Encounter at IKEA

imported post

deanf wrote:

It's not an assertion, it's just a concept presented for discussion.

Click to expand...

The "No Guns" sign is saying "If you carry a gun here, you are tresspassing [sic]. Please leave now." Next legal step: arrest.

Click to expand...

I'm a little dense, I know, but that sounds suspiciously like a declarative statement, not speculation. Probably just me.

imported post

ScottNH wrote:

A WA law cite backing up this assertion would be nice, though.

Click to expand...

A law backing up what assertion?

imported post

ScottNH wrote:

You are, of course, exactly correct.Thisis the WA forum, but the thread had drifted Eastward, and I blindly went with it, and we ended up discussing VA law. Sorry.

A WA law cite backing up this assertion would be nice, though.

Click to expand...

In Washingtn there is no law that adresses this directly. If a Property Owner posts his business/property with a NO Firearms! sign, and someone is found to be carrying in defiance of this, there is no law to charge that person for the carrying past that sign. The Property Owner has to ask the person carrying to leave, first, and if they refuse the party can be removed by Police and charged with trespass.

Nothing kicks in until the person, when asked to leave, refuses and it is only trespass. This also applies to drunks, disorderly conduct, and people that refuse to wear shirt and shoes.

imported post

amlevin wrote:

ScottNH wrote:

You are, of course, exactly correct.Thisis the WA forum, but the thread had drifted Eastward, and I blindly went with it, and we ended up discussing VA law. Sorry.

A WA law cite backing up this assertion would be nice, though.

Click to expand...

In Washingtn there is no law that adresses this directly. If a Property Owner posts his business/property with a NO Firearms! sign, and someone is found to be carrying in defiance of this, there is no law to charge that person for the carrying past that sign. The Property Owner has to ask the person carrying to leave, first, and if they refuse the party can be removed by Police and charged with trespass.

Nothing kicks in until the person, when asked to leave, refuses and it is only trespass. This also applies to drunks, disorderly conduct, and people that refuse to wear shirt and shoes.

Click to expand...

Thank you. This is the way I thought the law read.

imported post

gregma wrote:

ScottNH wrote:

A WA law cite backing up this assertion would be nice, though.

Click to expand...

A law backing up what assertion?

Click to expand...

It can be argued that the posting of the sign is the same as a verbal request to leave. Same as a general "No Tresspassing" sign conspicuously posted negates the need for a verbal warning before you could be arrested for tresspassing.

The "No Guns" sign is saying "If you carry a gun here, you are tresspassing. Please leave now." Next legal step: arrest.

Click to expand...

This one.

imported post

The Property Owner has to ask the person carrying to leave, first, and if they refuse the party can be removed by Police and charged with trespass.

Click to expand...

How do you know this to be true?

Nothing kicks in until the person, when asked to leave, refuses . . .

Click to expand...

Isn't the sign telling you not to enter the property, which would seem to have more legal weight that a request to leave after you have entered?

imported post

[align=left]deanf wrote:

The Property Owner has to ask the person carrying to leave, first, and if they refuse the party can be removed by Police and charged with trespass.

Click to expand...

How do you know this to be true?

Click to expand...

[/align]

Nothing kicks in until the person, when asked to leave, refuses . . .

Click to expand...

Isn't the sign telling you not to enter the property, which would seem to have more legal weight that a request to leave after you have entered?

Click to expand...

Neither one has much legal weight. It's the criminal trespass you serve them that holds some sway. If you want the police to get them out of your business/campus/whatever, they'll ask them to leave. If they come back after being criminally trespassed, they'll be arrested. Working security has led me to serve a few criminal trespasses, and the police will only offer to help encourage people to leave until they've been trespassed and defy the order.

imported post

Ok to settle the VA aspect, here is the relevant statute that states that written communication is sufficient.

§ 18.2-119. Trespass after having been forbidden to do so; penalties.
If any person without authority of law goes upon or remains upon the
lands, buildings or premises of another, or any portion or area
thereof, after having been forbidden to do so, either orally or in
writing, by the owner, lessee, custodian or other person lawfully in
charge thereof, or after having been forbidden to do so by a sign or
signs posted by such persons or by the holder of any easement or
other right-of-way authorized by the instrument creating such
interest to post such signs on such lands, structures, premises or
portion or area thereof at a place or places where it or they may be
reasonably seen, or if any person, whether he is the owner, tenant or
otherwise entitled to the use of such land, building or premises,
goes upon, or remains upon such land, building or premises after
having been prohibited from doing so by a court of competent
jurisdiction by an order issued pursuant to §§ 16.1-253, 16.1-253.1,
16.1-253.4, 16.1-278.2 through 16.1-278.6, 16.1-278.8, 16.1-278.14,
16.1-278.15, 16.1-279.1, 19.2-152.8, 19.2-152.9 or § 19.2-152.10 or
an ex parte order issued pursuant to § 20-103, and after having been
served with such order, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
This section shall not be construed to affect in any way the
provisions of §§ 18.2-132 through 18.2-136.

As for Washington, I couldn't find anything similar. So I'm holding to my theory that because signage doesn't hold any weight in trespassing someone from their premises, they are being green and not wasting plastic posting worthless signs.

So, all things considered, I would not be shocked or surprised in the least if Ikea has a no guns policy and they can consequently ask people to leave for it. That is part of the joys of this free nation and our (dwindling) property rights.

imported post

eBratt wrote:

As for Washington, I couldn't find anything similar. So I'm holding to my theory that because signage doesn't hold any weight in trespassing someone from their premises, they are being green and not wasting plastic posting worthless signs.

Click to expand...

And here is relavant Washington code:


RCW 9A.52.070Criminal trespass in the first degree.(1) A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the first degree if he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building.

(2) Criminal trespass in the first degree is a gross misdemeanor.

RCW 9A.52.080Criminal trespass in the second degree.(1) A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the second degree if he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises of another under circumstances not constituting criminal trespass in the first degree.

(2) Criminal trespass in the second degree is a misdemeanor.



And the kicker...

RCW 9A.52.090Criminal 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


So, as you can see, even if they DID post a sign saying "No Firearms", according to the exception, if the premises were open at the time to members of the public, and the person was obeying the law (Open Carry is lawful), then they are exempt from criminal trespass. In fact, it might be argued that even after being asked to leave, if the OC'er stayed they still could not be prosecuted with Criminal trespass because of 9A.52.090. Of course you could still be arrested and cited for it.

You can also see that our statute is VERY vauge as to exactly what Criminal Trespass is!

imported post

gregma wrote:

eBratt wrote:

As for Washington, I couldn't find anything similar. So I'm holding to my theory that because signage doesn't hold any weight in trespassing someone from their premises, they are being green and not wasting plastic posting worthless signs.

Click to expand...

And here is relavant Washington code:


RCW 9A.52.070Criminal trespass in the first degree.(1) A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the first degree if he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building.

(2) Criminal trespass in the first degree is a gross misdemeanor.

RCW 9A.52.080Criminal trespass in the second degree.(1) A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the second degree if he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises of another under circumstances not constituting criminal trespass in the first degree.

(2) Criminal trespass in the second degree is a misdemeanor.



And the kicker...

RCW 9A.52.090Criminal 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
So, as you can see, even if they DID post a sign saying "No Firearms", according to the exception, if the premises were open at the time to members of the public, and the person was obeying the law (Open Carry is lawful), then they are exempt from criminal trespass. In fact, it might be argued that even after being asked to leave, if the OC'er stayed they still could not be prosecuted with Criminal trespass because of 9A.52.090. Of course you could still be arrested and cited for it.

You can also see that our statute is VERY vauge as to exactly what Criminal Trespass is!

Click to expand...

I agree that signs carry no weight in a criminal trespass, however once you have been asked to leave you are no longer lawfully on the premises and you are trespassing. I do not believe 9a.52.090 has any weight once you have been asked to leave.

imported post

joeroket wrote:

gregma wrote:

eBratt wrote:

As for Washington, I couldn't find anything similar. So I'm holding to my theory that because signage doesn't hold any weight in trespassing someone from their premises, they are being green and not wasting plastic posting worthless signs.

Click to expand...

And here is relavant Washington code:


RCW 9A.52.070Criminal trespass in the first degree.(1) A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the first degree if he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building.

(2) Criminal trespass in the first degree is a gross misdemeanor.

RCW 9A.52.080Criminal trespass in the second degree.(1) A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the second degree if he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises of another under circumstances not constituting criminal trespass in the first degree.

(2) Criminal trespass in the second degree is a misdemeanor.



And the kicker...

RCW 9A.52.090Criminal 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
So, as you can see, even if they DID post a sign saying "No Firearms", according to the exception, if the premises were open at the time to members of the public, and the person was obeying the law (Open Carry is lawful), then they are exempt from criminal trespass. In fact, it might be argued that even after being asked to leave, if the OC'er stayed they still could not be prosecuted with Criminal trespass because of 9A.52.090. Of course you could still be arrested and cited for it.

You can also see that our statute is VERY vauge as to exactly what Criminal Trespass is!

Click to expand...

I agree that signs carry no weight in a criminal trespass, however once you have been asked to leave you are no longer lawfully on the premises and you are trespassing. I do not believe 9a.52.090 has any weight once you have been asked to leave.

Click to expand...

The other thread is a little different than this thread since Ikea is "open to the public", and a private employer is not necessarily so. I can find several instances in RCW that specifically excludes a place that is "open to the public" when talking about other issues. I'm not convinced that a business that is "open to the public", at least according to RCW, is considered private real property. Those parts of the business that is not "open to the public" are however.

Notice in 9A.52 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.52&full=true) the judicious use of the "open to the public" term when qualifying definitions. Mainly stating that those areas that are "open to the public" are exempt from the definitions.

Of course there may be plenty of case law to contradict the statutory definition, I just can't find any that pertains to a place of business open to the public.

imported post

gregma wrote:

joeroket wrote:

gregma wrote:

eBratt wrote:

As for Washington, I couldn't find anything similar. So I'm holding to my theory that because signage doesn't hold any weight in trespassing someone from their premises, they are being green and not wasting plastic posting worthless signs.

Click to expand...

And here is relavant Washington code:


RCW 9A.52.070Criminal trespass in the first degree.(1) A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the first degree if he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building.

(2) Criminal trespass in the first degree is a gross misdemeanor.

RCW 9A.52.080Criminal trespass in the second degree.(1) A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the second degree if he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises of another under circumstances not constituting criminal trespass in the first degree.

(2) Criminal trespass in the second degree is a misdemeanor.



And the kicker...

RCW 9A.52.090Criminal 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
So, as you can see, even if they DID post a sign saying "No Firearms", according to the exception, if the premises were open at the time to members of the public, and the person was obeying the law (Open Carry is lawful), then they are exempt from criminal trespass. In fact, it might be argued that even after being asked to leave, if the OC'er stayed they still could not be prosecuted with Criminal trespass because of 9A.52.090. Of course you could still be arrested and cited for it.

You can also see that our statute is VERY vauge as to exactly what Criminal Trespass is!

Click to expand...

I agree that signs carry no weight in a criminal trespass, however once you have been asked to leave you are no longer lawfully on the premises and you are trespassing. I do not believe 9a.52.090 has any weight once you have been asked to leave.

Click to expand...

The other thread is a little different than this thread since Ikea is "open to the public", and a private employer is not necessarily so. I can find several instances in RCW that specifically excludes a place that is "open to the public" when talking about other issues. I'm not convinced that a business that is "open to the public", at least according to RCW, is considered private real property. Those parts of the business that is not "open to the public" are however.

Notice in 9A.52 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.52&full=true) the judicious use of the "open to the public" term when qualifying definitions. Mainly stating that those areas that are "open to the public" are exempt from the definitions.

Of course there may be plenty of case law to contradict the statutory definition, I just can't find any that pertains to a place of business open to the public.

Click to expand...

It's the definitions of 9a.52 that I think you are missing. It doesn't matter if it is open to the public. Once you are asked to leave you must comply because you are no longer lawfully on the premises.

Of course it could be something I am missing too.

imported post

I see quite a bit of speculation here about what the law does and does not cover or allow.

The situation here is pretty well defined. If you are on private property -- which clearly IKEA, Costco and any other retail store happens to be -- and you are asked to leave, and you do not, or stick around and debate the issue -- you are trespassing.

It could be a criminal trespass, or a simple trespass, but it IS a trespass.

imported post

I like to think of it this way. If they don't want my business, I'll leave and never come back and tell you guys and then you guys won't go there either. But it's a damn if I do, damn if I don't situation. They have to respect my right to carry a gun, but I also have to respect their right if they don't want it in their store. You wouldn't carry a gun to someone's house if they didn't know about it, right? It's just not respectful. If us gun owners want any respect, we have to respect other people's wishes, too. I love my gun and my rights as an American citizen, but I know when not to push it. It sounds lame, but that's just how life is.

imported post

I'd have to agree with G27 on this, fighting the issue of trespassing when asked to leave is just going to give the anti-gunners more fuel to their fire. Being respectful of the companies wishes and leaving isn't going to hurt you and if it really bothers you that much, you can call their corporate office and inquire with them on their policies. It's all about respect here. I'd hate to see someone go to jail over a shopping trip.

That's just my opinion though.

-Josh