Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 50

Thread: Violating No Guns sign on private property a crime?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
    Posts
    1,762

    Violating No Guns sign on private property a crime?

    This article seems to think so.

    The notice may take two forms. First, if a property is clearly marked with very visible signs at all entrances that say “No Firearms Allowed,” then it is illegal to bring a firearm onto the property, with or without a CPL. The crime would be trespass.


    Presented for discussion.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by deanf View Post
    This article seems to think so.



    Presented for discussion.[/FONT][/COLOR]
    from the article
    The notice may take two forms. First, if a property is clearly marked with very visible signs at all entrances that say “No Firearms Allowed,” then it is illegal to bring a firearm onto the property, with or without a CPL. The crime would be trespass.
    Still I did not believe that there was any requirement to read ALL the signs posted on the entrance to any location that is generally open to the public.

    I've also seen bars that did not have signs posted and at least one club in Bellevue that was not posted properly and the LCB agent has told them that repeatedly according to the door man.

    I looked for the sign on my way out and I had to go behind the register to find the sign. I pointed out that it was not properly posted. The guy said, yeah that the owner and the liquor control board argue about it all the time and that the LCB guy says the same thing I said.

    The other thing to consider is, who would define "clearly posted"?
    Last edited by Freedom1Man; 01-20-2014 at 01:02 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)

  3. #3
    Regular Member cjohnson44546's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Memphis, TN
    Posts
    195
    While thats true in some states... from most information I can find, it is not true in Washington. They have to ask you to leave before you can be charged, just entering past a sign isn't enough, but I'm not a lawyer.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996

    There might be a negative incentive here...

    Basically, if you reasonably believe the owner or operator would welcome you into the business, you lack the intent to trespass. But if you are armed and read a no-firearms sign before entry, you no longer have that belief.

    There you go. Never read any signs, then your belief will never be threatened.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Batousaii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Kitsap Co., Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,234
    Private property rules are RULES, not laws.... Your not breaking a LAW until ordered to leave and refuse. In many instances, you have to be formally banned, THEN leave and return before your considered a "criminal trespasser".
    ~ ENCLAVE vmc ~
    The Enclave is looking for patriotic motorcycle riders in Washington State who support liberty and freedom for all. ~ Check us out!
    ~
    * " To be swayed neither by the opponent nor by his sword is the essence of swordsmanship." - Miyamoto Musashi.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Grim_Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington
    Posts
    792
    Flat out truth here in Washington state... Unless it is stated in Washington state law that it is a prohibited location for carrying a firearm, then you may carry lawfully carry a firearm. Any signage at all on private property that says "no firearms" holds no weight of law, period. You must be asked to leave by the owner or an authorized representative of the owner to leave and refuse to do such BEFORE you can be charged with trespass. But a general rule of thumb is that if any employee or obvious security of said private property yet open to the public business asks you to leave then leave with no argument even if you if you think you have reason to believe that you have a valid argument. Argue your case OFF the property.
    Last edited by Grim_Night; 01-20-2014 at 11:37 AM.
    Armed and annoyingly well informed!

    There are two constants when dealing with liberals:
    1) Liberals never quit until they are satisfied.
    2) Liberals are never satisfied.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
    Posts
    1,762
    You guys want to cite all your assertions as required by forum rules?

  8. #8
    Regular Member Grim_Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington
    Posts
    792
    Quote Originally Posted by deanf View Post
    You guys want to cite all your assertions as required by forum rules?
    There is no cite for a law that does not exist... Washington state along with MANY other states follow British law tradition that simply says that whatever is not codified as unlawful is thus lawful meaning, unless it is written in RCW as being in violation of the law, it is not a crime. One cannot cite a law that says it is lawful to wear golf pants while shopping at the grocery store because such a law does not exist :P

    But just to further make my point...

    RCW 9A.52.090
    Criminal trespass — Defenses.


