Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 78

Thread: Kitsap Credit Union posts doors

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Gig Harbor, Washington, USA
    Posts
    53

    Post imported post

    Kitsap Credit Union has recently posted signs on their doors (gig Harbor locations)that say
    "No Weapons RCW 9.41.270"

    Is this legal? What are they trying to do? What shoud I do?
    I thought 9.41.270 concerned itimidating with a weapon.

    OJ

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    tjschul wrote:
    Kitsap Credit Union has recently posted signs on their doors (gig Harbor locations)that say
    "No Weapons RCW 9.41.270"

    Is this legal? What are they trying to do? What shoud I do?
    I thought 9.41.270 concerned itimidating with a weapon.

    OJ
    Sounds like they don't know what they are talking about. To say "no weapons allowed" is all they have to do is say that. To post an RCW means that unless that RCW actually says you can't, you still can.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    It is actually makes sense for them to post that RCW. It means that if you carry it in a manner inconsistent with 9.41.270 that they can also get you for trespassing because if you do carry a firearm in thier establishment inconsistent with that RCW then you are not welcome on thier premises as posted. It does not mean that you can't carry it just means that you are not welcome if you carry in a manner inconsistent with 9.41.270.

    Thats how I interpret thier posting and since all of us carry within the scope of that law then it does not apply to us.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Gig Harbor, Washington, USA
    Posts
    53

    Post imported post

    So, does a "no weapons allowed" posting carry any legal weight?
    Which RCW would give such a sign authority?
    What are the legal consequences of ignoring it.. is this trespassing?



    I will honor their wishes even if it doesn't, but will let them know why I'm no longer a member.


    OJ



  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    It is actually makes sense for them to post that RCW. It means that if you carry it in a manner inconsistent with 9.41.270 that they can also get you for trespassing because if you do carry a firearm in thier establishment inconsistent with that RCW then you are not welcome on thier premises as posted. It does not mean that you can't carry it just means that you are not welcome if you carry in a manner inconsistent with 9.41.270.

    Thats how I interpret thier posting and since all of us carry within the scope of that law then it does not apply to us.
    What part of ""No Weapons Allowed" means you can carry if you follow the RCW?

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Redmond, Washington, USA
    Posts
    618

    Post imported post

    tjschul wrote:
    Is this legal?
    Yes, it's legal. You can legally put whatever you want on the doors of a private business. What this means to YOU legally however is a different matter. What that sign means is that if you go in there carrying a firearm., they can ask you to leave the premesis. If you do not, then you can be charged with tresspassing. Of course that's exactly what can happen if they don't post a sign, so all posting a sign does is help the criminals know where the victim rich zones are. And of course it makes the sheeple "FEEL" good.
    Legally it holds no weight, they still must verbally tell you to leave.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Redmond, Washington, USA
    Posts
    618

    Post imported post

    tjschul wrote:
    So, does a "no weapons allowed" posting carry any legal weight?
    No, signs do not carry any weight. They must verbally ask you to leave the premesis for a charge of tresspassing.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    Read the RCW Bear.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    gregma wrote:
    tjschul wrote:
    So, does a "no weapons allowed" posting carry any legal weight?
    No, signs do not carry any weight. They must verbally ask you to leave the premesis for a charge of tresspassing.
    Are you positive? I see nothing in the RCW's that says you must be verbally asked to leave. In fact if you look at the defenses to criminal trespass you will find this:

    Code:
    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 to enter or remain
    They are lawful in telling you no weapons allowed and quoting 9.41.270. If you go in and break that law then you are not complying with all lawful conditions being imposed.

    I may be wrong but I have yet to have anyone specifically show me where it states that they have to ask you to verbally leave. Now I am not trying to ruffle feathers but I like to discuss things. SO do not take this post any other way than a discussion on friendly terms.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  10. #10
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    Bear 45/70 wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    It is actually makes sense for them to post that RCW. It means that if you carry it in a manner inconsistent with 9.41.270 that they can also get you for trespassing because if you do carry a firearm in thier establishment inconsistent with that RCW then you are not welcome on thier premises as posted. It does not mean that you can't carry it just means that you are not welcome if you carry in a manner inconsistent with 9.41.270.

