No guns allowed

expvideo · Nov 5, 2007

imported post

Was anything the manager or the LP officer said meant for anyone to hear other than mainsail? If not, then it was a private conversation. Just because the door is open does not mean that it is a public conversation.

More than one person (the loss prevention officer) involved in the conversation does not make it a public conversation, either. That is why the law is to inform "all parties", as in the law is assuming that there are 1or morepeople involved in the private conversation.

This conversation does not sound like it was at a loud volume, or in some way meant to be public, especially since you were at least part way in an office, and I think you may be hard pressed to convince a jury otherwise. If you want to risk walking the line and let a jury decide if you broke the law, that is your deal. Personally, I make sure that what I do is spelled out to the letter of the law.

Ajetpilot · Nov 5, 2007

imported post

IANAL. There are differences between criminal law and civil law. Could Mainsail be charged criminally? Lonnie thinks no; Marty thinks yes. Could he be sued? Probably. Anyone can sue anyone else for just about anything. But, would Wal-Mart’s gains exceed their costs (financial and bad publicity), if they prevailed in a civil suit? I doubt it. Then again, IANAL (but I think Marty is).

Marty Hayes · Nov 5, 2007

imported post

Ajetpilot wrote:

Then again, IANAL (but I think Marty is).

Not yet, but I have finished law school.

amlevin · Nov 5, 2007

imported post

Ajetpilot wrote:

IANAL. There are differences between criminal law and civil law. Could Mainsail be charged criminally? Lonnie thinks no; Marty thinks yes. Could he be sued? Probably. Anyone can sue anyone else for just about anything. But, would Wal-Mart’s gains exceed their costs (financial and bad publicity), if they prevailed in a civil suit? I doubt it. Then again, IANAL (but I think Marty is).

Cost is not an issue with a corporation such as Wally World. They have either staff counsel or attorneys on retainer in every state they do business in. Their "Legal Expenses" are a line item in their annual budget. One case, more or less, doesn't even get noticed in their day to day operation. The only ones that make the news are where they are sued for back or overtime wages and when they are sued to block expansion.

FWIW, how many here have attorneys on retainer? That have "Legal Expenses" as a budget item. That use 7 or more figures when showing these expenses?

gregma · Nov 5, 2007

imported post

expvideo wrote:

Mainsail wrote:

(I’m working directly from the recording, so everything in quotesis verbatim.)

Click to expand...

You know it's illegal to record a conversation in Washington Statewithout notification and consent of all parties.

RCW 9.73.030

(1) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, it shall be unlawful for any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or the state of Washington, its agencies, and political subdivisions to intercept, or record any:

(a) Private communication transmitted by telephone, telegraph, radio, or other device between two or more individuals between points within or without the state by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record and/or transmit said communication regardless how such device is powered or actuated, without first obtaining the consent of all the participants in the communication;

(b) Private conversation, by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record or transmit such conversation regardless how the device is powered or actuated without first obtaining the consent of all the persons engaged in the conversation.

Click to expand...

State v. Flora makes an exception to Law Enforcement, meaning thata conversation with a police officer is not considered private, and you are not required to inform them.

Is "Private conversation" defined anywhere in the RCW's? I can't find one...

joeroket · Nov 5, 2007

imported post

I cannot find onethat would apply to that sectioneither.

joeroket · Nov 5, 2007

imported post

expvideo wrote:

Was anything the manager or the LP officer said meant for anyone to hear other than mainsail? If not, then it was a private conversation. Just because the door is open does not mean that it is a public conversation.

Actually this is incorrect. Just because it was only meant for Mainsail to hear has no bearing on privacy issues. If the statements made to Mainsail were made where peoplewere lawfully in apublic area then it could not be considered a private conversation. The participants of the conversation must have a reasonable expectation of privacy to consider it private. If the conversation Mainsail had was anywhere around the public then it is not a private conversation. If he was halfway in the office with the door open to the public then it was not reasonable to expect it to be a private conversation.