    In any prosecution under RCW 9A.52.070 and 9A.52.080, it is a defense that:

    (1) A building involved in an offense under RCW 9A.52.070 was abandoned; or

    (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; or

    (3) The actor reasonably believed that the owner of the premises, or other person empowered to license access thereto, would have licensed him or her to enter or remain; or

    (4) The actor was attempting to serve legal process which includes any document required or allowed to be served upon persons or property, by any statute, rule, ordinance, regulation, or court order, excluding delivery by the mails of the United States. This defense applies only if the actor did not enter into a private residence or other building not open to the public and the entry onto the premises was reasonable and necessary for service of the legal process.
    Last edited by Grim_Night; 01-20-2014 at 12:07 PM.
    Armed and annoyingly well informed!

    There are two constants when dealing with liberals:
    1) Liberals never quit until they are satisfied.
    2) Liberals are never satisfied.

  9. #9
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Grim_Night View Post
    There is no cite for a law that does not exist... Washington state along with MANY other states follow British law tradition that simply says that whatever is not codified as unlawful is thus lawful meaning, unless it is written in RCW as being in violation of the law, it is not a crime. One cannot cite a law that says it is lawful to wear golf pants while shopping at the grocery store because such a law does not exist :P

    But just to further make my point...
    That statute you cited cuts both ways.

    RCW 9A.52.090
    Criminal trespass — Defenses.


    In any prosecution under RCW 9A.52.070 and 9A.52.080, it is a defense that:

    (1) A building involved in an offense under RCW 9A.52.070 was abandoned; or

    (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; or

    (3) The actor reasonably believed that the owner of the premises, or other person empowered to license access thereto, would have licensed him or her to enter or remain; or

    (4) The actor was attempting to serve legal process which includes any document required or allowed to be served upon persons or property, by any statute, rule, ordinance, regulation, or court order, excluding delivery by the mails of the United States. This defense applies only if the actor did not enter into a private residence or other building not open to the public and the entry onto the premises was reasonable and necessary for service of the legal process.
    there is no law making it illegal to ban guns at your business.

    so a very visible sign could be constructive notice that a condition of no guns is imposed on the premises.

    now if the "no guns rule" is buried in some 20 item list of rules off in the corner, you may have a better case, if a plainly visible sign saying "no guns" is right on the door could you argue you complied with all lawful conditions imposed on entry?

    now in most of Washington a prosecutor would never charge something like that for merely disregarding a sign, but in an area where gun rights are less popular there's always a chance someone will be running for re election and wants some "red meat" for his blue voter base.....
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  10. #10
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    That statute you cited cuts both ways.



    there is no law making it illegal to ban guns at your business.

    so a very visible sign could be constructive notice that a condition of no guns is imposed on the premises.

    now if the "no guns rule" is buried in some 20 item list of rules off in the corner, you may have a better case, if a plainly visible sign saying "no guns" is right on the door could you argue you complied with all lawful conditions imposed on entry?

    now in most of Washington a prosecutor would never charge something like that for merely disregarding a sign, but in an area where gun rights are less popular there's always a chance someone will be running for re election and wants some "red meat" for his blue voter base.....

    You are making a good point, but I think it would be a bit of a stretch to call a sign something that is "enforced" upon someone until the people of the establishment enforce it.

    The difference between a no guns sign and for say a liquor control board sign is that one has the weight of legislation behind it, yet even the liquor control board sign can be ignored if it is improperly used.


    Me I just don't go looking for signs, if I do see a definitive gun buster sign, I take my business somewhere else.

    Edit to add I know you didn't use "enforece" but impose yet the definition of impose seems to make it something enforced when I read it.
    Last edited by sudden valley gunner; 01-20-2014 at 12:41 PM.
    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)

  11. #11
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    You are making a good point, but I think it would be a bit of a stretch to call a sign something that is "enforced" upon someone until the people of the establishment enforce it.

    The difference between a no guns sign and for say a liquor control board sign is that one has the weight of legislation behind it, yet even the liquor control board sign can be ignored if it is improperly used.