    Thats how I interpret thier posting and since all of us carry within the scope of that law then it does not apply to us.
    What part of ""No Weapons Allowed" means you can carry if you follow the RCW?
    He's just using a strained and hopelessly self-serving manner of reading the code and the practical logic in the sign posting.

    gregma is right, of course, that the sign pretty much doesn't have any determinative legal effect. (Nothing changes for a gun carrier if the sign is posted or not.)

    But what is really important is what the (new?) KCU policy on gun carry is. Is it wanting to say that OC is no longer OK wit dem? Is it to say that both CC and OC is prohibited henceforth?

    Is the policy now to allow OC or CC only by really cool guys like the ones in this thread but by no one else?

    I suggest just giving KCU a telephone call to find out. Or stopping by there and asking the appropriate personnel.

    Communications 100.

    I know...I know.... WHY DON'T YOU GO THERE AND ASK THEM Hankey?!? If you don't go, that PROVES you're an MMMer!

    It's just too far and it's not affecting me very much.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Redmond, Washington, USA
    Posts
    618

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    gregma wrote:
    tjschul wrote:
    So, does a "no weapons allowed" posting carry any legal weight?
    No, signs do not carry any weight. They must verbally ask you to leave the premesis for a charge of tresspassing.
    Are you positive? I see nothing in the RCW's that says you must be verbally asked to leave. In fact if you look at the defenses to criminal trespass you will find this:
    Yes, quite sure. You can not be cited for tresspass based solely on a sign hanging on the door. And walking into a building open carrying is not a violation of 270 no matter what anyone may think.
    Signs hold no legal weight in washington state as far as tresspass.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    gregma wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    gregma wrote:
    tjschul wrote:
    So, does a "no weapons allowed" posting carry any legal weight?
    No, signs do not carry any weight. They must verbally ask you to leave the premesis for a charge of tresspassing.
    Are you positive? I see nothing in the RCW's that says you must be verbally asked to leave. In fact if you look at the defenses to criminal trespass you will find this:
    Yes, quite sure. You can not be cited for tresspass based solely on a sign hanging on the door. And walking into a building open carrying is not a violation of 270 no matter what anyone may think.
    Signs hold no legal weight in washington state as far as tresspass.
    So you are saying a "No Trespassing" sign carries no wait under the law. If so why do you see so many of them?

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Redmond, Washington, USA
    Posts
    618

    Post imported post

    Bear 45/70 wrote:
    gregma wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    gregma wrote:
    tjschul wrote:
    So, does a "no weapons allowed" posting carry any legal weight?
    No, signs do not carry any weight. They must verbally ask you to leave the premesis for a charge of tresspassing.
    Are you positive? I see nothing in the RCW's that says you must be verbally asked to leave. In fact if you look at the defenses to criminal trespass you will find this:
    Yes, quite sure. You can not be cited for tresspass based solely on a sign hanging on the door. And walking into a building open carrying is not a violation of 270 no matter what anyone may think.
    Signs hold no legal weight in washington state as far as tresspass.
    So you are saying a "No Trespassing" sign carries no wait under the law. If so why do you see so many of them?
    That's actually a good question. I'd say that the "no tresspassing" sign posted on private property really wouldn't matter. You would be guilty of tresspassing regardless of whether the sign was there or not if you entered private property without permission. If a business posted a "no tresspassing" sign on public property I think it would be novel, but seriously doubt it would hold the weight of law unless it was a part not open to the public, then again, it wouldn't matter whether the sign was there or not, you're guilty of tresspassing entering private property without permission whether it's posted or not.

    So to answer the question, I'd say the sign still holds no legal weight. If someone put up a "No Tresspassing" sign over the front door of my local QFC and people went in to shop and they were open, they would not be guilty of tresspassing. If someone came onto my property even without a sign they would be guilty of tresspassing if they were not invited.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Monroe, Washington, USA
    Posts
    356

    Post imported post

    Geee figure it out for yourselves.




    RCW 9A.52.070

    Criminal trespass in the first degree.

    [/b](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.

    [1979 ex.s. c 244 § 12; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.52.070.]




