• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

SCCA anti-gun?

BigDaddy5

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2006
Messages
100
Location
, ,
imported post

Went in for a check up today, had to empty my pockets for part of it (CT scan). I usually leave my bersa in the car, but today I forgot. I was then told by the nurse that SCCA (Seattle Cancer Care Alliance) has a policy against firearms. I couldn't find anything on their website nor any of their in hospital literature. Is this indeed the case?

BTW, there are no posted signs.
 

molonlabetn

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2006
Messages
450
Location
, Tennessee, USA
imported post

Whew!...

Saw the title and thought you were talking about the Sports Car Club of America at first...

THAT would have pissed me off. It's still pretty disgusting that any organization would lower themselves to that...
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
imported post

molonlabetn wrote:
Whew!...

Saw the title and thought you were talking about the Sports Car Club of America at first...

THAT would have pissed me off. It's still pretty disgusting that any organization would lower themselves to that...
As past 3-time Region 51 RE, regional driver, Chief of this and that, I heartily agree. I would be careful since the SportsCCA has not missed any opportunity to kneel at the Baals of PC and money - some of the reasons I am no longer associated.
 

BigDaddy5

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2006
Messages
100
Location
, ,
imported post

molonlabetn wrote:
Whew!...

Saw the title and thought you were talking about the Sports Car Club of America at first...

THAT would have pissed me off. It's still pretty disgusting that any organization would lower themselves to that...


Haha, sorry, I didn't realize there were more SCCA's in the WA area.

I still don't know if it's the hospital, or if it's just a misguided nurse. I can't find any policy anywhere that states they prohibit firearms...but I'd like to know before my next check up, next week! Though I think that one is just a consultation, so no removing pocket contents.
 

JSK333

Regular Member
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
190
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
imported post

My guess would be she's likely referring to their employee policy and assume it applies to anyone in the buildings. Most corporations ban their employees from carrying.
 

BigDaddy5

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2006
Messages
100
Location
, ,
imported post

Well I went back today for another check up, and browsed some of the posters hanging on their walls while I was there, and sure enough, "weapons" are prohibited and if found they can be "confiscated." It goes on to say that if security personel suspect you have a weapon, they can search you.

Hmmm....Doesn't seem quite legal, but they do prohibit firearms. Unfortunate...I'm sure there are others who have to visit this facility as well. I wish there was another alternative, but alas...
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

Just feeling a little devilish here. What do you suppose would happen if you just handed it the nurse while saying, "Oh! Sorry, would you hold this for me, then?"
 

BigDaddy5

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2006
Messages
100
Location
, ,
imported post

If you would have seen his expression when I just told him, after he asked me to remove the contents of my pocket...

I believe he would have quite literally shit himself, freaked out, hid from me the rest of the day, and possibly cried.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

BigDaddy5 wrote:
If you would have seen his expression when I just told him, after he asked me to remove the contents of my pocket...

I believe he would have quite literally shit himself, freaked out, hid from me the rest of the day, and possibly cried.
:D:D:D:D
 

thebastidge

Regular Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
313
Location
2519 E Fourth Plain Blvd, Vancouver Washington, US
imported post

Well, they could definitely ask you to leave, but I don't see how private security can search you, or confiscate YOUR property.

If they attempted to, then it would be assault, unlawful detention, and theft, would it not?

Even department store security has to wait until you leave the premises to actually tackle and detain you for the police. And that's in order to retain the property of their employer, not yours...

I'm sure that their security more often deals with criminals illegally carrying weapons in the emergency room or attempting to steal drugs, in which case the security guys probably don't get charged with anything because the perp has more to worry about dealing with their own legal mess. Since of course, private citizens are not subject to pro forma 4th Amendment procedures, anything a security guard turns over to cops becomes evidence, right?
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
imported post

Private security guards are not held to lawful search and seizure like LEO's are. Anything they find during a search typically can be used in court unless it was during a search in the presence of a LEO in which case PC or an arrest is required for the evidence to be used. If they try and search you then you can leave the premises. I doubt it would be assault as a search of a person would hardly qualify as intent to do harm.
 

thebastidge

Regular Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
313
Location
2519 E Fourth Plain Blvd, Vancouver Washington, US
imported post

Well, the implication was that they would forcibly search you and confiscate your weapon if they suspected you had one.

I guess I should have been more clear in my wording- if they did anything other than ask you to leave, or ask you to relinquish a weapon, in other words, anything physical, then they would be assaulting and unlawfully detaining you, as long as you hadn't broken any laws (signs and corporate policies do not count).

"Private security guards are not held to lawful search and seizure like LEO's are. "

I think that's what I said, except I used the possibly more correct term "pro forma" rather than lawful. :)

A security guard can't "unlawfully" search you because there is no law against search by a private citizen. But if he forcibly detains you and physically manhandles you, then he has committed assault, unless he can produce the justification that he was protecting himself or others from a clear threat, not a person who committed no legal infraction. As far as I can tell, violating a posted policy against firearmsdoes not constitute a priori trespass- they still have to ask you to leave before your presence becomes illegal. Also, if he siezes your property, he has committed theft. If he is armed and uses the threat of physical force, he has committed armed robbery. The difference between theft and government 'seizure' is thatthe latteris under color of authority andit is illegal to resist the act physically (extrapolating from 'resisting arrest'), but itmay be (must be?)redressed by challenging the legitimacy of the seizure under formal due process laws.

In other words, if a cop takes your gun illegally, it is still illegal for you to resist if you're aware he is a cop. If a robber or private citizen attempts to deprive you of property, it IS legal to resist, in a manner consistent with logical escalation of force, i.e. physical force to resist the theft, then deadly force if and when the perp threatens your life or well-being in reaction to your physical force resistance of the theft.

I can't brandish my gun to prevent you taking my car that I left running at the curb while I grab a cuppa at Starbucks. But if you're smashing open the window of my car in my driveway, and when I challenge you, you start toward me waving the crowbar, then I can shoot you because you're now a credible threat to my life.

Back to the security guard: just because somebody has a shiny piece of metal on the chest, and a blue-ish looking set of clothes, doesn't mean he has any authority to detain you. There are laws against impersonating a police officer, I'm not aware of any penalties for simply dressing like a security guard. Who knows who that guy really is? There have been cases of people impersonating both and abusing people's respect for authority.

If the rent-a-cop approaches you in a reasonable manner and reasonably requests reasonable things, fine. If they think they are THE MAN, then it is time to start considering how far one will comply. (I say this despite having briefly paid my bills bywearing a goofy-ass security guard uniform for several months during one of the more benighted period of my life. Licensed by the state of Oregon, no less.)

I hope I made sense through all of my meandering.
 

Sitrep

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2007
Messages
150
Location
Here and There, Washington, USA
imported post

thebastidge wrote:
I hope I made sense through all of my meandering.
Damn, I forgot to leave a trail of breadcrumbs.:)

I suspect the sign saying that "if security personnel suspect you have a weapon, they can search you." may also be to protect the hospital in cases where they need to search an unconscious person. I'm just guessing at that though.

P.S. I don't really know what pro forma means, my Latin is a bit rusty.
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
imported post

Sitrep wrote:
I suspect the sign saying that "if security personnel suspect you have a weapon, they can search you." may also be to protect the hospital in cases where they need to search an unconscious person. I'm just guessing at that though.
My guess is that they would call that a medical exam.;)
 

just_a_car

Regular Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
2,558
Location
Auburn, Washington, USA
imported post

Well, thebastidge didn't cite any of Washington's laws. Mostly sounded like opinion and/or experience, which we've all learned that experience with LEO's can be far from what's actually a law.

Also, the sign stated "security personnel", which could mean just a rent-a-cop and not an LEO. They scare me more than LEO's, since a fair amount seem to have a superiority complex to some degree. Not all, but a fair amount that I've met.
 

T-Man

New member
Joined
Jul 2, 2007
Messages
2
Location
Edmonds, Washington, USA
imported post

BigDaddy5- SCCA'spolicy against weaponsis derivedfrom their alliance (merger) with UW Medical Center few years back. WAC 478-124-020 (2) (e) pertaining to UW, which includes UWMC,Fred Hutch, Harbor View and Childrens' Hospital isthe basis forthe policy. -TMan
 

Comp-tech

State Researcher
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
934
Location
, Alabama, USA
imported post

just_a_car wrote:
Also, the sign stated "security personnel", which could mean just a rent-a-cop and not an LEO. They scare me more than LEO's, since a fair amount seem to have a superiority complex to some degree. Not all, but a fair amount that I've met.
I overheard a "gangsta wannabe" tell a mall security guard "you can't do that, you ain't no cop"...the guard replied
"that's right and I can kick the shit outa' you without police brutality charges too".....sorry, I know the guard was in the wrong for his "superior attitude" but, I had to laugh.
 

just_a_car

Regular Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
2,558
Location
Auburn, Washington, USA
imported post

T-Man wrote:
BigDaddy5- SCCA'spolicy against weaponsis derivedfrom their alliance (merger) with UW Medical Center few years back. WAC 478-124-020 (2) (e) pertaining to UW, which includes UWMC,Fred Hutch, Harbor View and Childrens' Hospital isthe basis forthe policy. -TMan
One problem there T-Man, if you go to the bottom, they reference RCW 28B.20.130 as the "Statutory Authority" and the only part of it that gives them the right to have that policy is subsection (1):

"(1) To have full control of the university and its property of various kinds, except as otherwise provided by law."

Note where it says "except as otherwise provided by law"... Now, I'm not a lawyer, but that says to me that my lawful carry of a firearm is exempted from their authority.

Also, this is why the University of Washington Student Code of Conduct has reproduced that reference and in part (6) proclaim:

"(6) Nothing herein shall be construed to deny students their legally and/or constitutionally protected rights."

...and guess what the Washington State Constitution affirms my right to? Yup! RKBA!... and so does the US version.

....but I'm not a lawyer. ;)
 

just_a_car

Regular Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
2,558
Location
Auburn, Washington, USA
imported post

Comp-tech wrote:
just_a_car wrote:
Also, the sign stated "security personnel", which could mean just a rent-a-cop and not an LEO. They scare me more than LEO's, since a fair amount seem to have a superiority complex to some degree. Not all, but a fair amount that I've met.
I overheard a "gangsta wannabe" tell a mall security guard "you can't do that, you ain't no cop"...the guard replied
"that's right and I can kick the shit outa' you without police brutality charges too".....sorry, I know the guard was in the wrong for his "superior attitude" but, I had to laugh.
*chuckle* Nah... that's funny and that kid had it comin'. I think the guard was actually in the right here... that kid's parents obviously failed somewhere along the line and now the community (whom this guard is a part of) is now left to teach him about the real world... and some manners, at the very least. Maybe if his pappy would have pulled out the belt a couple times when he was bad (if his father was even around), he might have been a little more respectful and not on the bad side of the guard in the first place.

They're not all bad, it's just that many do seem to have the complex I mentioned... to some degree.
 
Top