TexasCHLforum.com

VMI77 wrote:I don't get you guys? Why on earth would you knowingly finance those who oppose your 2nd Amendment rights by giving their businesses your money? And it's not just your 2nd Amendment rights they want to take from you. There is no ambiguity in this situation: Costo is openly and avowedly anti-gun and anti-selfdefense, pro-Obama and pro-DNC. Geez, why not just give your money directly to the Obama and the DNC, cut out the middleman?

http://influenceexplorer.com/organizati ... a03a7d9d8d

I have a little surprise for you. That's going to happen anyway. You MIGHT be able to ferret out the companies you directly do business with and limit your purchases to those that agree with your views, but you CANNOT do that for the manufacturer of every single item you purchase AND each wholesaler that supplies the items.

The best you can do is be a good steward of your money so you, hopefully, have a little extra to donate where it will do the most good.

I agree, but when I KNOW that's where my money is going, AND I have other choices, I can and will refuse to give my money to my opponents.

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/costco_vs_w ... ributions/

Wal-Mart, the world’s largest retailer and owner of Sam’s Club warehouse stores, gives more money to Republican candidates than any other company. Its top three managers, including chief executive H. Lee Scott, donated the individual maximum $2,000 to President George W. Bush, and Jay Allen, vice president for corporate affairs, raised at least $100,000 to reelect the president, earning him the Bush campaign’s designation of ”Pioneer.”

Wal-Mart — two-thirds of whose 3,580 stores are in the ”red states” that voted for Bush in 2000 — is backing White House policies on everything from trade to limiting overtime pay.

Yes, this isn't problem free given the state of the GOP, but at least the money isn't going to Obama, Hitlery, and the DNC.

The in-laws bought my wife and I a membership to Cosco last year. This past Christmas, they went to renew it and found that I had never gone in and finalized the membership that they paid for from 2013. I informed them, in no uncertain terms, that I would never set foot in the place and that they were anti-gun fools.

They looked at me like I had two heads.

AJSully421 wrote:The in-laws bought my wife and I a membership to Cosco last year. This past Christmas, they went to renew it and found that I had never gone in and finalized the membership that they paid for from 2013. I informed them, in no uncertain terms, that I would never set foot in the place and that they were anti-gun fools.

They looked at me like I had two heads.

If it's not too late, you might want to hold off having any kids.

Oldgringo wrote:

AJSully421 wrote:The in-laws bought my wife and I a membership to Cosco last year. This past Christmas, they went to renew it and found that I had never gone in and finalized the membership that they paid for from 2013. I informed them, in no uncertain terms, that I would never set foot in the place and that they were anti-gun fools.

They looked at me like I had two heads.

If it's not too late, you might want to hold off having any kids.

Too late.

They have CHLs, but they never carry. Gun rights just do not matter to them.

Oldgringo wrote:

AJSully421 wrote:The in-laws bought my wife and I a membership to Cosco last year. This past Christmas, they went to renew it and found that I had never gone in and finalized the membership that they paid for from 2013. I informed them, in no uncertain terms, that I would never set foot in the place and that they were anti-gun fools.

They looked at me like I had two heads.

If it's not too late, you might want to hold off having any kids.

A little unexpectedly snippy, though I agree with the sentiment. Silence is often golden. Now if I could just follow my own advice always.....

Not to be snarky, but I'm not really interested that they " believe it's not necessary" to carry a firearm into Costco. That's nice. As worded that does not inform me that I can not carry as per 30.06. That simply informs me of what they believe is or is not necessary. In there effort to phrase it politely they do not communicate the prohibition as required by law.

Tex

Grisu wrote:Do I not recall from my CHL class if an establishment informs you that they are not allowing carry that this has not to be done in the 30.06 verbiage nor do they have to post it to be effective? Kind of like a trespass warning. Further more, by being a member, this clubs rule is that you shall not carry. In any case it is a violation of your membership terms but does it put you in a legal limbo as well?

There are two ways only, just two...verbal and written notification. All you have to remember us that if it's written it must have identical language to 30.06. Verbal can be anything. This site is written and is non-compliant.

They don't even stipulate a contractually enforceable membership policy!!! Telling a member what they believe is necessary is not stipulating a rule of entry or membership.

I'm in a business that depends on the use of precision language and this kind of non-speak irritates me.

There are two issues here, one is their right as a private club to regulate it's members and two is their right under state law to prevent entry with a handgun. In the first case, as I said, they have not stipulated a clear membership condition to its members and they have certainly not complied with 30.06 in its weak attempt to restrict entry into the building.
Now I feel better

Tex

Having now read the entire set of rules the general policies do state that "Costco policy prohibits firearms..." referring in the third person to the policy. None of the other 'policies' use this language. In other words it doesn't say "Costco policy prohibits liquor and tobacco sales to be made to minors." It says "Liquor and tobacco sales cannot be made to minors."

This may seem a parsing of the language but since there is a published policy on firearms in the warehouses and since the phrase "Costco policy prohibits..." refers to that policy where the other prohibitions are stated in the affirmative and do not refer to separately written policies, it seems that what the actual policy states is what prevails.

However the rules apply specifically to members and are not addressed to the guests since the policy clearly specifies the policy as a membership policy which the members are expected to agree to adhere to else your fee will happily be refunded. So, in their mind this 'policy' stops the members but only a 30.06 will stop the guests.

However this is probably taking parsing beyond the point of winning the argument. It's certainly poorly written and could be stated much more clearly.

Now I really feel better.

tex

I'm of the opinion of WHO CARES? Texas has clearly stated what a business open to the public must post. Their thought, hopes, wants, etc. are irrelevant...



Did I say I was a lawyer? Didn't think so....

I saw this sign in the El Paso Costco. Nowhere close to the 30.06 requirement. I assume it is not geared toward CHL holders.

It is geared toward "unlicensed" carry. A CHL holder is licensed. Nothing to worry about.

jmra wrote:It is geared toward "unlicensed" carry. A CHL holder is licensed. Nothing to worry about.

The operative words on the sign are "unlicensed possession". If you have a CHL, the sign does not pertain to you.

The Kroger grocery store I shop at has that exact same sign.

That is the TABC "blue" sign. They are required to post that because they sell alcoholic beverages. You'll find that sign at Walmart and just about every grocery store.

Costco's gun stance is clear therefor they will not make a dime off me.