    Me I just don't go looking for signs, if I do see a definitive gun buster sign, I take my business somewhere else.

    Edit to add I know you didn't use "enforece" but impose yet the definition of impose seems to make it something enforced when I read it.
    I take one look at the door, no gunbusters I just go in and do business. I've never been asked to leave anywhere. for awhile it was "Common knowledge" that the kitsap mall in silverdale banned open carry, then I saw an open carrier there walking past the security desk with a guard watching who did nothing.

    so when I turned 21 I went there OC, no gunbuster sign posted, so I walked in, bought some things and left, no trouble at all.

    point is, I assume a place is neutral if there's no visible gunbuster and if asked to leave I'll leave.

    Malls are a different subject, the big corporations built malls just to make profit by pulling traffic away from downtowns and other areas where free speech have been protected, I think that common areas of shopping malls should be always open for free speech activity and other constitutionally protected gatherings same as public streets, but that's another topic.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  12. #12
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    I take one look at the door, no gunbusters I just go in and do business. I've never been asked to leave anywhere. for awhile it was "Common knowledge" that the kitsap mall in silverdale banned open carry, then I saw an open carrier there walking past the security desk with a guard watching who did nothing.

    so when I turned 21 I went there OC, no gunbuster sign posted, so I walked in, bought some things and left, no trouble at all.

    point is, I assume a place is neutral if there's no visible gunbuster and if asked to leave I'll leave.

    Malls are a different subject, the big corporations built malls just to make profit by pulling traffic away from downtowns and other areas where free speech have been protected, I think that common areas of shopping malls should be always open for free speech activity and other constitutionally protected gatherings same as public streets, but that's another topic.

    Don't disagree with much. I just don't bother looking for signs though, I just go about my life until asked not to. If I happen to see one I'd rather take my business elsewhere.
    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)

  13. #13
    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
    You are making a good point, but I think it would be a bit of a stretch to call a sign something that is "enforced" upon someone until the people of the establishment enforce it.

    The difference between a no guns sign and for say a liquor control board sign is that one has the weight of legislation behind it, yet even the liquor control board sign can be ignored if it is improperly used.


    Me I just don't go looking for signs, if I do see a definitive gun buster sign, I take my business somewhere else.

    Edit to add I know you didn't use "enforece" but impose yet the definition of impose seems to make it something enforced when I read it.
    9.41.300
    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
    Can you help me find the law defining, CLEARLY marked?

    I've been in a couple of places that have what looked link bronze plaques that said 21 and over only but nothing about weapons/guns.

    One restaurant I went to you had to go to the bar area to pay for your food even though it was an all ages service for food and stuff.
    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)

  14. #14
    Regular Member Batousaii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Kitsap Co., Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,234
    Quote Originally Posted by Batousaii View Post
    Private property rules are RULES, not laws.... Your not breaking a LAW until ordered to leave and refuse. In many instances, you have to be formally banned, THEN leave and return before your considered a "criminal trespasser".
    Quote Originally Posted by deanf View Post
    You guys want to cite all your assertions as required by forum rules?
    Because I have seen it play out this way more times than I can, or care to remember, sometimes to my total bewilderment (like when something actually serious happens/not OC related)... So my "cite" comes from repeating the experience over, and over... and over again ... over the last ten years worh of "overs". Trust me, this is how it works (unless the cops have an agenda - then thats a whole different "police-state" ball game). Bad cops, like criminals simply dont care about the laws, your rights, or how it's really supposed to work, and infact bad cops can be worse because the consiquences just arent there for them (like they are there for the criminals /sarc).

    Last
    (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; or
    This speaks to "lawful conditions" - as in existing law, like the state liquor board has pre-existing laws establishing boundires (21 and over), music festivals etc. --- stores, malls, private grounds do not.
    Last edited by Batousaii; 01-20-2014 at 07:27 PM.
    ~ ENCLAVE vmc ~
    The Enclave is looking for patriotic motorcycle riders in Washington State who support liberty and freedom for all. ~ Check us out!
    ~
    * " To be swayed neither by the opponent nor by his sword is the essence of swordsmanship." - Miyamoto Musashi.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Thor80's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Spokane County, WA
    Posts
    299
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    That statute you cited cuts both ways.



    there is no law making it illegal to ban guns at your business.

    so a very visible sign could be constructive notice that a condition of no guns is imposed on the premises.
    (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; or
    As I understand it a company "rule" is not a LAWFUL condition. My Credit Union has a sign on the door for "No Hats/Hoodies/Sunglasses" but I have never seen someone kicked out or arrested for trespass when they forget to take their Baseball Cap off......

    -Thor
    Let me make a short, opening, blanket statement. There are no good guns. There are no bad guns. Any gun in the hands of a bad man is a bad thing. Any gun in the hands of a decent person is no threat to anybody - except bad people.

    - Charleton Heston

  16. #16
    Regular Member Vitaeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington
    Posts
    593
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    I wonder if a business could use a modified version of this sign:
    http://www.seattle.gov/police/preven...spass_Sign.pdf

    by adding a no fireams provision could then use the trespassing program for firearms?
    http://www.seattle.gov/police/preven...s/trespass.htm
    from the bottom of the 2nd link...
    "Site Disclaimer: The Seattle Police Department's website was developed to provide general information. Data contained at this location is generally not reviewed for legal sufficiency. SPD documents displayed are for reference purposes only. Their completeness or currency are not guaranteed. Links or references to other information or organizations are for reference only and do not constitute an endorsement."

    doesn't look as if this has been reviewed by the SPD's lawyers or the Prosecutor's Offie, your mileage may vary...

  17. #17
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Thor80 View Post
    As I understand it a company "rule" is not a LAWFUL condition. My Credit Union has a sign on the door for "No Hats/Hoodies/Sunglasses" but I have never seen someone kicked out or arrested for trespass when they forget to take their Baseball Cap off......

    -Thor
    Well Bat seems to agree with you and I trust his judgement. I look at that and think "lawful condition" would imply a rule that a business can legally make, like saying "we have a dress code of tailored pants, white shirts, and a tie for our business lounge" however saying "no black people allowed" violates anti discrimination laws and thus would not be a lawful condition....

    This is really all theoretical though, my only point is, I believe from my reading you could at the very least be charged if anti gunners in business and government get together..... and best not be a test case.

    plus, I have no sentimental attachment to where i spend my money. unless the private business is a monopoly created or allowed by government I would simply find a competitor.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  18. #18
    Regular Member Batousaii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Kitsap Co., Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,234
    Well, not exactly
    <snip> ... a rule that a business can legally make ... <end snip>
    This still does not equate to it being a law... private business (or any private entity really) can not make laws, they make rules, and rules dont convert to laws because someone wants them to.. In order to be trespassing, you have to first be engaged by a custodian of a property thats open to the public, and instructed to leave by that custodian, then actively refuse. It is the mechanism of active refusal that make it turn in to "criminal trespassing" not just accidentally not knowing, or because you didn't see a sign, or chose to ignore it pending custodial confrontation.... defy the custodian, and you might have a problem... return after being removed and you will have a problem... so is my repeated experience (remember the over and over, and over again thing).

    Now, if the property was completely fenced, and has "No Trespassing" signs all around, thats a different matter, because now you would have had to make a physical effort to "break in" through locks, walls, fences etc.... NOW your criminally trespassing off the bat, but not because of the sign, but because the property is obviously attempting to keep people out.
    Last edited by Batousaii; 01-22-2014 at 02:29 AM.
    ~ ENCLAVE vmc ~
    The Enclave is looking for patriotic motorcycle riders in Washington State who support liberty and freedom for all. ~ Check us out!
    ~
    * " To be swayed neither by the opponent nor by his sword is the essence of swordsmanship." - Miyamoto Musashi.