    RCW 9A.52.080

    Criminal trespass in the second degree.



    [/b](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.

    [1979 ex.s. c 244 § 13; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.52.080.]






    RCW 9A.52.010

    Definitions.




    [/b]The following definitions apply in this chapter:

    (1) "Premises" includes any building, dwelling, structure used for commercial aquaculture, or any real property;

    (2) "Enter". The word "enter" when constituting an element or part of a crime, shall include the entrance of the person, or the insertion of any part of his body, or any instrument or weapon held in his hand and used or intended to be used to threaten or intimidate a person or to detach or remove property;

    (3) "Enters or remains unlawfully". A person "enters or remains unlawfully" in or upon premises when he is not then licensed, invited, or otherwise privileged to so enter or remain.

    A license or privilege to enter or remain in a building which is only partly open to the public is not a license or privilege to enter or remain in that part of a building which is not open to the public. A person who enters or remains upon unimproved and apparently unused land, which is neither fenced nor otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders, does so with license and privilege unless notice against trespass is personally communicated to him by the owner of the land or some other authorized person, or unless notice is given by posting in a conspicuous manner. Land that is used for commercial aquaculture or for growing an agricultural crop or crops, other than timber, is not unimproved and apparently unused land if a crop or any other sign of cultivation is clearly visible or if notice is given by posting in a conspicuous manner. Similarly, a field fenced in any manner is not unimproved and apparently unused land. A license or privilege to enter or remain on improved and apparently used land that is open to the public at particular times, which is neither fenced nor otherwise enclosed in a manner to exclude intruders, is not a license or privilege to enter or remain on the land at other times if notice of prohibited times of entry is posted in a conspicuous manner;

    (4) "Data" means a representation of information, knowledge, facts, concepts, or instructions that are being prepared or have been prepared in a formalized manner and are intended for use in a computer;

    (5) "Computer program" means an ordered set of data representing coded instructions or statements that when executed by a computer cause the computer to process data;

    (6) "Access" means to approach, instruct, communicate with, store data in, retrieve data from, or otherwise make use of any resources of a computer, directly or by electronic means.

    [2004 c 69 § 1; 1985 c 289 § 1. Prior: 1984 c 273 § 5; 1984 c 49 § 1; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.52.010.]

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    (3) "Enters or remains unlawfully". A person "enters or remains unlawfully" in or upon premises when he is not then licensed, invited, or otherwise privileged to so enter or remain.

    This is one of the points I was trying to make. If they have a sign posted saying you cannot enter if you are doing something or carrying a weapon then one could assume that you are not invited. If it is open to the public then there is a clause in the affirmitive defense section that says;

    (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;

    So unless they are unlawfully posting the sign then it is a lawful condition. I also did state that since none of us carry in a manner that is unlawful under 9.41.270 then it does not apply to us because that isthe RCW thatthe sign references.

    No where in a law does it say that we have to be verbally asked to leave but it does give the assumption that we have to be asked to leave in order for it to be tresspassing unless we are not complying with a lawful condition. Since the sign is not unlawful then we must abide by it.

    I have read this over and over and I cannot come to a different interpretation even though I want to. Can some one please show me with cites to the contrary.



    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  16. #16
    Regular Member thebastidge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    2519 E Fourth Plain Blvd, Vancouver Washington, USA
    Posts
    313

    Post imported post

    I've been thinking about this issue a bit, and my thinking has evolved a little bit.

    The fact that you are unlikely to be prosecuted for trespass unless you are verbally asked to leave and refuse, does not negate the underlying definition of trespass: being where you are not invited or otherwise licensed to be, for whatever reason.

    If I say you are not welcome on mygolf coursewithout a collared shirt, not welcome in my club with jeans and running shoes, the fact is that you are specifically uninvited, from any moral point of view. The police and courts will not likely take a part unless the situation is escalated by a refusal to leave when you are asked, but that doesn't really make it right.

    If you're good with morally grey areas like ignoring the conditions imposed on access to private property, even that private property which is open to the public during specific times and under specific conditions, then concealed carry is unlikely to cause anyone any hassle.

    But you can't really dress it up as being your right, or in any way "right".

