Kitsap Credit Union posts doors

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.

imported post

thebastidge wrote:

And WTF does Texas have to do with anything?

Click to expand...

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.

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:cuss:. 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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

Marty Hayes wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

Penalty flag! No citation of authority on the play.

An action at common law for "tresspass" for merely ignoring a sign posting a rule of conduct on the property would be novel, and i doubt any court would sustain it against Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, let alone the subsequent Motion for Summary Judgment; beyond this, the Plaintiff would have no hope of obtaining more than an injunction against further entry while possessing a gun, and perhaps at most "nominal damages" (i.e., maybe $1 or $10). As the cost of bringing suit would be in the thousands fo doallars and lead to bad publicity, no rational actor would bring suit.

I guess if the poster provides authority for his claim, we all better round up the kids and warn them not to chew gum or run on the deck at the local pool as these are well known violations of pool rules and we might get sued for tresspass!:what:

imported post

Mike:

It would not be a stretch of the imagination to infer the sign was intented to prevent anyone from ENTERING the credit union with a gun. It would be up the trier of fact to determine that issue, I believe such an action would likely survive a motion to dismiss. There is a huge difference between "no chewing gun at the pool", and "don't bring guns into my building."

Also, I never said the suit would be pragmatic, but people have sued for lesser things. Perhaps the creditunion has a board of directors who are anti-gun, (well duh) and want to make the point and enforce their edict. Even nominal damages are expensive though, as to defend such a suit would be many dollars spent in attorney's fees.

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.

Click to expand...

thebastidge wrote:

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

Click to expand...

My nomination for Best Post(s) Of the Week on OCDO.

It's amusing to me how much energy, mental gymnastics, and bald-faced lying go into the attempted "exercising of gun rights" in a manner that is both utterly self-serving and so casuallyintrusive to another man's rights.

I stand for the RTKBA. I do not stand for disregarding another man's property rights without dueprocess.

imported post

HankT wrote:

thebastidge wrote:

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

Click to expand...

My nomination for Best Post(s) Of the Week on OCDO.

Click to expand...

Seconded! All in favor say AYE!

imported post

A sign is written proof you were notified, verbal just don't stand up in court very well.

imported post

There is a time and a place for everything, and this simply is not one of them. If they do not want you carrying guns in their bank, then that's perfectly understandable. Go bank somewhere else or conceal. Why does everyone have to make sure a huge ordeal out of the simplest things?

imported post

I informed a few of my friends of the new signs and some inquiring phone calls were made by them to the CU.

One friend was told the signs were posted after an open carry occurance caused employees to be fearful. He was told he would be sent a letter stating their policy, and a point of contact.

I plan on honoring their wishes and taking my membership elsewhere...after I make it plain to them why.



OJ

imported post

tjschul wrote:

I informed a few of my friends of the new signs and some inquiring phone calls were made by them to the CU.

One friend was told the signs were posted after an open carry occurance caused employees to be fearful. He was told he would be sent a letter stating their policy, and a point of contact.

Click to expand...

Good! Inquiries as to what the current (new) policy is is a good idea!

So, concealed carry in theCUsis unaffected? CC is OK, right? The new signs are aimed (somewhat clumsily) at open carry only?

imported post

HankT wrote:

tjschul wrote:

Click to expand...

I informed a few of my friends of the new signs and some inquiring phone calls were made by them to the CU.

One friend was told the signs were posted after an open carry occurance caused employees to be fearful. He was told he would be sent a letter stating their policy, and a point of contact.

Click to expand...

Good! Inquiries as to what the current (new) policy is is a good idea!

So, concealed carry in theCUsis unaffected? CC is OK, right? The new signs are aimed (somewhat clumsily) at open carry only?

Click to expand...

It just so happens I can answer that question better now, than 15 minutes ago. I just got a call from the Credit Union to my office phone. The lady who called told me the CU was fine with me having a legally concealed pistol on their premises. She told me the CU honors my choice to carry concealed. She did however say, an open carried pistol would not be tolerated, as it causes employees in their business to fear. She told me it has already happened once, and that their attorney had approved the reference to RCW 9.41.270 before the posting was made. She agreed to give me that information in a letter or email if I needed it. She also volunteered to call my wife and reassure her of her right to carry concealed in the CU. I thanked her and ended the conversation with a suggestion that they look at the relevance of 9.41.270 again.She said they had already decided to modify the signsto make it clear only violations of 9.41.270was their intent. We'll see. OJ

Click to expand...

imported post

The sign is clearly a company policy, whether imposed by corporate or the branch manager. It does NOT mean that it is a violation of any criminal law.

Any private business may exclude ANYONE for ANY reason. The keyword is PRIVATE, meaning privately owned (not unlike your home). You may invite some guests over, and then decide that you no longer wish their company. If you are a resident there, you may ask them to leave. If they fail to leave, they are then trespassing.