All privacy laws depend on the reasonable expectation of privacy.

amlevin · Nov 5, 2007

imported post

gregma wrote:

Is "Private conversation" defined anywhere in the RCW's? I can't find one...

I couldn't find a definition in RCW either. I did find several other sources and they all seem to confirm that when one is speaking to another in a manner that indicates he doesn't want to share the information beyond thos immediately present, the conversation is private. It will depend on the "volume level" of the conversation, for example a quiet talk or a heated arguement.

I would imagine that if it ever came to it, the legal definition would be whether one had the right to expect privacy in the conversation. In my mind, whenever there are more than two parties involved there is no expectation of privacy.

joeroket · Nov 5, 2007

imported post

amlevin wrote:

gregma wrote:

Is "Private conversation" defined anywhere in the RCW's? I can't find one...

Click to expand...

I couldn't find a definition in RCW either. I did find several other sources and they all seem to confirm that when one is speaking to another in a manner that indicates he doesn't want to share the information beyond thos immediately present, the conversation is private. It will depend on the "volume level" of the conversation, for example a quiet talk or a heated arguement.

I would imagine that if it ever came to it, the legal definition would be whether one had the right to expect privacy in the conversation. In my mind, whenever there are more than two parties involved there is no expectation of privacy.

I agree Amlevin, except that I think it is quite possible to have a private conversation with multiple parties, however one must be cautious of what is said if they want to keep it private. I read one persons thought that if you want to keep something private keep your mouth shut.

Mike · Nov 5, 2007

imported post

What are you guys talking about? is WA a 1 party state or not?

Gray Peterson · Nov 5, 2007

imported post

As always, "It depends".

ijusam · Nov 5, 2007

imported post

Marty Hayes wrote:

Well guys, I beg to differ regarding what constitutes a private conversation, and I believe Wal-mart would see the issue differently, and they have millions of dollars to spend on attorney fees. In any event, I would be careful.

Marty

While it is true that walmart has millions of dollors to spend on attorney fees, they (IMO) would have no interest in taking this to court. Did or could it harm Walmart? no. I'm sure if the manager thought he was injured in some way he could take it up on his own. I'm sure he would lose though as there is no expactation of privacy, he was stating a policy (maybe just his personal policy) not confiding in you. Walmart is going to reserve it's lawyer fees for the "slip and fall" artists and others that could cost the corporaation money.

Trigger Dr · Nov 5, 2007

imported post

Lonnie Wilson wrote:

As always, "It depends".

Lonnie, That reminds me of something one of my professors said.

'"There is only one thing positive in law... That is...Nothing is positive in law."

Jim

BluesBear · Nov 6, 2007

imported post

How about we get back to the topic instead of having a urinals at ten paces duel about recording. For one thing the recording was merely mention to show he was quoting what was said accurately.

The important thing here is Wal-Mart corporate policy. As a former Wal-Mart/Sam's Club employee I have stated before that it IS INDEED the corporate policy of Wal-Mart/Sam's Club to allow ANY and ALL LAWFUL carry by all Wal-Mart/Sam's Club customers. EVERY employee goes through a multiple day training/orientation class. A large portion of that class is devoted ho the WM/SC policy of how to treat customers. Allowing customers, but never employees, to possess/carry firearms on company property is covered in that class. It is also printed in their employee manual.

If ANYONE in the store says different immediately ask to speak to a theStore Manager, if they are not there ask for "amanager on duty" or at least a"salaried member of managment". Those are the ONLY WM/SC employees than can "tell" a customer anything. If you get no satrisfaction from them, then instruct them (not ask them, not hint to them, but TELL them) to "call Bensonville". And if they don't then immediately ask them for the number of corporate headquarters in Bensonville. They are REQUIRED to give you that information immediately. Not look it up and notify you later, not call you back, not mail it to you, but right damn then and there on the spot they are required to give you the phone number. Refusing to do so is grounds for termination.When you get that number, you call it ASAP.

Once a week EVERY store has a conference call "meeting" with corporate. This is where the store managers often get "issued a new one" if you get my meaning. The last thing a store manager wants to discuss is a clearcut violation of long established corporate policy. A store manager, telling a customer, to their face, that they cannot enter the store while lawfully carrying a firearm is a customer rights violation and is subject to disciplinary action up to and including termination.