    If you don't like their policies, then don't patronize them. By all means, let them know why you won't patronize them, as well.

    Public property is different, because we each have a legitimate stake in how that is run.
    Be prepared. Be very prepared.

    http://swwsurplus.com/ *** 2519 E Fourth Plain Blvd Vancouver WA 98661 *** 360.314.6687
    http://www.facebook.com/SouthWestWashingtonSurplus *** https://twitter.com/SWWSurplus

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran Right Wing Wacko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    645

    Post imported post

    thebastidge wrote:
    I've been thinking about this issue a bit, and my thinking has evolved a little bit.

    The fact that you are unlikely to be prosecuted for trespass unless you are verbally asked to leave and refuse, does not negate the underlying definition of trespass: being where you are not invited or otherwise licensed to be, for whatever reason.

    If I say you are not welcome on mygolf coursewithout a collared shirt, not welcome in my club with jeans and running shoes, the fact is that you are specifically uninvited, from any moral point of view. The police and courts will not likely take a part unless the situation is escalated by a refusal to leave when you are asked, but that doesn't really make it right.

    If you're good with morally grey areas like ignoring the conditions imposed on access to private property, even that private property which is open to the public during specific times and under specific conditions, then concealed carry is unlikely to cause anyone any hassle.

    But you can't really dress it up as being your right, or in any way "right".

    If you don't like their policies, then don't patronize them. By all means, let them know why you won't patronize them, as well.

    Public property is different, because we each have a legitimate stake in how that is run.
    +1

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Redmond, Washington, USA
    Posts
    618

    Post imported post

    I am fully aware of the RCW's on this, and I still believe with certainty that a simple sign would never be enough to prove violation of a tresspass.

    What if the person doesn't understand english?
    What if the person is illiterate?
    What if the person is blind?
    If the sign is on the door, what if someone was holding the door open for the person?
    If the sign isn't on the door, what if someone was standing blocking it?

    There are too many circumstances where a simple sign can easily be missed, misunderstood, or misinterpreted.



  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,487

    Post imported post

    The fact of the matter is that a "no weapons" sign is invalid in WA state, and isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Just like any other business that posts a sign that says no weapons. Misquoting RCWs doesn't make it any more legally binding. This isn't Texas. I don't see why we are arguing this all of a sudden. It's always been the understanding that a "no weapons" sign holds no legal weight in this state, and should be taken as a rude suggestion that you spend your money elsewhere and nothing more. Misrepresenting an RCW doesn't make the sign any less invalid. In fact, there's probably some law about misquoting RCWs, and I bet you could force the bank to take down the sign.

  20. #20
    Regular Member thebastidge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    2519 E Fourth Plain Blvd, Vancouver Washington, USA
    Posts
    313

    Post imported post

    gregma wrote: "I still believe with certainty that a simple sign would never be enough to prove violation of a tresspass."

    With the emphasis above, yes.

    gregma wrote: "There are too many circumstances where a simple sign can easily be missed, misunderstood, or misinterpreted."

    Perhaps, but that's not what we're discussing, is it? We're discussing willfully ignoring it as a practical matter- whether it would, indeed get you arrested or not, whether concealing and ignoring it is possible and practical.

    expvideo wrote: "The fact of the matter is that a "no weapons" sign is invalid in WA state, and isn't worth the paper it's printed on."

    Not at all. It's a legal request (on private property) for you to not enter carrying a weapon. Not 'legal' in the sense of serving you with paperwork, but 'legal' in the sense of "they have every right to do so." It is worth everything in the sense that the owner is communicating an intent to you.

    Unless you meant to tell us that all signs such as "No skating", "no dogs", "no shirt, no shoes, no service",or "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"signs are all invalid. Certainly you can't be prosecuted until you have broken the rules and they call the cops on you, and the cops are not going to arrest you unless you refuse to leave.

    A "no weapons" sign almost certainly won't get you arrested, but it could be one more nail in your conviction if you mess up.

    expvideo wrote:"Just like any other business that posts a sign that says no weapons. Misquoting RCWs doesn't make it any more legally binding. This isn't Texas."

