Costco prohibit carry - No signs posted

[srothstein]

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.

[ET-Ret]

What we have here is 3 grown up people spating. I carry everyday and I go to Sam's and Costco and Walmart and have carried in Sprout's and they have somewhat legal signs up. I carry most every day and go where I should and should not. Only way I am going to have a problem is if I shoot someone because I do not make threats. When you go into one of these places carry something that is hard to see and Leave the big one in the car till you get back. Lock it up in a car safe while you are doing bussiness in store. I am soon to be 80 years old and have been carrying since 14 and I am reminded of the Dallas Police Srgt. standing in his front room in his shorts telling a 14 year old "I am not going to tell you not to carry that pistol,you might need it and I would feel bad. You just need to be prepared to pay the price if you get caught." There is no need to school people on our right to carry it just does not set well.
Small works good in places like that and a quick I am sorry goes a long way. There are ways to shop Costco with out a membership and just be
just another face in line. No need to make a scene.

Small Semi Auto like NAA, Ruger lcp, and several small Pistols and Revovers.
Fastest thing I have ever seen was Bill Jordan taking a dehorned Jmodel out of his hip pocket.
Polite smiles will go a long way.
My 2 cent's worth. ET-ret

[JRG]

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.

EXACTLY!! I carry every time I go to Costco. If approached about that "bulge" (which there is NONE), I will say it is an insulin pump. In this time of COVID-19, I can't even imagine an employee bumping into anyone in their store. Like TAM says, just tell them whatever will make them go away.

Joe

[Vol Texan]

As I tell my LTC students, an LTC is effectively a license to lie about whether you have an LTC - unless a peace officer or magistrate demands identification while you are carrying. You have absolutely zero responsibility to let anyone else know about your LTC or your handgun.

(Yes, of course insert here all the other caveats - it never hurts to show to the LEO even if you're not carrying, etc.)

But still, remember, the 30.06 is not just a sign, it's the law that allows them to block you from carrying. They did exercise it properly, and pointed out by others above, you now cannot carry there.

[C-dub]

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.

It is an interesting point to be sure. I've made the same point to various folks about the 1st Amendment regarding the right to free speech and religion. It prohibits the government from infringing on free speech or prohibiting one from worshiping whichever religion they choose. It does not prohibit a private company or individual from doing so. However, IIRC, and since I've
been paraphrasing so far anyway, there have been several court decisions that do prohibit businesses from discriminating based on a persons religion. It is interesting and difficult to discern how or why courts have ruled the way they have in the past or might in the future regarding whether or not private companies can prohibit or censure an employee or potential employee based on a 1st Amendment right. Every company I've worked for has prohibited employees from talking to each other about pay rates and salaries. Other prohibited topics include politics and religion. I have yet to see anyone reprimanded or terminated for doing so, but it was in the employee handbook. I don't even know if anything like that has been challenged in court before.

I think it is interesting which private property rights are protected by courts and which are not.

[srothstein]

It is an interesting point to be sure. I've made the same point to various folks about the 1st Amendment regarding the right to free speech and religion. It prohibits the government from infringing on free speech or prohibiting one from worshiping whichever religion they choose. It does not prohibit a private company or individual from doing so. However, IIRC, and since I've
been paraphrasing so far anyway, there have been several court decisions that do prohibit businesses from discriminating based on a persons religion. It is interesting and difficult to discern how or why courts have ruled the way they have in the past or might in the future regarding whether or not private companies can prohibit or censure an employee or potential employee based on a 1st Amendment right. Every company I've worked for has prohibited employees from talking to each other about pay rates and salaries. Other prohibited topics include politics and religion. I have yet to see anyone reprimanded or terminated for doing so, but it was in the employee handbook. I don't even know if anything like that has been challenged in court before.

I think it is interesting which private property rights are protected by courts and which are not.

You are correct about the way the courts have ruled and how certain rights are protected even from private businesses and certain rights are not. Not that I agree with the court, but I remember (vaguely, in that I had to study it for a class but forgot about it after the class was done) one freedom of speech case where a mall was forced to allow certain groups to display and hand out material they did not agree with.

