Kitsap Credit Union posts doors

[Bear 45/70]

imported post

Johnny Law wrote:

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.

Now isn't that scary, Johnny Law and I agreeing. Maybe there is hope for this world.

 

[sccrref]

imported post

Just do not intimidate anyone with your weapon. Therefore, you are complying with the RCW they posted. Just carrying your weapon should not be considered intimidating in and of itself. This of course is just my opinion. No laws or links to back this up.

 

[joeroket]

imported post

sccrref wrote:

Just do not intimidate anyone with your weapon. Therefore, you are complying with the RCW they posted. Just carrying your weapon should not be considered intimidating in and of itself. This of course is just my opinion. No laws or links to back this up.

None needed to back it up. There are a few WA. case laws to back it up that we already know about.

 

[joeroket]

imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:

Johnny Law wrote:

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.

Now isn't that scary, Johnny Law and I agreeing. Maybe there is hope for this world.

Or just hope for you Bear.

 

[Bear 45/70]

imported post

joeroket wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

Johnny Law wrote:

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.

Now isn't that scary, Johnny Law and I agreeing. Maybe there is hope for this world.

Or just hope for you Bear.

No, there is no hope for Bear, too old and grumpy andset in his ways. Just an old curmudgeon.

Signed the

 

[just_a_car]

imported post

Marty Hayes wrote:

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.

I'm sorry, but the above bolded is just a hilarious Freudian Slip of the fingers.

So, am I to assume one is not allowed to "eat your gun" at a pool because you might drown before the bullet kills you? *chuckle*

 

[Mike]

imported post

Marty Hayes wrote:

There is a huge difference between "no chewing gun at the pool", and "don't bring guns into my building."

Why? Cite to authority? Besides, even a default judgement cannot as a matter of law be more than nominal damages.

 

[expvideo]

imported post

Mike wrote:

Marty Hayes wrote:

There is a huge difference between "no chewing gun at the pool", and "don't bring guns into my building."

Why? Cite to authority? Besides, even a default judgement cannot as a matter of law be more than nominal damages.

Precisely. The "no guns" sign is as legally binding as a "no chewing gum at the pool" sign. Not obeying the rules of an establishment does not equal trespassing. It gives them grounds to ask you to leave. If you stay after they ask you to leave, you are trespassing. This is how WA state law works. A "no guns" sign is not worth the paper it's printed on, no matter how you twist it. I'm glad Marty Hayes wrote that comment, because it makes a great point, just not the point he was trying to make. He is wrong, there is no difference between a "no chewing gum at the pool" sign and a "don't bring guns into my building" sign. They are both violations of posted rules, and you can be asked to leave the pool or the building, but you can't be charged with trespassing just for breaking a posted rule.

You can be trespassed, meaning that they can serve you with a notice that you are not welcome on that property for the next 12 months, and if you return you can be charged with trespassing. I am currently trespassed from Southcenter Mall, because I was disobeying a posted "no guns" rule (the enterance I went in was under construction and the sign had been moved, so I didn't know). Police officers were there, and we fought about the legality of OC, the cops yelled in my face and tried to find anything they could to arrest me for, because they were very very mad at me. If breaking a posted rule meant trespassing, I would have quickly been arrested.

A posted sign is useless in WA state, as it always has been. Misquoting the law doesn't make the sign legally binding.

 

[thebastidge]

imported post

"A posted sign is useless in WA state, as it always has been."

Again, not it is not useless. It communicates the owners' intent to you perfectly well. If you ignore it, you are wrong, regardless of being arrested for it or not. Just like a sign on your front door saying "no soliciting".

Please don't waste people's time making them ask you to leave. Please don't waste my taxes making them call the cops. Respect private property rights, please.

 

[BluesBear]

imported post

thebastidge wrote:

Please don't waste my taxes making them call the cops.

