Financial institutions illegal to OC?

Fibresteve · Oct 5, 2012

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.

Difdi · Oct 5, 2012

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.

Cubex DE · Oct 5, 2012

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.

tombrewster421 · Oct 5, 2012

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.

sudden valley gunner · Oct 5, 2012

NavyLCDR said:
I love USAA. I can do all my banking wearing nothing but my gun and a smile.

Will you be posting pictures?

MSG Laigaie · Oct 5, 2012

Banks are still a business. If you do not like the service, move your money. My bank(peoples) has no problem with weapons.

Historyman1942 · Oct 5, 2012

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

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

DamonK · Oct 5, 2012

Difdi said:
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

TheGunMan · Oct 5, 2012

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.

hermannr · Oct 5, 2012

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.

Bill Starks · Oct 5, 2012

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

[h=1]Weapons prohibited in certain places — local laws and ordinances — exceptions — penalty.[/h]

(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.

Difdi · Oct 5, 2012

DamonK said:
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.

BigDave · Oct 5, 2012

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.

pfries · Oct 5, 2012

sudden valley gunner said:
Will you be posting pictures?

Please DON'T....

amlevin · Oct 6, 2012

TheGunMan said:
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

sudden valley gunner · Oct 6, 2012

Difdi said:
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.

Freedom1Man · Oct 10, 2012

sudden valley gunner said:
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.

Freedom1Man · Oct 10, 2012

BigDave said:
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.

BigDave · Oct 10, 2012

Freedom1Man said:
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.

Freedom1Man · Oct 10, 2012

NavyLCDR said:
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.

Financial institutions illegal to OC?

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

State Researcher

Regular Member

Opt-Out Members

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Opt-Out Members

Regular Member