But one of the major differences in a lot of those court cases is not that the person or business was violating a constitutional right, but more that they were violating a law passed to give the right some teeth. Things like the various federal civil rights acts which make it illegal to discriminate on the grounds of one of the seven protected classes. This is where some of the very interesting cases have come in lately and I fail to understand how any court cannot rule on them in one way. There are state laws which forbid a business to discriminate based on sexual orientation. This is not mentioned as a right in the Constitution (not arguing whether it should be or not, just stating fact). The right to practice a religion is mentioned in the Constitution. How can a state law, even if the intent is good (to stop discrimination against anyone) trump the rights guaranteed by the Constitution? It seems to me that the right to practice a religion is protected much more than the state law could ever be.

So, I think we need to start working on state laws to protect us. I don't see it being an easy fight, but we have a start in Texas. We have a law right now that says it is illegal for any business to discriminate (as in bar entry) to any police officer just because he is armed. I do like the private property rights and generally support them over governmental interference, but this seems like a concept we could argue should be expanded further. I also don't like the special classes of privileged people can do things others can't, even when I am one of the privileged. Either private property rights should trump all, or no one can discriminate against us for being armed (well, except maybe Quakers practicing their religion).

[C-dub]

Either private property rights should trump all, or no one can discriminate against us for being armed (well, except maybe Quakers practicing their religion).

LOL

[ScottDLS]

...We have a law right now that says it is illegal for any business to discriminate (as in bar entry) to any police officer just because he is armed....

Is this new for 2019? What are the sanctions on a private business for violating this statute? And what is the statute?

[srothstein]

...We have a law right now that says it is illegal for any business to discriminate (as in bar entry) to any police officer just because he is armed....

Is this new for 2019? What are the sanctions on a private business for violating this statute? And what is the statute?

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs ... htm#2.1305 is the law. It was passed in 2017 and modified in 2019. Civil penalty of $1,000 per violation but I don't know if anyone has filed it yet.

[PUCKER]

Another thing to keep in mind, and this may apply for others - those that have the cards but did *not* sign the membership agreement: the wife and I both have COSTCO cards...business memberships...provided by the boss (family business)...the boss may have signed the membership agreement, however...neither myself nor my wife have signed any such agreements. FWIW.

I think the "You bumped into my insulin pump...." reaction is the best out there...or maybe the colostomy bag...

[Mel]

Another thing to keep in mind, and this may apply for others - those that have the cards but did *not* sign the membership agreement: the wife and I both have COSTCO cards...business memberships...provided by the boss (family business)...the boss may have signed the membership agreement, however...neither myself nor my wife have signed any such agreements. FWIW.

I think the "You bumped into my insulin pump...." reaction is the best out there...or maybe the colostomy bag...

I often wear a medical device. It's a Pb injector!

[Vol Texan]

Another thing to keep in mind, and this may apply for others - those that have the cards but did *not* sign the membership agreement: the wife and I both have COSTCO cards...business memberships...provided by the boss (family business)...the boss may have signed the membership agreement, however...neither myself nor my wife have signed any such agreements. FWIW.

I think the "You bumped into my insulin pump...." reaction is the best out there...or maybe the colostomy bag...

I often wear a medical device. It's a Pb injector!

"Emergency Ventilator"

[ScottDLS]

...We have a law right now that says it is illegal for any business to discriminate (as in bar entry) to any police officer just because he is armed....

Is this new for 2019? What are the sanctions on a private business for violating this statute? And what is the statute?

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs ... htm#2.1305 is the law. It was passed in 2017 and modified in 2019. Civil penalty of $1,000 per violation but I don't know if anyone has filed it yet.

Incredible. I wonder if the AG will be as vigorous in enforcing this as the "Signs" law for public property. So much for the grand Texas tradition dating back to 1836 of the absolute primacy of property owners' rights...


Also, easily evaded by invoking 30.05...I don't want you, Peace Officer X, in my business...never said nuthin' about guns. Your badge just makes muh nervous.

[thetexan]

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