What is Best Buy's company policy on open carry?

Lovenox said:

...The fight isn't yours, it is between the store manager and the corporate office. That store manager is the captain of the ship and what he or she says goes. The police wouldn't care about "corporate policy" if you were asked not to come into the store via the sign and you blatantly disregarded it then you are trespassing.

Click to expand...

I agree with what you said in the quoted portion above. That is exactly why I obeyed the manager's request and took the question of corporate policy up to the next level, after leaving the establishment.

As far as the weight of 'No Firearms' signs in WA law, I believe the other responses have covered that well.

ManInBlack said:

Washington state law does not make carrying a firearm past a no guns sign illegal. No other unlawful behavior was committed. Since the business is open to the public, and it is reasonable to believe a merchant would follow state law regarding firearms, there is a pretty strong defense to any allegation of trespassing until being directly told to leave, and refusing.

Click to expand...

Good point. Thank you.

Tawnos said:

There's a difference between private property that is private and private property that is open to the public.

Click to expand...

Another solid point. Thanks!

ShooterMcGavin said:

I agree with what you said in the quoted portion above. That is exactly why I obeyed the manager's request and took the question of corporate policy up to the next level, after leaving the establishment.

As far as the weight of 'No Firearms' signs in WA law, I believe the other responses have covered that well.

Click to expand...

Agreed and I learned something today.

ManInBlack said:

Washington state law does not make carrying a firearm past a no guns sign illegal. No other unlawful behavior was committed. Since the business is open to the public, and it is reasonable to believe a merchant would follow state law regarding firearms, there is a pretty strong defense to any allegation of trespassing until being directly told to leave, and refusing.

Click to expand...

There's also the fact that knowing what corporate policy is, and that the store is corporate not a franchise, 9A.52.090 (3) would indicate that the owner (corporation) would in fact have licensed you to enter or remain.

ManInBlack said:

Washington state law does not make carrying a firearm past a no guns sign illegal. No other unlawful behavior was committed. Since the business is open to the public, and it is reasonable to believe a merchant would follow state law regarding firearms, there is a pretty strong defense to any allegation of trespassing until being directly told to leave, and refusing.

Click to expand...

This applies to Malls then also?

I have entered Half Price Books before and did not see any anti-gun signs on the door I entered. Then saw it on the door I was leaving through.

I will have to try OC @ half price books sometime.

Not sure of the validity of this, was from an Ohio CC site.

"Thank you for contacting Best Buy about our firearm policy. I'm TJ with Customer Care.

We appreciate your concern about our policy regarding firearms in our stores. Firearms are not allowed in any of our retail stores. We value receiving your comments so we may use this feedback to improve the shopping and service experience for all our customers.

Thank you for sharing your comments with Best Buy. Please don't hesitate to contact us with additional questions or concerns.

Best wishes from Best Buy,
TJ and the Customer Care Team"

There is also another WA topic on this also with,

"Thank you for contacting Best Buy. I'm Anjuli with Customer Care.

I appreciate your concern Best Buy?s policies in regards to allowing firearms in
our stores. At Best Buy, we are committed to abiding to all state and local
regulations, and we are also committed to the safety of our customers and
employees. Best Buy does not have a company policy prohibiting customers
from lawfully carrying hand guns in our stores.

Thank you for sharing your comments with Best Buy. Please don't hesitate to
contact us with additional questions or concerns.


Best Wishes from Best Buy,
Anjuli and the Consumer Relations Team"

I am not familiar with Ohio laws regarding OC or CC, and would have to do some research to see if the difference is the result of state laws being different or just poorly informed customer care reps.

massivedesign said:

Is it attached to a Mall? Sometimes the Mall general rules of admittance with supersede the stores.

Click to expand...

I disagree. The stores lease their space and the malls have no control over whether they allow carry or not...especially a store with it's own entrance, which BB would have. The mall, and mall rules, only control common space, not individual store's space.

hermannr said:

I disagree. The stores lease their space and the malls have no control over whether they allow carry or not...especially a store with it's own entrance, which BB would have. The mall, and mall rules, only control common space, not individual store's space.

Click to expand...

I'd be interested to look into this a bit more. I've heard it both ways. It could be that there is a clause in the rental agreement as a result of the common entrance, but I don't know. Going to do some digging, because I would be interested to see something concrete one way or the other.

Some stores make a policy that says they abide by state law unless the mall they are attached to says no. For example Dick's Sporting Goods.
http://http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?71026-Corporate-Policies

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I'm inclined to think that RCW 9A.52.090(2) (not 3) probably prevails in this situation ("(2) The premises were at the time open to members of the public and the actor complied with all lawful conditions imposed on access to or remaining in the premises;").
Private property (including a "public access" store) can be wholly regulated by the owner/lessee and whose lawful regulations cannot be trumped by either constitutional or statutory mandate.

In the prior hypothetical, according to RCW 9A.52.090, a store is "open to members of the public" PROVIDED THAT members of the public "comply with all lawful conditions imposed upon access to or remaining in the premises." Any store who holds itself out as open to the public may impose whatever lawful conditions it deems proper as part of granting customers license to enter and remain on the premises. Posting a notice that firearms are prohibited is a lawful condition predicate to access. I'm rather inclined to believe that, if push came to shove, a court could well find that knowing and willful armed access to a store with a firearm prohibition clearly posted is (albeit technically) a trespass.

rapgood said:

In the prior hypothetical, according to RCW 9A.52.090, a store is "open to members of the public" PROVIDED THAT members of the public "comply with all lawful conditions imposed upon access to or remaining in the premises." Any store who holds itself out as open to the public may impose whatever lawful conditions it deems proper as part of granting customers license to enter and remain on the premises. Posting a notice that firearms are prohibited is a lawful condition predicate to access. I'm rather inclined to believe that, if push came to shove, a court could well find that knowing and willful armed access to a store with a firearm prohibition clearly posted is (albeit technically) a trespass.

Click to expand...

Then that would have to be defined.

rapgood said:

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I'm inclined to think that RCW 9A.52.090(2) (not 3) probably prevails in this situation ("(2) The premises were at the time open to members of the public and the actor complied with all lawful conditions imposed on access to or remaining in the premises;").
Private property (including a "public access" store) can be wholly regulated by the owner/lessee and whose lawful regulations cannot be trumped by either constitutional or statutory mandate.

In the prior hypothetical, according to RCW 9A.52.090, a store is "open to members of the public" PROVIDED THAT members of the public "comply with all lawful conditions imposed upon access to or remaining in the premises." Any store who holds itself out as open to the public may impose whatever lawful conditions it deems proper as part of granting customers license to enter and remain on the premises. Posting a notice that firearms are prohibited is a lawful condition predicate to access. I'm rather inclined to believe that, if push came to shove, a court could well find that knowing and willful armed access to a store with a firearm prohibition clearly posted is (albeit technically) a trespass.

Click to expand...

That is not a condition imposed upon access. Nobody and nothing stops you and says "read this before entering, do you agree?" The only way that happens is if someone who works there comes up to you and says "to enter or remain on the premises you can't do X."

An example of a place that may be "open to members of the public" but has "conditions imposed upon access" would be something like an amusement park or some other place where you may enter if you pay. It's open to the public, but there are conditions imposed upon entry, e.g. paying for a ticket, agreeing to the rules of the park, etc.

Freedom1Man said:

Then that would have to be defined.

Click to expand...

I think a sign on a door, that only someone with total "cranial rectal inversion" could miss, might fit just about any definition. If the company wants to ban firearms then just put the "ghostbusters" sign on the door. If they hide it in line 32 of their "Rules" that are posted in a location within their business that requires a GPS to find, then that wouldn't be clearly posted. What's so hard about that?

Tawnos said:

That is not a condition imposed upon access.

