Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28

Thread: Financial institutions illegal to OC?

  1. #1
    Regular Member Fibresteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Woodland, WA
    Posts
    50

    Financial institutions illegal to OC?

    I had my first experience today where I was asked to leave somewhere because I was OCing. I went inside my credit union to withdrawal some cash and when I got in line a security guard politely asked me to leave the firearm outside because it would upset the other members. I looked around and saw about 2 other people there that were not employees and neither of them even knew I was carrying. He said her knew OC was legal in WA state but it would upset people and to please take it outside. I think the only one it upset was him because the other credit union employees didn't really seem to care and I have Oced in this same branch before without a problem. The other times I did the security guard wasn't even there so there was no problem. I then asked him if they had a corporate rule of no firearms in the CU. He didn't know and I asked to speak to the manager. One of the loan officers piped up and said there is a WA state law that it is illegal to have a firearm in a financial institution. I asked her to show me the law in writing and what the RCW was. She could not produce either. The manager then came to me saying the same thing about no guns in financial institutions. I asked her also to produce the RCW. She didn't know and asked me to please take the gun outside of the CU. I did and returned, got my cash from a teller and then went to talk to he manager again who by this time was on the phone talking to someone at their main branch about the situation. I waited and she said it was the CU policy of no guns allowed. I asked her to see the policy and she could not produce it. I told her I would be calling their main headquarters to see if this is true. There are no signs anywhere outside or inside the building stating no firearms. I know it is private property and they can ask me to leave but as I understand it, it is NOT illegal to carry in a financial institution unless it is owned by the federal government. Last I checked, I thought that credit unions were owned by their members. Can someone clarify the whole no guns in financial institutions for me? Please let me know if I am right or wrong either way.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Ok, wall of text is dense. A few paragraph breaks would make it a lot easier to read. But taking your concerns, as they appear:

    1) If an employee of a place of business asks you to leave, leave. If you remain after being asked to leave, you are committing a crime - trespassing. It doesn't matter if you think you're right or if you have a good reason to be there. If they ask you to leave, go. Or you risk being arrested. Asking you to cover up or take the gun outside is not the same as asking you to leave, but if you refuse to cover/remove the gun and they tell you to go, you need to go.

    Apparently in Washington police don't care if you are following corporate policy and an employee is breaking it. If you are told to go, and you don't go, and the employee calls police, it will be you who leaves in handcuffs. Police consider corporate policies to be a matter for the civil courts. They're only there to deal with the criminal side of things. Such as trespassing.

    Since you stayed to argue and ask to talk to managers rather than leaving immediately, you could have been arrested (and yes, you'd deserve it) if that security guard had called the police while you were arguing with management.

    2) The no guns in financial institutions thing is a fundamental misunderstanding of federal laws. Firearms (and other weapons) are prohibited in federal buildings. Banks are regulated by the federal government. This causes some people to equate the two, even though they're not the same thing. A bank is a business, not a federal building. That said, even if the manager is wrong about the law, once you're asked to leave, you go.

    Call corporate later if you consider it worth your time. Arguing with someone who has ordered you off private property is a good way to wind up in jail.

    3) Signs have no legal weight whatsoever in Washington, except for signs that mark the boundaries of a restricted area where firearms are prohibited by law. Posting a no guns sign gives a business no additional legal authority to ban guns that they didn't already have without the sign. A good example of this is a sign saying "we reserve the right to refuse service to rude people". The business can do so with or without the sign.

    4) Ultimately you were wrong for not leaving when told to. Depending on the judge you wind up in front of at your trial for trespassing, being told "we don't allow guns in here" may or may not be sufficient for a reasonable person to consider it an order to leave. But it's safer to treat it as such an order, and dispute the matter with the owner/corporate when you're not in active violation of the law.

    As for the no guns in banks thing, that's a myth.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Cubex DE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Spokane, WA
    Posts
    111
    I know that my local CU wrote me an email and told me that firearms are not allowed in their branches. If it wasn't such a pain in the ass, I'd close my accounts and go to another. I suppose I will have to do that anyway if I move.
    Jesus thought it was more important to be armed than well dressed:

    Then said He unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his
    scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.~Luke 22:36

    (Emphasis mine.)

    (Note that the word "garment" here refers to an outer cloak, equivalent to today's sport coats or
    suit jackets in that they both provided warmth and conveyed a certain level of sophistication.)

  4. #4
    Regular Member tombrewster421's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Roy, WA
    Posts
    1,329

    Financial institutions illegal to OC?

    It might help to know which CU you're dealing with here. Someone else may have already got a letter from corporate but we have no way to know if you don't tell us who you're dealing with.
    Guns don't kill people, bullets do!

  5. #5
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    I love USAA. I can do all my banking wearing nothing but my gun and a smile.
    Will you be posting pictures?
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philipsburg, Montana
    Posts
    3,135
    Banks are still a business. If you do not like the service, move your money. My bank(peoples) has no problem with weapons.
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." -- George Washington

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Salem, OR
    Posts
    55

    Re: Financial institutions illegal to OC?

    USAA for the most part is online banking (and more) for service members.

    Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

  8. #8
    Regular Member DamonK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Ft. Lewis, WA
    Posts
    585

    Re: Financial institutions illegal to OC?

    Quote Originally Posted by Difdi View Post
    Ok, wall of text is dense. A few paragraph breaks would make it a lot easier to read. But taking your concerns, as they appear:

    1) If an employee of a place of business asks you to leave, leave. If you remain after being asked to leave, you are committing a crime - trespassing. It doesn't matter if you think you're right or if you have a good reason to be there. If they ask you to leave, go. Or you risk being arrested. Asking you to cover up or take the gun outside is not the same as asking you to leave, but if you refuse to cover/remove the gun and they tell you to go, you need to go.

    Apparently in Washington police don't care if you are following corporate policy and an employee is breaking it. If you are told to go, and you don't go, and the employee calls police, it will be you who leaves in handcuffs. Police consider corporate policies to be a matter for the civil courts. They're only there to deal with the criminal side of things. Such as trespassing.

    Since you stayed to argue and ask to talk to managers rather than leaving immediately, you could have been arrested (and yes, you'd deserve it) if that security guard had called the police while you were arguing with management.

    2) The no guns in financial institutions thing is a fundamental misunderstanding of federal laws. Firearms (and other weapons) are prohibited in federal buildings. Banks are regulated by the federal government. This causes some people to equate the two, even though they're not the same thing. A bank is a business, not a federal building. That said, even if the manager is wrong about the law, once you're asked to leave, you go.

    Call corporate later if you consider it worth your time. Arguing with someone who has ordered you off private property is a good way to wind up in jail.

    3) Signs have no legal weight whatsoever in Washington, except for signs that mark the boundaries of a restricted area where firearms are prohibited by law. Posting a no guns sign gives a business no additional legal authority to ban guns that they didn't already have without the sign. A good example of this is a sign saying "we reserve the right to refuse service to rude people". The business can do so with or without the sign.

    4) Ultimately you were wrong for not leaving when told to. Depending on the judge you wind up in front of at your trial for trespassing, being told "we don't allow guns in here" may or may not be sufficient for a reasonable person to consider it an order to leave. But it's safer to treat it as such an order, and dispute the matter with the owner/corporate when you're not in active violation of the law.

    As for the no guns in banks thing, that's a myth.
    Did ya miss the part where the OP stated that he secured his firearm in his vehical, thus fulfilling the security guard's request? The OP was under no threat of being trespassed at that point. He then states that after securing his firearm he finished his business, then followed up with the manager. Nothing that the OP did in this scenario would put him into a position of being trespassed.

    Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk 2

  9. #9
    Regular Member TheGunMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Wenatchee, WA
    Posts
    83

    No problems at CVB in Wenatchee

    Cashmere Valley Bank in Wenatchee does not mind firearms or my Firearm business as I bank there.
    If I had a problem like this guy I would move my banking and let others know. Remember without us they would not
    be in business.

  10. #10
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    There is no WA state or federal law that says you cannot Carry in a financial institution.

    Some financial institutions don't mind, some do. I do not do business with one that will not accept my carry, and I tell them soas I depart...that said, I have never been asked to leave a financial institution, though I don't do business with BoA for other reasons.

  11. #11
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291
    RCW 9.41.300 is the official OFF-LIMITS to carrying firearms and no where does it mention banks.... However due to the Vancouver case 9.41.270 might come into play with a overzealous LEO.

    Do I carry in my bank? Yes. Do they have a policy of No Guns? Yes. However my branch manager took the time to get to know me and has no issue with me & my firearm.



    9.41.270
    (1) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.

    9.41.300
    Weapons prohibited in certain places local laws and ordinances exceptions penalty.
    (1) It is unlawful for any person to enter the following places when he or she knowingly possesses or knowingly has under his or her control a weapon:

    (a) The restricted access areas of a jail, or of a law enforcement facility, or any place used for the confinement of a person (i) arrested for, charged with, or convicted of an offense, (ii) held for extradition or as a material witness, or (iii) otherwise confined pursuant to an order of a court, except an order under chapter 13.32A or 13.34 RCW. Restricted access areas do not include common areas of egress or ingress open to the general public;

    (b) Those areas in any building which are used in connection with court proceedings, including courtrooms, jury rooms, judge's chambers, offices and areas used to conduct court business, waiting areas, and corridors adjacent to areas used in connection with court proceedings. The restricted areas do not include common areas of ingress and egress to the building that is used in connection with court proceedings, when it is possible to protect court areas without restricting ingress and egress to the building. The restricted areas shall be the minimum necessary to fulfill the objective of this subsection (1)(b).

    For purposes of this subsection (1)(b), "weapon" means any firearm, explosive as defined in RCW 70.74.010, or any weapon of the kind usually known as slung shot, sand club, or metal knuckles, or any knife, dagger, dirk, or other similar weapon that is capable of causing death or bodily injury and is commonly used with the intent to cause death or bodily injury.

    In addition, the local legislative authority shall provide either a stationary locked box sufficient in size for pistols and key to a weapon owner for weapon storage, or shall designate an official to receive weapons for safekeeping, during the owner's visit to restricted areas of the building. The locked box or designated official shall be located within the same building used in connection with court proceedings. The local legislative authority shall be liable for any negligence causing damage to or loss of a weapon either placed in a locked box or left with an official during the owner's visit to restricted areas of the building.

    The local judicial authority shall designate and clearly mark those areas where weapons are prohibited, and shall post notices at each entrance to the building of the prohibition against weapons in the restricted areas;

    (c) The restricted access areas of a public mental health facility certified by the department of social and health services for inpatient hospital care and state institutions for the care of the mentally ill, excluding those facilities solely for evaluation and treatment. Restricted access areas do not include common areas of egress and ingress open to the general public;

    (d) That portion of an establishment classified by the state liquor control board as off-limits to persons under twenty-one years of age; or

    (e) The restricted access areas of a commercial service airport designated in the airport security plan approved by the federal transportation security administration, including passenger screening checkpoints at or beyond the point at which a passenger initiates the screening process. These areas do not include airport drives, general parking areas and walkways, and shops and areas of the terminal that are outside the screening checkpoints and that are normally open to unscreened passengers or visitors to the airport. Any restricted access area shall be clearly indicated by prominent signs indicating that firearms and other weapons are prohibited in the area.

    (2) Cities, towns, counties, and other municipalities may enact laws and ordinances:

    (a) Restricting the discharge of firearms in any portion of their respective jurisdictions where there is a reasonable likelihood that humans, domestic animals, or property will be jeopardized. Such laws and ordinances shall not abridge the right of the individual guaranteed by Article I, section 24 of the state Constitution to bear arms in defense of self or others; and

    (b) Restricting the possession of firearms in any stadium or convention center, operated by a city, town, county, or other municipality, except that such restrictions shall not apply to:

    (i) Any pistol in the possession of a person licensed under RCW 9.41.070 or exempt from the licensing requirement by RCW 9.41.060; or

    (ii) Any showing, demonstration, or lecture involving the exhibition of firearms.

    (3)(a) Cities, towns, and counties may enact ordinances restricting the areas in their respective jurisdictions in which firearms may be sold, but, except as provided in (b) of this subsection, a business selling firearms may not be treated more restrictively than other businesses located within the same zone. An ordinance requiring the cessation of business within a zone shall not have a shorter grandfather period for businesses selling firearms than for any other businesses within the zone.

    (b) Cities, towns, and counties may restrict the location of a business selling firearms to not less than five hundred feet from primary or secondary school grounds, if the business has a storefront, has hours during which it is open for business, and posts advertisements or signs observable to passersby that firearms are available for sale. A business selling firearms that exists as of the date a restriction is enacted under this subsection (3)(b) shall be grandfathered according to existing law.

    (4) Violations of local ordinances adopted under subsection (2) of this section must have the same penalty as provided for by state law.

    (5) The perimeter of the premises of any specific location covered by subsection (1) of this section shall be posted at reasonable intervals to alert the public as to the existence of any law restricting the possession of firearms on the premises.

    (6) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to:

    (a) A person engaged in military activities sponsored by the federal or state governments, while engaged in official duties;

    (b) Law enforcement personnel, except that subsection (1)(b) of this section does apply to a law enforcement officer who is present at a courthouse building as a party to an action under chapter 10.14, 10.99, or 26.50RCW, or an action under Title 26 RCW where any party has alleged the existence of domestic violence as defined in RCW 26.50.010; or

    (c) Security personnel while engaged in official duties.

    (7) Subsection (1)(a), (b), (c), and (e) of this section does not apply to correctional personnel or community corrections officers, as long as they are employed as such, who have completed government-sponsored law enforcement firearms training, except that subsection (1)(b) of this section does apply to a correctional employee or community corrections officer who is present at a courthouse building as a party to an action under chapter10.14, 10.99, or 26.50 RCW, or an action under Title 26 RCW where any party has alleged the existence of domestic violence as defined in RCW 26.50.010.

    (8) Subsection (1)(a) of this section does not apply to a person licensed pursuant to RCW 9.41.070 who, upon entering the place or facility, directly and promptly proceeds to the administrator of the facility or the administrator's designee and obtains written permission to possess the firearm while on the premises or checks his or her firearm. The person may reclaim the firearms upon leaving but must immediately and directly depart from the place or facility.

    (9) Subsection (1)(c) of this section does not apply to any administrator or employee of the facility or to any person who, upon entering the place or facility, directly and promptly proceeds to the administrator of the facility or the administrator's designee and obtains written permission to possess the firearm while on the premises.

    (10) Subsection (1)(d) of this section does not apply to the proprietor of the premises or his or her employees while engaged in their employment.

    (11) Government-sponsored law enforcement firearms training must be training that correctional personnel and community corrections officers receive as part of their job requirement and reference to such training does not constitute a mandate that it be provided by the correctional facility.

    (12) Any person violating subsection (1) of this section is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.

    (13) "Weapon" as used in this section means any firearm, explosive as defined in RCW 70.74.010, or instrument or weapon listed in RCW 9.41.250.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by DamonK View Post
    Did ya miss the part where the OP stated that he secured his firearm in his vehical, thus fulfilling the security guard's request? The OP was under no threat of being trespassed at that point. He then states that after securing his firearm he finished his business, then followed up with the manager. Nothing that the OP did in this scenario would put him into a position of being trespassed.
    No, I didn't. Did ya miss the part where he said he stayed to argue with managers before doing as the guard directed? At that moment he was trespassing.

  13. #13
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    No sense in repeating what others have said here but I will add, your rights to keep and bear arms stop at the private property of another when asked to leave or not to carry a firearm, do I like it no but I respect it.
    After complying with their request then engage in possible change but one should not approach the matter that you have some legal right to ignore their lawful request.

    But way to leave a negative impression on several people about those who choose to open carry.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  14. #14
    Regular Member pfries's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    East Tennessee
    Posts
    182
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Will you be posting pictures?
    Please DON'T....

  15. #15
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by TheGunMan View Post
    Cashmere Valley Bank in Wenatchee does not mind firearms or my Firearm business as I bank there.
    If I had a problem like this guy I would move my banking and let others know. Remember without us they would not
    be in business.
    The farther one goes from the main population centers the less problems it appears for one to OC in Banks, etc. The more rural, the less the issue.

    Banks today, especially those in the North Puget Sound area have been "hit" by a series of holdups. Challenging Customers as they enter, even the simple "High, how can we help you today greeting" is part of their overall security strategy. If someone doesn't look right, the cops may be alerted to a "suspicious person" long before they reach a teller.

    Once again, Banks and C/U's are Private Property. They can refuse your entry for just about any reason at all. You can play the "Show me your Policy" game all you want but in the end, you conform to their wishes to leave your firearm outside or you can be trespassed. Why is that so hard for everyone to grasp.

    If you don't like a business's policies, don't patronize them. Heck, today one can even send a picture of a check for a deposit via "Smart Phone". Only reason I go into banks today is when my wife wants to cash a large check. I take my dog along for the "Doggie Treat". While I carry him in my arms he does a great job of concealing my pistol
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  16. #16
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Difdi View Post
    No, I didn't. Did ya miss the part where he said he stayed to argue with managers before doing as the guard directed? At that moment he was trespassing.

    Umm you assuming he was argumentative? We were not there we don't know the posture and attitude of the parties involved.

    I have been asked to leave places before and have asked to speak to a manager, and have had it resolved on the spot. You can read a situation and politely discuss, your viewpoint without immediately being a law breaker.

    I have also read there was no room for further discussion and have left, made calls and cleared things up, and have come back to shop. The said employees/ (even manager) doesn't like it, but they were forced to follow corporate policy.
    Last edited by sudden valley gunner; 10-06-2012 at 10:15 AM.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  17. #17
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Will you be posting pictures?
    Please don't, he was joking otherwise he would want to sit next to you while you did your banking that way.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  18. #18
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDave View Post
    No sense in repeating what others have said here but I will add, your rights to keep and bear arms stop at the private property of another when asked to leave or not to carry a firearm, do I like it no but I respect it.
    After complying with their request then engage in possible change but one should not approach the matter that you have some legal right to ignore their lawful request.

