Now, the guy in the post was a bit rude, true, although rudeness is not exactly illegal, although if the laws in the state of Minnesota require signs posted prohibiting firearms then technically asking him to disarm in the future IS illegal unless they had a sign.

I was not aware of the state laws requiring signs. I’ve found in researching this a bit that some states requires signs or a statement to the effect that guns are prohibited, which is a rather vague requirement. It seems that states with the statement requirement might allow notification via means such as a membership agreement, but I’ve not gotten that point solid yet one way or another. Regardless of that, in Minnesota, the law does require signs, and is very clear on the guidelines for this. The details I found are at http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/issinfo/sspistpost.htm and I’m sure there are other sites with that or more information. Particularly interesting to me in that bill is that not only are signs required at every entrance to the store (as you noted), but the signs alone are not sufficient – a personal request to individuals carrying guns must also be made for the ban to take effect. In other words, as you’ve already noted, CostCo cannot simply tell someone guns are not allowed – they must post a sign *AND* inform them. I am curious as to whether including that information in a membership agreement is sufficient to meet the inform the person requirement – I suspect not since the specific wording is “personally inform” them. Researching the CostCo membership agreement does not turn up anything where this policy is stated, though, so even if inclusion on a membership agreement were enough, it does not appear that CostCo takes this step anyway. Thank you for giving me the information I needed to know to look further into this.

I can’t agree that he wanted the statement about the gun ban in order to work on changing it without seeing something in the story indicating that. I can understand why you would think that, but since he doesn’t say anywhere that he is requesting the written statement for that purpose, I read it as his wanting proof of policy so as to recommend that other gun owners not shop there. In other words, to me it looks like he wanted to further follow through on his implied threat of lost business. I’m not trying to dissuade you or say you are wrong, but rather to make clear why I view the request in the light I do. In fact, I hope that was his intention and that my initial thinking is wrong – I just don’t see where it is clear that was his intent.

As for the don’t carry or don’t shop there, that is still an individual’s choice. I believe you are simply wrong in saying it is ignorant to suggest leaving the gun outside unless you also feel that leaving a weapon in a storage unit near work or home is ignorant as well. Nearly 15 years ago, my brother had over $10,000 of sound and electronics equipment stolen out of a storage facility with fencing, alarms, individual access codes, limited access times, and cameras in place. The person who did this (and robbed over 50 other units at the facility) was never caught. Theft from a storage unit is just as possible as theft from a vehicle. The only question to me on that front is probability, but we don’t have to consider that, because you indicated that any risk of theft was sufficient to eliminate that possible storage option.

It seems that securing a firearm in a vehicle is better now than ever, given that vehicle lockboxes for firearms are available. Some states require certain law enforcement officers to use such lockboxes to secure weapons in vehicles in some instances where the officer can reasonably choose not to carry in some areas – New Jersey is one state for which I found information about this. The FBI offers lockboxes as an acceptable and valid protection method in cases where an agent does not carry a firearm, such as interviewing convicted criminals in secured facilities – as agents, they have the priviledge of carrying, but many choose not to. However, some states prohibit law enforcement officers from using firearm lockboxes in vehicles, requiring either carrying at all times or not carrying at all. So I recognize this is not a universally acceptable solution now (and might not ever be). However, the option does exist, and is seen as sufficiently secure by at least some government entities as to be permitted or required in some instances. To me, this appears to move the option from leave the weapon at home or risk having it stolen to the options leave the weapon at home, risk having itstolen, or spend some money to secure it in a reasonable manner.

Crime statistics nationwide show that home burglary thefts are about 10% more common per 100,000 people than vehicle thefts (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm). So leaving your gun at home means it is about 10% more likely to be exposed to potential theft than if you leave it in your car. If someone leaves a weapon unsecured in their home (and I’m not saying you, because my suspicion is you don’t leave your firearms unsecured in your house), it is more likely to end up being taken and used for a crime than a weapon left in a secured lockbox inside a vehicle. How can leaving a weapon inside a vehicle, if steps to secure it are taken, be considered ignorant? I’ll grant that a legitimate argument can be made that an additional financial penalty for normal daily living is applied to gun owners in that not only do they have to pay for the necessary documents showing that they are allowed to carry weapons, but they also have to pay for securing their weapons when chosing to patronize a location which does not permit guns. I don’t accept that securing a weapon inside a vehicle is not an option if those who carry firearms consider securing a weapon inside a house as an option. Many home gun cases I’ve seen have only been sufficient to protect against access by children or those most likely already not planning on accessing them. Glass display panes with sufficient space to reach a weapon if the glass is broken doesn’t seem any more secure from a burgler than a metal lockbox with cabling or rods to secure it to the vehicle. Maybe I’ve just seen the wrong gun cases or weapons inside the case are secured in a manner not obvious upon casual inspection.

The source of the letter was not completely clear to me. I misunderstood that it came from the store manager of the store in question. I misread the letter as coming from a district manager, which lead me to believe it was from higher up. I not see where I was mistaken because I didn’t check the origination point against the story of where the event took place. I will be contacting CostCo corporate to find out more about their policy. The current policy, if correct by what is in that letter and applicable to all CostCo warehouses, is not enforceable at the store where this all happened (and likely any store, but I don’t know that for certain) without some changes to how they notify members.

Not membership rules, but “company policy” (that fact alone seems to be up for question now). This seems to that store policy. Irregardless, even if it is membership rules, state laws require establishments to have a sign posted at entrance(s).

State laws very from state to state, some states say “entrance,” leaving it open for just one entrance while others states say “all entrances.” In fact, most states require a specific sign, of a specific size with specific wording and placed within ‘n’ feet of the entrance.

> “I asked if I could get some sort of written statement or copy of the policy, because there were 35,000 permit holders in the state of Minnesota alone who were going to want to know about it.”

Later you state…

> You even said, “Rather than seeking to change the rules…”

He wanted to gets this document, in fact, to have some proof to do just that. In order to change the rules you would need some proof to bind the community together against this rule. Then letters could be written, and possibly in the end Costco’s bottom line effected for Costco to reevaluate their rules.

This worked with Wal-Mart. Even though (most) Wal-Mart sells both guns and ammunition they had a company policy of no firearms allowed. People assemble, bitched to Wally World, and rules were changed. Now they allow firearms so long as they are concealed.

> gun outside the store

People stating this are just plain ignorant. In this example, and assuming Costco is ‘heaven on earth’ and safe as the bosom of your mother, leaving the “gun outside the store” would require most to leave it at home. Why? Because people that carry do so because of the world we live in. Two options here; One, leave it at home and travel to and fro Costco unarmed with no other stops (ever hear of car-jackings?)… Or 2) Leave it in your car in the hopes that some puke does not break in for the change in your center console and find a firearm under the seat– now instead of basic B&E and $6.78 in change, you have just graduated said puke to robbing a liquor store, armed muggings, et al.

Just to make clear, this letter came from the store, not the company.

/tg