Click to expand...

RCW 9A.52.70
(1) A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the first degree if he or she knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building.

RCW 9A.52.090
In any prosecution under RCW 9A.52.070 and 9A.52.080, it is a defense that:
...
(2) The premises were at the time open to members of the public and the actor complied with all lawful conditions imposed on access to or remaining in the premises; (emphasis added)

According to my education, a notice, posted in plain view to someone outside of a business establishment and barring entry to those in possession of firearms, is a "lawful condition imposed on access" to that establishment envisioned by RCW 9A.52.090(2).

Perhaps you can direct me to another authority to the contrary?

rapgood said:

RCW 9A.52.70
(1) A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the first degree if he or she knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building.

RCW 9A.52.090
In any prosecution under RCW 9A.52.070 and 9A.52.080, it is a defense that:
...
(2) The premises were at the time open to members of the public and the actor complied with all lawful conditions imposed on access to or remaining in the premises; (emphasis added)

According to my education, a notice, posted in plain view to someone outside of a business establishment and barring entry to those in possession of firearms, is a "lawful condition imposed on access" to that establishment envisioned by RCW 9A.52.090(2).

Perhaps you can direct me to another authority to the contrary?

Click to expand...

Again, did anybody stop you? Were the doors closed? Did you say that you agree to all terms and conditions listed? No?

You walk up to the doors, and they open for you (or you push them open). There is nobody in your way. You are free to walk in without agreeing to any conditions upon entry. Things printed "in plain view" on the outside of the building? Who reads em?

amlevin said:

I think a sign on a door, that only someone with total "cranial rectal inversion" could miss, might fit just about any definition. If the company wants to ban firearms then just put the "ghostbusters" sign on the door. If they hide it in line 32 of their "Rules" that are posted in a location within their business that requires a GPS to find, then that wouldn't be clearly posted. What's so hard about that?

Click to expand...

I have found signs only by looking for them before. Once place had their sign hidden behind a plant. Another business I've been to has a small sign that is with many others and is easy to miss.

If a business displays a giant banner reading "NO FIREARMS ALLOWED" directly below its store name, clearly, only someone looking for trouble would carry past it. If, however, the sign is a 3"x3" piece of faded stick-on plastic, surrounded by security company logos and bought-and-paid-for BBB certifications, I don't believe it is the carrier's responsibility to microscopically inspect every storefront.

In between, unfortunately, like so many other things, is "up for interpretation."

The best reason I can give for why I don't consider signs that are conditions upon entry: A place with double doors where one door is broken may post a neon sign with huge bold letters saying "use other door". Still, 80% or more of the population who approach that door will try it, and not until they are denied will they look at the sign and use the other door.

ManInBlack said:

If a business displays a giant banner reading "NO FIREARMS ALLOWED" directly below its store name, clearly, only someone looking for trouble would carry past it. If, however, the sign is a 3"x3" piece of faded stick-on plastic, surrounded by security company logos and bought-and-paid-for BBB certifications, I don't believer it is the carrier's responsibility to microscopically inspect every storefront.

In between, unfortunately, like so many other things, is "up for interpretation."

Click to expand...

Strangely enough, that 3"x3" sign may constitute a legal "warning" as to the conditions of entry. If you are asked to leave because you violated the owner's conditions of entry, and you remain, get ready to be charged with trespass.

It's just like newspapers that do all the "Legal Notices". All that's required is for them to have a minimum "circulation". Doesn't even have to be a paid for subscription, just something printed and distributed. How many of those "free" newspapers that are thrown in your yard, flowerbed, driveway, or on your roof, do you actually read. Doesn't matter because a "Legal Notice" published in one of them still meets the publication requirements of any law.

If you've been refusing delivery on all those registered letters and ducking process servers, sometimes all it takes to get your butt in a legal crack is for notice to be published in one of these cat box liners.

Notice is Notice, even if it's just a little sign one manages to overlook, as long as it meets the statute (if any).