    But way to leave a negative impression on several people about those who choose to open carry.
    Sorry, but in this case I will disagree. They are holding his money and it is part of a credit union so in theory he owns part of and/or has a stake in the business. If the no gun thing was part of the agreement that was signed to create the account then since he is a member then the whole 'private property rights kick out gun owners' thing is not valid.

    It's like this; how can you be trespassing if you own/co-own a business?

    Now if there was a slick prosecutor he could be brought in and charged with dealing with another known criminal organization but, that is off topic for this thread.
    Last edited by Freedom1Man; 10-10-2012 at 09:04 AM.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  19. #19
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    Sorry, but in this case I will disagree. They are holding his money and it is part of a credit union so in theory he owns part of and/or has a stake in the business. If the no gun thing was part of the agreement that was signed to create the account then since he is a member then the whole 'private property rights kick out gun owners' thing is not valid.

    It's like this; how can you be trespassing if you own/co-own a business?

    Now if there was a slick prosecutor he could be brought in and charged with dealing with another known criminal organization but, that is off topic for this thread.
    Well jump up there junior and be that test case, which there would not be much of a test as you would go down in flames.
    You amaze me several times with some of the things you try and come up with and yet you still surprise me by coming up with something more ridiculous then your last.

    The attitude of one owns the credit union since they have monies in it is laughable, you become a member when joining not an owner.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    I wasn't joking. I do have USAA and I can do all of my banking wearing nothing but a gun and a smile.
    It was please don't post the pictures of that.

    I know all about USAA.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  21. #21
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDave View Post
    Well jump up there junior and be that test case, which there would not be much of a test as you would go down in flames.
    You amaze me several times with some of the things you try and come up with and yet you still surprise me by coming up with something more ridiculous then your last.

    The attitude of one owns the credit union since they have monies in it is laughable, you become a member when joining not an owner.
    I would be more interested in getting them shut down for fraud. I CC when I go into banks. I don't accept checks though either so I have very little cause for going into a bank.

    I would rather have them stop demanding a SSN to open an account before I fight them on the gun issue.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  22. #22
    Regular Member rapgood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Bothell, WA
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Starks View Post
    RCW 9.41.300 is the official OFF-LIMITS to carrying firearms and no where does it mention banks.... However due to the Vancouver case 9.41.270 might come into play with a overzealous LEO.

    Do I carry in my bank? Yes. Do they have a policy of No Guns? Yes. However my branch manager took the time to get to know me and has no issue with me & my firearm.

    9.41.270
    (1) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.

    9.41.300
    Weapons prohibited in certain places local laws and ordinances exceptions penalty.
    (1) It is unlawful for any person to enter the following places when he or she knowingly possesses or knowingly has under his or her control a weapon:
    <snip>
    Bill's posting describing the relevant RCWs related to display and carry is entirely accurate, but incomplete as to prohibited locations. There are several areas covered by federal law that similarly ban carry either partially or wholly on federal property, such as Veteran's Affairs property and federal court buildings (even though they might be located within Washington State).
    Rev. Robert Apgood, Esq.

    A right cannot be lost by exercising it. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3021, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010) (citing Near v. Minn., 283 U.S. 697 (1931)).

    Although IAAL, anything I say here is not legal advice. No conversations we may have privately or otherwise in this forum constitute the formation of an attorney-client relationship, and are not intended to do so.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    In short if your banks wants to kick you out for OC then just close your account and don't use a bank.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  24. #24
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post

    It's like this; how can you be trespassing if you own/co-own a business?
    Simple. In a Credit Union they have a Board of Directors that hires employees to manage and operate the CU. The Board, if they feel it is in the best interests of the membership, makes rules of conduct for members who use the facilities.

    If a member doesn't like the rules they can feel free to express themselves to the Board. If a majority of the members feel that they aren't being properly represented by the Board, they can replace them.

    Sorry, one may get "ownership" by being a member but that "ownership" is also spread among the thousands of others that too are members. Each one has an equal say.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  25. #25
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    Simple. In a Credit Union they have a Board of Directors that hires employees to manage and operate the CU. The Board, if they feel it is in the best interests of the membership, makes rules of conduct for members who use the facilities.

    If a member doesn't like the rules they can feel free to express themselves to the Board. If a majority of the members feel that they aren't being properly represented by the Board, they can replace them.

    Sorry, one may get "ownership" by being a member but that "ownership" is also spread among the thousands of others that too are members. Each one has an equal say.
    Close your account and do business somewhere else.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •