Violating No Guns sign on private property a crime?

deanf · Jan 20, 2014

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.

Freedom1Man · Jan 20, 2014

deanf said:
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"?

cjohnson44546 · Jan 20, 2014

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.

Difdi · Jan 20, 2014

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.

Batousaii · Jan 20, 2014

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".

Grim_Night · Jan 20, 2014

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.

deanf · Jan 20, 2014

You guys want to cite all your assertions as required by forum rules?

Grim_Night · Jan 20, 2014

deanf said:
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

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.

EMNofSeattle · Jan 20, 2014

Grim_Night said:
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

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.....

sudden valley gunner · Jan 20, 2014

EMNofSeattle said:
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.

EMNofSeattle · Jan 20, 2014

sudden valley gunner said:
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.

sudden valley gunner · Jan 20, 2014

EMNofSeattle said:
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.

Freedom1Man · Jan 20, 2014

sudden valley gunner said:
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.

Batousaii · Jan 20, 2014

Batousaii said:
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".

deanf said:
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.

Thor80 · Jan 20, 2014

EMNofSeattle said:
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

Vitaeus · Jan 21, 2014

NavyLCDR said:
I wonder if a business could use a modified version of this sign:
http://www.seattle.gov/police/prevention/business/docs/Trespass_Sign.pdf

by adding a no fireams provision could then use the trespassing program for firearms?
http://www.seattle.gov/police/prevention/business/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...

EMNofSeattle · Jan 21, 2014

Thor80 said:
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.

Batousaii · Jan 22, 2014

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.

sudden valley gunner · Jan 22, 2014

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.

OC for ME · Jan 22, 2014

Batousaii said:
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.

Violating No Guns sign on private property a crime?

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member