Okay, it was my intention to stay out of this. But I just gotta ask how you figure it wastes any of our tax dollars? I mean, after all, we're not talking about calling out SWAT of the National Guard. Cops get paid by the hour. Mall ninjas get paid by the hour. 911 operators get paid by the hour.



I will however, concede the point that a printed sign is NOT useless. However it IS essentially worthless.


And as a staunch Republitarian I personally feel that commercial businesses, open to the general public, ought to have fewer rights than private homesteads. So I confess to possessing a personal double standard regarding my actions.

If I were to visit your home,I would of course honor whatever rules you have regarding my conduct there. In other words if you say no gum chewing around your pool I would refrain from munching my Teaberry.

But I will continue to carry my implements of personal defense as I see fit into whatever publicly accessiblestorefront or market I choose to patronize. If they find me out and ask me to leave, then so be it. I will go peacefully but not necessarily quietly.

And for those, less than gun friendly merchants, I do carry some of these in my wallet...

 

[expvideo]

imported post

thebastidge wrote:

"A posted sign is useless in WA state, as it always has been."

Again, not it is not useless. It communicates the owners' intent to you perfectly well. If you ignore it, you are wrong, regardless of being arrested for it or not. Just like a sign on your front door saying "no soliciting".

Please don't waste people's time making them ask you to leave. Please don't waste my taxes making them call the cops. Respect private property rights, please.

I agree with you. If the sign is posted, I won't patronize their business. I respect their rights to choose if they want legally armed citizens on their property. I'm not saying that I would ignore the sign and just OC in there and demand to speak with the manager. I am saying that the sign holds no legal authority. That doesn't mean it should be ignored, and that's not what I am saying. I care as much about their rights as property owners as I care about my rights as a gun owner, and I will respect their request. My response was aimed at those that would say that violating their policy is grounds to be arrested for trespassing. That is not true, because the sign is not legally binding in any way.

But I agree. Respect everyone else's property rights, as you would expect them to respect your gun rights.

 

[HankT]

imported post

BluesBear wrote:

But I will continue to carry my implements of personal defense as I see fit into whatever publicly accessiblestorefront or market I choose to patronize. If they find me out and ask me to leave, then so be it. I will go peacefully but not necessarily quietly.

I'd suggest that in contingent situation, you should go quietly.

Please don't make it bad for the reputation of all gun carriers who are, generally, pretty willing tohonor someone else's property rights without making any noise about it on the scene.

Make your complaints/inquiries/persuasive attempts at change, later, in a business-like way.

 

[Marty Hayes]

imported post

Mike wrote:

Marty Hayes wrote:

There is a huge difference between "no chewing gun at the pool", and "don't bring guns into my building."

Why? Cite to authority? Besides, even a default judgement cannot as a matter of law be more than nominal damages.

Okay Mike,a cursory search of Washington Case Law regarding no trespassing signs turned up the following two cases:

Number One:

75 Wn. App. 692, STATE v. JOHNSON Sept. 1994

"Currently, a person is guilty of second degree criminal trespass if he or she "knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises of another . . .". RCW 9A.52.080(1). In addition, the Johnsons correctly note that the ignoring of the "No Trespassing" sign is an important factor that is looked at to determine if an alleged trespasser is aware that the owner of the premises does not welcome uninvited visitors."

Quoted text is in italics. It is pretty clear that a sign means something in the courtroom.



Number Two:

50 Wn. App. 786, 751 P.2d 313 SUNNYSIDE v. LOPEZ 1988

"The center's owner had posted seven "no trespassing" signs on the premises, one each at the four corners of the center and at the three entrances to the connecting walkways. The words "no trespassing" were in large type, and the following language appeared in smaller type:

NOTICE
The parking and sidewalk areas of the Sunnyside Professional Center are not public ways, and
Are reserved for the exclusive use of the Sunnyside Professional Center, its owners and tenants, and for the
Members of the public transacting business with them.
The use of such areas for any other purpose must be by the permission of the center, its owner and tenants, subject to such rules and regulation as may be imposed upon such use, and
Permission to use said areas may be revoked at any time.
Failure to comply with the above rules and regulations and failure to seek permission to come upon the premises, may expose persons to the laws of criminal trespass in the state of Washington."