  19. #19
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    No trespassing signs have no weight of law unless your access is blocked.

    I believe the court case ruled that an open driveway/sidewalk to your front door is an implied invitation.

    I wonder if the same principle would apply to businesses.
    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)

  20. #20
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Batousaii View Post
    Private property rules are RULES, not laws.... <snip>
    Well, then why not just walk down a residential street and enter the first home that has a unlocked door. You have not broken a law until the owner of the private property asks you to leave.....right.

    Common courtesy, not too common around here it seems, is to respect the owner's wishes. Not "looking" for a sign so as to have "plausible deniability" is disrespectful and rude.

    I always look for signage. I will not patronize those businesses that ban my pistol.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Well, then why not just walk down a residential street and enter the first home that has a unlocked door. You have not broken a law until the owner of the private property asks you to leave.....right.

    Common courtesy, not too common around here it seems, is to respect the owner's wishes. Not "looking" for a sign so as to have "plausible deniability" is disrespectful and rude.

    I always look for signage. I will not patronize those businesses that ban my pistol.
    A private residence is not generally open to the public.

    I believe that your comment is of the derailing type.

    AND you're not in Washington, so your input about the laws, rules, and regulations here in Washington are not quite as welcome.

    http://www.ammoland.com/2013/12/stra...#axzz2r8saVCi9
    Apparently the gun haters have decided that since they can’t convince business owners to post anti-gun signs, maybe they should post the signs themselves.

    After Oct 1st I started to look for posted signs at my favorite establishments. I frequently go to a local chicken wing place in Greensboro and last week I noticed a simple sicker that pictured a pistol with red circle and line through it. I took it as no firearms allowed.


    Read more: http://www.ammoland.com/2013/12/stra...#ixzz2r8sh7exc
    Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
    Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook
    So given the activities of the anti-gun people, there is no reason to believe the sign even if posted.
    Last edited by Freedom1Man; 01-22-2014 at 10:41 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)

  22. #22
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    I respond to no gun signs in Washington State as I see No Shirts, No Shoes, No Service or the common We have the right to refuse service, which all require a request from the ownership, management or someone acting upon their behalf.

    It is also been known that Law Enforcement in Washington State will not cite trespass until it can be documented that they have been previously been trespassed or refuse to leave once instructed to do so in the presence of law enforcement.

    If you are going to open carry into a business with a posted sign then expect to be asked to leave which you must comply or possibly be arrested if you refuse, for trespass.
    • 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.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
    Posts
    1,762
    It is also been known that Law Enforcement in Washington State will not cite trespass until it can be documented that they have been previously been trespassed or refuse to leave once instructed to do so in the presence of law enforcement.


    Are you 100% sure about that?

    The information in the article linked in the original post is attributed to the King County Sheriff's Office. They say carry into a business that is clearly posted is a crime. The reader must infer they would arrest. The article is from '09. The latest KCSO OC training bulletin I can find is from '06. Anyone know of a more recent version of the KCSO OC training bulletin?
    Last edited by deanf; 01-22-2014 at 01:46 PM.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Batousaii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Kitsap Co., Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,234
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDave View Post
    It is also been known that Law Enforcement in Washington State will not cite trespass until it can be documented that they have been previously been trespassed or refuse to leave once instructed to do so in the presence of law enforcement.
    Quote Originally Posted by deanf View Post
    Are you 100% sure about that?
    Yes.. I am.

    - The Sheriff is counting on peoples ignorance and trust of media, infact he would be opening himself to liability should he persue this philosophy.
    Last edited by Batousaii; 01-22-2014 at 02:01 PM.
    ~ ENCLAVE vmc ~
    The Enclave is looking for patriotic motorcycle riders in Washington State who support liberty and freedom for all. ~ Check us out!
    ~
    * " To be swayed neither by the opponent nor by his sword is the essence of swordsmanship." - Miyamoto Musashi.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
    Posts
    1,762
    Yes.. I am.


    All settled then. Close the thread please!

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
  •