Same goes for a business. If the mgr. or the owner (or someone acting on their behalf)of the business asks someone to leave, then they must. If they don't the Police are typically called, and they are asked again in police presence. If they fail to leave at that point, they are trespassing. Usually people get the point, and will leave. If not, they may be legally arrested for trespassing, although I doubt they would ever be charged. The likelier option is that they would be physically removed by the Officer, and sent on their way.

The point is that a companies policy is enforceable, although not initially criminal. If you don't like a policy you have the option of trying to get it changed, or shopping elsewhere.

imported post

tjschul wrote:

HankT wrote:

tjschul wrote:

Click to expand...

I informed a few of my friends of the new signs and some inquiring phone calls were made by them to the CU.

One friend was told the signs were posted after an open carry occurance caused employees to be fearful. He was told he would be sent a letter stating their policy, and a point of contact.

Click to expand...

Good! Inquiries as to what the current (new) policy is is a good idea!

So, concealed carry in theCUsis unaffected? CC is OK, right? The new signs are aimed (somewhat clumsily) at open carry only?

Click to expand...

It just so happens I can answer that question better now, than 15 minutes ago. I just got a call from the Credit Union to my office phone. The lady who called told me the CU was fine with me having a legally concealed pistol on their premises. She told me the CU honors my choice to carry concealed. She did however say, an open carried pistol would not be tolerated, as it causes employees in their business to fear. She told me it has already happened once, and that their attorney had approved the reference to RCW 9.41.270 before the posting was made. She agreed to give me that information in a letter or email if I needed it. She also volunteered to call my wife and reassure her of her right to carry concealed in the CU. I thanked her and ended the conversation with a suggestion that they look at the relevance of 9.41.270 again.She said they had already decided to modify the signsto make it clear only violations of 9.41.270was their intent. We'll see. OJ

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Well, they need to get the sh!t together because OC is not a violation of RCW 9.41.270 but of course their lawyer doesn't know because he only read the RCW and made his own interpretation. He skipped the doing his job correctly and didn't both to looked upcase law or even bother to find out how the courts have interpreted RCW 9.41.270 .

imported post

I am thinking that a person packing an openly exposed gun in a bank/credit union might just be mistakenly presumed to be an armed robber, and that might be enough to tip the scales of the judiciary to believe that this particular instance WARRANTS ALARM.

imported post

Johnny Law wrote:

The sign is clearly a company policy, whether imposed by corporate or the branch manager. It does NOT mean that it is a violation of any criminal law.

Any private business may exclude ANYONE for ANY reason. The keyword is PRIVATE, meaning privately owned (not unlike your home). You may invite some guests over, and then decide that you no longer wish their company. If you are a resident there, you may ask them to leave. If they fail to leave, they are then trespassing.

Same goes for a business. If the mgr. or the owner (or someone acting on their behalf)of the business asks someone to leave, then they must. If they don't the Police are typically called, and they are asked again in police presence. If they fail to leave at that point, they are trespassing. Usually people get the point, and will leave. If not, they may be legally arrested for trespassing, although I doubt they would ever be charged. The likelier option is that they would be physically removed by the Officer, and sent on their way.

The point is that a companies policy is enforceable, although not initially criminal. If you don't like a policy you have the option of trying to get it changed, or shopping elsewhere.

Click to expand...

Thanks for clarifying that J.L . My question now points to the RCW which states that it is an affirmitive defense if you believed you are invited by the operator/owner. Wouldn't the sign make a reasonable person believe that they are not welcome inside the CU if they were in violation of 9.41.270?

imported post

Bear wrote:

Well, they need to get the sh!t together because OC is not a violation of RCW 9.41.270 but of course their lawyer doesn't know because he only read the RCW and made his own interpretation. He skipped the doing his job correctly and didn't both to looked upcase law or even bother to find out how the courts have interpreted RCW 9.41.270 .

You are correct, it is not a violation of 9.41.270. It is only a violation of their policy. They probably used that RCW to help justify their policy, which is neither necessary, nor correct.

imported post

Marty Hayes wrote:

I am thinking that a person packing an openly exposed gun in a bank/credit union might just be mistakenly presumed to be an armed robber, and that might be enough to tip the scales of the judiciary to believe that this particular instance WARRANTS ALARM.

Click to expand...

Hard pressed since courts have already ruled that simple open carry is not justification for police contact. I believe one of the judges actually stated that just because she is frightened or uncormfortable with the sight of a pistol is not truly cause for her alarm.
Besides that, since when do bank robbers gointo a bank withthier gun secured in a holster? Hell most of the robberies I hear of there is never a weapon shown, only referenced to by the perp.