Quoted text in italics. In this case, Lopez was picketing an abortion clinic, and was arrested for trespassing, because she was not there to transact business with them, put instead, for otherr purposes. She appealed, the conviction was affirmed. She appealed the conviction, which was affirmed again.

Here, the WA Supreme Court ruled that the words on the no trespassing set the conditions on which one can be on the property, (my analysis). It would not be a stretch to make the same argument in the instant case.

Regarding nominal damages, it is still going to cost the average person big bucks to fight the lawsuit. Most people don't have a J.D. in their back pocket.

 

[Marty Hayes]

imported post

expvideo wrote:

Mike wrote:

Marty Hayes wrote:

There is a huge difference between "no chewing gun at the pool", and "don't bring guns into my building."

Why? Cite to authority? Besides, even a default judgement cannot as a matter of law be more than nominal damages.

Precisely. The "no guns" sign is as legally binding as a "no chewing gum at the pool" sign. Not obeying the rules of an establishment does not equal trespassing. It gives them grounds to ask you to leave. If you stay after they ask you to leave, you are trespassing. This is how WA state law works. A "no guns" sign is not worth the paper it's printed on, no matter how you twist it. I'm glad Marty Hayes wrote that comment, because it makes a great point, just not the point he was trying to make. He is wrong, there is no difference between a "no chewing gum at the pool" sign and a "don't bring guns into my building" sign. They are both violations of posted rules, and you can be asked to leave the pool or the building, but you can't be charged with trespassing just for breaking a posted rule.

You can be trespassed, meaning that they can serve you with a notice that you are not welcome on that property for the next 12 months, and if you return you can be charged with trespassing. I am currently trespassed from Southcenter Mall, because I was disobeying a posted "no guns" rule (the enterance I went in was under construction and the sign had been moved, so I didn't know). Police officers were there, and we fought about the legality of OC, the cops yelled in my face and tried to find anything they could to arrest me for, because they were very very mad at me. If breaking a posted rule meant trespassing, I would have quickly been arrested.

A posted sign is useless in WA state, as it always has been. Misquoting the law doesn't make the sign legally binding.

Expvideo:

See above post. Also, here is a link to free searching capabilities of Washington Case Law.

http://srch.mrsc.org:8080/wacourts/template.htm?view=main

 

[expvideo]

imported post

Thank you Marty, but I'm not talking about a sign that says "no trespassing". I'm saying that carrying a gun when the sign says "no guns" does not make it trespassing. Disobeying a rule of the establishment you are entering does not make you guilty of trespassing (unless of course that rule is "no trespassing"). Let me break down why:

75 Wn. App. 692, STATE v. JOHNSON Sept. 1994

"Currently, a person is guilty of second degree criminal trespass if he or she "knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises of another . . .". RCW 9A.52.080(1). In addition, the Johnsons correctly note that the ignoring of the "No Trespassing" sign is an important factor that is looked at to determine if an alleged trespasser is aware that the owner of the premises does not welcome uninvited visitors."

Quoted text is in italics. It is pretty clear that a *no trespassing* sign means something in the courtroom.

In red, I have the operative word. Since there isn't a law prohibiting you from carrying there and their sign isn't the LAW, it is their RULE, no law would be broken by carrying a gun.

In green, I have highlighted a point I want to make, and in blue, I have added something to make your statement true. This is not case ruling that any sign posted by a property owner holds the full weight of the law. This is a ruling that a "No trespassing" sign holds legal weight. That doesn't mean that if you chew gum at the pool or CC into the bank that you can be arrested for trespassing, because after all they had a sign. A sign at the entrance is not a binding legal contract or term of use for a building, unless that sign says "no trespassing", in which case you are trespassing by entering.

