I hear what you're saying, but I'm not clear on the use of the term "unlawfully." If a company sign on the door said "NO WEAPONS ALLOWED" and someone entered with a firearm anyway it wouldn't be unlawful, would it? It would be out of compliance with their policy, but their policy is not law.
Feel free to set me straight if I'm mistaken.
Good question. I guess we have to assume this is private property. In that case, it would be lawful for the owner to impose any lawful restriction on access that he/she chooses. Anyone violating such a restriction would, therefore, be acting unlawfully, that is, violating the restriction. The answer probably lies in the section that defines the defenses to a trespass charge, 9A.52.090, which provides, in relevant part:
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; (END QUOTE)
The question remains whether NO WEAPONS is a lawful condition to impose on access to private property. The key there is "private" meaning no government action so no 2nd Amendment violation so it would probably fly.
Hope this helps.
)