Sounds like either thatStore Manager needs a "new one" of that store needs a new manager.

Mainsail · Nov 6, 2007

imported post

BluesBear wrote:

Allowing customers, but never employees, to possess/carry firearms on company property is covered in that class. It is also printed in their employee manual.

Thanks BluesBear. I just called the Lakewood Wal-Mart and spoke (coincidently) to Mr. Peasley again. He gave me the number for corporate in Bensonville (1-800-walmart). He contends that they can ask you to conceal or leave the premise in the name of ‘public safety’. He said that in the 41 years that he’s lived in WA he’s never seen anyone walk into a Wal-Mart with a pistol strapped to their hip. He further stated he had done a lot of research since our meeting and he is allowed to ask me to leave or even call the police if there are any concerns raised by customers. He sounded quite smug and sure of this position.

just_a_car · Nov 6, 2007

imported post

Mainsail wrote:

BluesBear wrote:

Allowing customers, but never employees, to possess/carry firearms on company property is covered in that class. It is also printed in their employee manual.

Click to expand...

Thanks BluesBear. I just called the Lakewood Wal-Mart and spoke (coincidently) to Mr. Peasley again. He gave me the number for corporate in Bensonville (1-800-walmart). He contends that they can ask you to conceal or leave the premise in the name of ‘public safety’. He said that in the 41 years that he’s lived in WA he’s never seen anyone walk into a Wal-Mart with a pistol strapped to their hip. He further stated he had done a lot of research since our meeting and he is allowed to ask me to leave or even call the police if there are any concerns raised by customers. He sounded quite smug and sure of this position.

Yano, I don't think it's illegal to hunt crow if you have a small game hunting license... I hear they're rather good in a pie. *smirk*

Might I suggest offering some quality WASHINGTON crow to Mr. Peasley?...

Mainsail · Nov 6, 2007

imported post

Just off the phone with corporate. They tell me that Wal-Mart’s corporate policy varies from state to state. The woman I spoke to said that Mr. Peasley is not the store manager, but something like an associate or assistant manager. She took my number and will contact the actual store manager who will call me and provide their Washington firearms policy.

I’m getting this vision of a half dozen of us picketing outside the store with signs that say, “Wal-Mart Doesn’t Believe in American Freedom” or something along those lines.

HankT · Nov 6, 2007

imported post

Mainsail wrote:

Just off the phone with corporate. They tell me that Wal-Mart’s corporate policy varies from state to state.

It's really worse than that...

The Wal-Mart Problem

Mainsail wrote:

I’m getting this vision of a half dozen of us picketing outside the store with signs that say, “Wal-Mart Doesn’t Believe in American Freedom” or something along those lines.

Whoa. No can do that.

National Ammo Day/Week is coming up.

G27 · Nov 6, 2007

imported post

Yanno, it really angers me that it "varies". I am not sure why a corporate store would not just follow state law. Seems to be the easiest solution. I hate that I can carry in Poulsbo Wal-Mart all the time and not get any flak, but you carry in a Wal-Mart and it's like, "OMFG MAN WITH A GUN!!!!!!!!111 He is gonna rob/rape/murder us all!!!!1." Give me a break.

just_a_car · Nov 6, 2007

imported post

G27 wrote:

Yanno, it really angers me that it "varies". I am not sure why a corporate store would not just follow state law. Seems to be the easiest solution. I hate that I can carry in Poulsbo Wal-Mart all the time and not get any flak, but you carry in a Wal-Mart and it's like, "OMFG MAN WITH A GUN!!!!!!!!111 He is gonna rob/rape/murder us all!!!!1." Give me a break.

G27, Mainsail said "They tell me that Wal-Mart’s corporate policy varies from state to state." so essentially, that means they are "just follow(ing) state law"... from state to state.

No guns allowed

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Site Co-Founder

Founder's Club Member - Moderator

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

State Researcher

Regular Member

Regular Member