 

[Marty Hayes]

imported post

The point I am trying to make, to you, Expvideo, is that signage does in fact have some legal weight, (contrary to what you claim) as the courts have said in the above cases I cited. Because this particular instance has not apparently been reviewed by the courts, the area is not settled law.

 

[gregma]

imported post

BluesBear wrote:

And as a staunch Republitarian I personally feel that commercial businesses, open to the general public, ought to have fewer rights than private homesteads. So I confess to possessing a personal double standard regarding my actions.

I completely agree with this. Although it has gotten me lambasted on here before for proclaiming it, the fact of the matter is that a business that is open to the public is NOT the same as my private residence.

I can refuse to allow any dogs into my house. A business open to the public can NOT refuse to allow service dogs into their establishment (even if the owner is severely allergic.)

I can refuse to allow someone in a wheel chair into my residence. A business open to the public can NOT refuse to allow someone handicapped in.

If there is no law against me going into a business armed, then if I must enter to conduct some business (I will not disarm myself for ANYONE except the law, and my employer) I will go in.

However, if there is another place I can go to that does not have this restriction, I will go there instead.

 

[Bear 45/70]

imported post

gregma wrote:

BluesBear wrote:

And as a staunch Republitarian I personally feel that commercial businesses, open to the general public, ought to have fewer rights than private homesteads. So I confess to possessing a personal double standard regarding my actions.

I completely agree with this. Although it has gotten me lambasted on here before for proclaiming it, the fact of the matter is that a business that is open to the public is NOT the same as my private residence.

I can refuse to allow any dogs into my house. A business open to the public can NOT refuse to allow service dogs into their establishment (even if the owner is severely allergic.)

I can refuse to allow someone in a wheel chair into my residence. A business open to the public can NOT refuse to allow someone handicapped in.

If there is no law against me going into a business armed, then if I must enter to conduct some business (I will not disarm myself for ANYONE except the law, and my employer) I will go in.

However, if there is another place I can go to that does not have this restriction, I will go there instead.

Why exempt your employer? It's a business isn't it? Seems your double standard has a double standard.

 

[joeroket]

imported post

I concede this one. I found this statment after looking at case law. I think the bold words spell it out pretty clear. Gregma and ExpVideo, Thanks for arguing it made me research into it and find myself wrong, which in this case is a good thing.

Mr. Batten was charged with violating RCW 9A.52.080 in that he did knowingly enter or remain unlawfully in or upon the premises of another. Mr. Batten admitted being on the land, but claimed he had a right to be there because of an unadjudicated prescriptive easement. The trial court denied him the opportunity to present this defense holding that, under RCW 9A.52.080, the gravamen of the offense was the failure to leave after being ordered off the property.

 

[gregma]

imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:

gregma wrote:

BluesBear wrote:

And as a staunch Republitarian I personally feel that commercial businesses, open to the general public, ought to have fewer rights than private homesteads. So I confess to possessing a personal double standard regarding my actions.

I completely agree with this. Although it has gotten me lambasted on here before for proclaiming it, the fact of the matter is that a business that is open to the public is NOT the same as my private residence.

I can refuse to allow any dogs into my house. A business open to the public can NOT refuse to allow service dogs into their establishment (even if the owner is severely allergic.)

I can refuse to allow someone in a wheel chair into my residence. A business open to the public can NOT refuse to allow someone handicapped in.

If there is no law against me going into a business armed, then if I must enter to conduct some business (I will not disarm myself for ANYONE except the law, and my employer) I will go in.

However, if there is another place I can go to that does not have this restriction, I will go there instead.

Why exempt your employer? It's a business isn't it? Seems your double standard has a double standard.

It kind of does, yes. And I fully admit this. In a business I would simply be asked to leave. At my employers I would be fired. My family can't afford to have me out of work, thus I partially disarm myself at work for the protection of my family. After all, they do come second.
Heck, if you know of a well paying job that allows one to carry, that takes 40+ year old out-of-shape men, I'm all ears!