    No one is disputing that you won't be arrested for it. And WTF does Texas have to do with anything?

    expvideo wrote: "a "no weapons" sign {...} should be taken as a rude suggestion that you spend your money elsewhere"

    I believe that this was noted in my post.

    If we're going to be touchy about our rights, we need to be touchy about everyone's rights.
    Be prepared. Be very prepared.

    http://swwsurplus.com/ *** 2519 E Fourth Plain Blvd Vancouver WA 98661 *** 360.314.6687
    http://www.facebook.com/SouthWestWashingtonSurplus *** https://twitter.com/SWWSurplus

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    134

    Post imported post

    You are also missing the Tort of Trespassing. You enter that credit union with a gun, you have committed an intentional tort, and can be sued. Civilly, a trespass occurs when a reasonable person would believe they were not wanted on the property. The jury decides what a reasonable person should have believed, (or done).

    Since there seems to be debate on the issue, anyone done a search of WA case law, to determine if in fact a no tresspassing sign, or in this case, a no weapons sign is sufficient to sustain a conviction for tresspassing?

    The mindset is "knowingly". and will also be determined by the reasonable man doctrine. If a reasonable and prudent person should have known that he was not invited to enter that building, then he would be found guilty of trespassing. That is what "no trespassing" signs are all about. Again, a case law search in WA would be wise.


  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Monroe, Washington, USA
    Posts
    356

    Post imported post

    thebastidge wrote:
    And WTF does Texas have to do with anything?

    Because it's well fairly well known that Texas has strict regulations regarding no-weapons signs. They have a very narrow set of standards. The sign has to be acertain size. Has to havecertain language in a certain size type.IF those standards are met then the sign DOES carry the weight of law and if disregarded there are prescribed punishments. But if NOT, then it is totally worthless and can be ignored.


  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Bothell, Washington, USA
    Posts
    26

    Post imported post

    Growing up my family ran an in-home daycare. After running said daycare for approximately 2 years a level 3 sex offender moved in about two blocks away. For obvious reasons my parents went through a lot of trouble and research to figure out legal ways to make sure that this sad excuse for a human being could not come near our home. The more weresearched the more it became obvious this was essentially imposable. We could not even legally prevent him from walking through our front gate and up to our door (without verbally asking him to leave) because in the state of Washington a no trespassing sign does not prevent some one from "approaching the entrance to a home". I do not have RCW's for all of this but essentially what the officer stated was that to prevent entrance to the back 3/4 of our property we would have to fence and mark with No Trespassing signs. Either a fence or a sign would not be enough to actually charge anyone. But on the front 1/4 the only thing that was legally effective was a verbal warning. Thankfully this individual never did come by but better safe than sorry.


    Now obviously an officer can be incorrect but giving "The Sex offenderhasentered your neighbourhood" talk was pretty much this guy's full time position.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    134

    Post imported post

    G_Lyons wrote:
    because in the state of Washington a no trespassing sign does not prevent some one from "approaching the entrance to a home". I do not have RCW's for all of this but essentially what the officer stated was that to prevent entrance to the back 3/4 of our property we would have to fence and mark with No Trespassing signs. Either a fence or a sign would not be enough to actually charge anyone. But on the front 1/4 the only thing that was legally effective was a verbal warning.
    I don't believe the officer was correct, but then again, perhaps he was going on advice from the local prosecuting attorney, who was going on what case law had precedental value.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    gregma wrote:
    I am fully aware of the RCW's on this, and I still believe with certainty that a simple sign would never be enough to prove violation of a tresspass.

    What if the person doesn't understand english?
    What if the person is illiterate?
    What if the person is blind?
    If the sign is on the door, what if someone was holding the door open for the person?
    If the sign isn't on the door, what if someone was standing blocking it?

    There are too many circumstances where a simple sign can easily be missed, misunderstood, or misinterpreted.

    Your first 3 examples are not the norm and the law always ignores that. Also blind and with a gun, let's stay in the arena of slightly possible, OK? Your fourth and fifthexamples will be covered under ignorance of the law or rule is no excuse. There are always circumstances that either no on thought of or it's beyond the realm of reason.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... 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
  •