Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Interesting sign in bar at Cactus, Park Lane, Kirkland

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kirkland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    121

    Post imported post

    Yesterday I was out with my wife enjoying a drink in the bar at Cactus in Kirkland. (Naturally I left my firearm secured in our vehicle to be in compliance with the relevant RCWs.) I noticed a small framed sign on the wall behind the beer taps, proclaiming "Firearms prohibited in this area."

    Upon reading it a little further, however, the sign actually cited -- properly -- the RCWs restricting carry in the bar area of an establishment, and seemed to me to be educational in nature. It mentioned something about which section of the RCWs govern firearms in general.

    It might have been some kind of boilerplate text but I've never seen a sign like that in Washington and also it had the restaurant's logo on it so there was clearly some custom work that had gone into it. I actually asked a bartender about whether the rest of the place is friendly for responsible carry of firearms and kinda caught him off-guard; he said something like "I think so, if registered and all that," which is a reasonable response from someone who may not be as educated as we are about the situation with firearm law in Washington.

    All in all it left me feeling like Cactus might be a friendly place for responsible exercise of our rights; at the very least they had taken the step of posting informative and legally correct information.

    Does anyone know whether they've had problems in their bar with people carrying? Or whether the owner might be rights friendly? Either are good -- for example if they've had problems clearly they didn't overreact and try to ban guns in their restraurant.

    Anyone ever OCed on Park Lane during the busy summer season (when the area is packed with diners, families, etc)? Seems to me like a risky proposition, but then again I really don't know how Kirkland PD views OC or guns in general.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    tai4de2 wrote:
    Yesterday I was out with my wife enjoying a drink in the bar at Cactus in Kirkland. (Naturally I left my firearm secured in our vehicle to be in compliance with the relevant RCWs.) I noticed a small framed sign on the wall behind the beer taps, proclaiming "Firearms prohibited in this area."

    Upon reading it a little further, however, the sign actually cited -- properly -- the RCWs restricting carry in the bar area of an establishment, and seemed to me to be educational in nature. It mentioned something about which section of the RCWs govern firearms in general.

    It might have been some kind of boilerplate text but I've never seen a sign like that in Washington and also it had the restaurant's logo on it so there was clearly some custom work that had gone into it. I actually asked a bartender about whether the rest of the place is friendly for responsible carry of firearms and kinda caught him off-guard; he said something like "I think so, if registered and all that," which is a reasonable response from someone who may not be as educated as we are about the situation with firearm law in Washington.

    All in all it left me feeling like Cactus might be a friendly place for responsible exercise of our rights; at the very least they had taken the step of posting informative and legally correct information.

    Does anyone know whether they've had problems in their bar with people carrying? Or whether the owner might be rights friendly? Either are good -- for example if they've had problems clearly they didn't overreact and try to ban guns in their restraurant.

    Anyone ever OCed on Park Lane during the busy summer season (when the area is packed with diners, families, etc)? Seems to me like a risky proposition, but then again I really don't know how Kirkland PD views OC or guns in general.
    I believe Kirkland and Redmond both require that boilerplate text.

    Redmond Municipal Code 9.24.040 states, in part:
    (c)Warnings signs required: Signs, informing the public of the prohibitions contained herein, shall be conspicuously posted at all internal and external entrances to any area wherein the carrying of said weapons or instruments are prohibited.
    Said signs shall be provided by the city to all affected places of business, and shall bear the following inscription:
    “WARNING - WEAPONS PROHIBITED: It shall be unlawful for any person, other than a commissioned law enforcement officer, to enter onto this premises while carrying any of the following weapons or instruments, whether a license or permit to carry said weapon is possessed or not, and whether said weapon or instrument is concealed or not: Rifle, shotgun, pistol, knife, sword, dagger or any other cutting or stabbing instrument, having a blade longer than three inches (3"); or any razor with an unguarded blade; or any explosive; or any poison or injurious gas; or any sling shot, taser, throwing star, bow, sand club, blackjack, metal knuckles, stick, chain, metal pipe, bar, club or combination thereof, including a device known as “num-chuk” sticks, or any like device having the same or similar components or parts; or any weapon or instrument apparently capable or producing bodily harm. Redmond Municipal Code Section 9.24.040.”

    Looking at Kirkland's code, I don't see the same. Of course, Kirkland still has the illegal 11.41.060 on the books (no firearms in parks), and 11.41.110 references a now defunt statute. However, if the sign is as above, there are a few places I've seen those even outside of Redmond.

    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kirkland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    121

    Post imported post

    That's not the text that appeared on the sign. I've never seen a sign like that in Kirkland or Redmond (but admittedly have not been looking that hard).

    Seems to me that state preemption would render any municipality's sign requirement null and void.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    tai4de2 wrote:
    Seems to me that state preemption would render any municipality's sign requirement null and void.
    No it wouldn't. The code does not have to be in line with state law because pre emption does not concern signage. They are not restricting firearms they are simply stating what they want the signs to say where firearms are restricted.
    "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

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •