a magazine-fed semiauto which can be reloaded fairly quickly. Full-sized single-stack pistols like 1911s are somewhat exempted from this analysis by virtue of their slender profiles. But the 1911 (which I also own and like) isn't really a beginner's gun, and first-time buyers more commonly buy polymer-framed double-stack guns than 1911s.

It’s worth noting that Glock submitted a variation of the G19 for military trials, not a G17, because part of the requirement was concealability. Sig won the contract because the modularity of its system permitted swapping frame sizes to allow concealment when necessary. Unless the new buyer intends to either (1) open carry their gun more often than not, or (2) use it only for home defense so concealment simply isn’t an issue, full sized duty guns don’t make the best choice for a first time gun buyer who can only afford, or only wants to own, one gun.

My G17 has been relegated to mostly home defense use, and—range trips excepted—99.9% of the time it sits on the top shelf of a gun cabinet in my bedroom with a suppressor attached. When I do carry it, I make no attempt to actually conceal it, other than maybe with a winter coat or jacket.

To the OP, if you’re able to afford to do so, maybe you should consider obtaining either a G19 or a G26 (or both), and then you’d be able to still use your G17 magazines as backup if you needed them.

Just a thought. I now return you to the scheduled programming.

I can comfortably conceal my 16 shot 10mm para under a t shirt while wearing shorts.

I’d comfortably submit that you’re the exception rather than the rule if your concealment is truly effective. So.....how concealed is it? Sure, there’s no law against printing, but can you honestly say that it never prints? I’ve seen full sized guns that were "concealed" because the carrier had a t-shirt over it, but I could practically read the roll marks on the slide. I’m also able to "fit" my G17 under a t-shirt; and I tend to wear slightly oversized t-shirts untucked; but I’m smart enough to know that it doesn’t take a genius to spot the gun.

I mean, personally, I don’t care. I sometimes open carry. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it. I’m just personally more comfortable with CC than OC for most occasions. And if I’m going to bother to cover it up, then the whole point of concealment is non-detection. I’m not talking about the legal standard since OC is legal; and from that viewpoint, it matters little if it’s obvious there’s a gun under your shirt. I’m talking about concealment as a goal in a non-permissive environment.

IOW, if you don’t want to get booted out of Costco, then it works counter to your interests if your 10mm Para prints too much.....as evidenced by the OP's experience with a G17 (a similarly sized pistol). Just my opinion, and worth exactly what it cost you to read it.

No printing with my custom IWB holster. then again I have a 44 inch chest and a 32 inch waist. The t-shirt tents a lot, but I also use it with dress shirts and pants. A good holster goes a long way.

[The Annoyed Man]

Hi everyone,

I do have License to Carry and went to Costco today carrying concealed. I wore a t-shirt with another button shirt on top to conceal my Glock 17......

Slightly off topic, but it does speak to concealing in a "non-permissive" environment, so I just wanted to revisit this one point.....

I have a Glock 17. I LOVE my Glock 17. It’s a really good pistol. Also, I gave up trying to conceal my Glock 17. Full duty-sized guns are why the concealed carry market is dominated by compact and subcompact guns like the G19 and smaller. I can fairly easily conceal the G17 when wearing heavier winter clothing, or at the very least a heavy fabric jacket-like Carhartt shirt I have. But a button-collar lightweight shirt isnt going to do it.....and I’m a man of "prosperous" proportions who typically wears loose-fitting untucked collared shirts over an OWB-carried pistol. If concealment is my goal, then I don’t carry anything larger than a G19, and frequently carry something even smaller like a G26 or G43.

When I was carrying polymer-framed .45s, I did the same thing.....I carried either a compact XDM45, or a subcompact XDS45.

Now I realize that I’m blessed and was able to afford more than one pistol, and not everybody can do that. But for those who can’t, this kind of dilemma in Costco (and other "non-permissive" locations) is a powerful reason for NOT buying a full duty-sized double-stack pistol for your first gun, IF you intend to conceal-carry it. It can be done, but it’s more difficult to do so. And what do you give up by picking a G19 instead of a G17? You lose 2 rounds of capacity....going from 17+1 to 15+1. Unless you’re in an extended gunfight With multiple opponents, the loss of 2 rounds doesn’t matter—especially for a magazine-fed semiauto which can be reloaded fairly quickly. Full-sized single-stack pistols like 1911s are somewhat exempted from this analysis by virtue of their slender profiles. But the 1911 (which I also own and like) isn't really a beginner's gun, and first-time buyers more commonly buy polymer-framed double-stack guns than 1911s.

It’s worth noting that Glock submitted a variation of the G19 for military trials, not a G17, because part of the requirement was concealability. Sig won the contract because the modularity of its system permitted swapping frame sizes to allow concealment when necessary. Unless the new buyer intends to either (1) open carry their gun more often than not, or (2) use it only for home defense so concealment simply isn’t an issue, full sized duty guns don’t make the best choice for a first time gun buyer who can only afford, or only wants to own, one gun.

My G17 has been relegated to mostly home defense use, and—range trips excepted—99.9% of the time it sits on the top shelf of a gun cabinet in my bedroom with a suppressor attached. When I do carry it, I make no attempt to actually conceal it, other than maybe with a winter coat or jacket.

To the OP, if you’re able to afford to do so, maybe you should consider obtaining either a G19 or a G26 (or both), and then you’d be able to still use your G17 magazines as backup if you needed them.

Just a thought. I now return you to the scheduled programming.

I can comfortably conceal my 16 shot 10mm para under a t shirt while wearing shorts.

I’d comfortably submit that you’re the exception rather than the rule if your concealment is truly effective. So.....how concealed is it? Sure, there’s no law against printing, but can you honestly say that it never prints? I’ve seen full sized guns that were "concealed" because the carrier had a t-shirt over it, but I could practically read the roll marks on the slide. I’m also able to "fit" my G17 under a t-shirt; and I tend to wear slightly oversized t-shirts untucked; but I’m smart enough to know that it doesn’t take a genius to spot the gun.

I mean, personally, I don’t care. I sometimes open carry. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it. I’m just personally more comfortable with CC than OC for most occasions. And if I’m going to bother to cover it up, then the whole point of concealment is non-detection. I’m not talking about the legal standard since OC is legal; and from that viewpoint, it matters little if it’s obvious there’s a gun under your shirt. I’m talking about concealment as a goal in a non-permissive environment.

IOW, if you don’t want to get booted out of Costco, then it works counter to your interests if your 10mm Para prints too much.....as evidenced by the OP's experience with a G17 (a similarly sized pistol). Just my opinion, and worth exactly what it cost you to read it.

No printing with my custom IWB holster. then again I have a 44 inch chest and a 32 inch waist. The t-shirt tents a lot, but I also use it with dress shirts and pants. A good holster goes a long way.

Again, I am comfortable submitting that you’re an exception.

[Soccerdad1995]

For those of you who are saying the policy is irrelevant to an LTC, I would like to point out a very important distinction. Their warning in the policy book does not meet the legal requirement for notice. This means you cannot be criminally charged for carrying there. It does not mean you are allowed to carry or cannot suffer any other consequences. For example, in this case, they gave legal verbal notice, so there is now a permanent ban on the OP for carrying in that Costco, and possibly from all Costco's in Texas (an interesting case for a court but they did not limit it to their store - I don't know if the statement that the company does not allow it would stand for all company owned property or not).

But there is another potential consequence if Costco wanted to take it. Their membership is a contract and you are now in breach of the contract. At a minimum, they could cancel the membership with you having no recourse on it. My opinion on that is that it would be no real loss but some people like Costco. As with any other contract, lawsuits for the breach are possible, though I think all they could get is the cancelation of the membership since there was no other loss.

IANAL, but I think it would depend on the exact wording of the verbal notice. Per the OP, he was told that Costco did not allow guns "in the store". I think the common usage of "the store" would mean a specific store, instead of all stores owned by a company. For example, if I tell my wife I need to stop at "the store" I am clearly implying that I only plan to visit a single store. As an aside, it's odd they didn't say "the warehouse" since I think Costco calls their stores "warehouses".

It would definitely make an interesting court case. Although given the fact that any case would hinge on human recollection of the words that were spoken, and the relatively low potential penalty if found guilty, I doubt this would ever see the inside of a court room.

About the only interesting legal case I could see actually happening would be if Costco cancelled a membership over this and then refused to refund the pro-rata unused membership fees. Again, given the amount involved, it's doubtful that either party would really push it though.

[Zombified]

I was about to renew my membership online and I was required to scroll down a list of "Member Privileges & Conditions" and check a box agreeing to these conditions. At the bottom of that list was this statement: "Costco policy prohibits firearms to be brought into the warehouse, except in the case of authorized law enforcement officers." I am guessing they have had enough encounters with carriers to make their policy more obvious. I did not renew online and will see if it's any different to renew in the store.

[C-dub]

I was about to renew my membership online and I was required to scroll down a list of "Member Privileges & Conditions" and check a box agreeing to these conditions. At the bottom of that list was this statement: "Costco policy prohibits firearms to be brought into the warehouse, except in the case of authorized law enforcement officers." I am guessing they have had enough encounters with carriers to make their policy more obvious. I did not renew online and will see if it's any different to renew in the store.

I suspect the wording will not be any different. Also, this wording in the manner communicated does not meet the requirement for notification. It cannot get you prosecuted, but if discovered carrying there you can lose your membership.

[03Lightningrocks]

I canceled my membership to Costco back when they helped murder that young man in Vegas and never looked back. They made sure we all knew they were anti second amendment at that time so my money stopped supporting them. Maybe some of you were not aware they were anti second amendment. Maybe some just really did not care. But now it is obvious. Do we care yet?