Removed from Walmart in Spokane

[deanf]

imported post

(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

No Weapons or No Open Carry are lawful conditions. No chewing gum, no red shoes, no shoes, no clothes - those are all lawful conditions. "Because I'm an employee and I say so!" - that's a lawful condition.

Try again.

 

[Jeff Hayes]

imported post

joeroket wrote:

Orphan wrote:

This is interesting if your OCing but not being disorderly or disruptive or breaking any law then according to RCW 9A.52.070 and 9A.52.080they can not trespass you. The recent 10th circuit ruling on OC would back this up as long as no laws were being broken.

There must be a catch somewhere because LEOs have been trespassing people for eons.

Orphan

Section 3 of 9A.52.090 is where the catch is. As soon as you are asked to leave you are no longer licensed to be on the property. As long as you are not being asked to leave for something that is a protected right then you must leave when asked.

Quote McKennas opinion has no bearing on this thread as that opinion is based off the question if a municipality can ban firearms or trespass people from city property because of a firearm. It has absolutely no application to private property.

Just a thought isntthe RKBA protected under the Washington State Constitution, isnt that a protected right. Wouldn't trespassing someone for OC then be the same thing as trespassing someone for wearing aCross, a Star of David or wearing Berka. Just thinking.

I agree that McKennas opinion has no bearing on private property.

Orphan

 

[deanf]

imported post

Just a thought isnt the RKBA protected under the Washington State Constitution, isnt that a protected right. Wouldn't trespassing someone for OC then be the same thing as trespassing someone for wearing a Cross, a Star of David or wearing Berka.

Well no, because the state and U.S. Constitutions protect us from actions or restrictions imposed by government.

 

[Jeff Hayes]

imported post

Good point deanf

I have to keep reminding myself the Constitutions of the State and the Federal Goverment are designed to protect the people from goverment not to protect the people from other people. I failed again evidently, thanks for the reminder.

Orphan

 

[Kildars]

imported post

deanf wrote:

Private businesses can make up their rules of conduct on the fly, and enforce them on anyone they want, anytime they want, unless the person they are enforcing against is a member of a protected class.

The internal rules regarding which employee has the authority to make or enforce regulations are none of our business, and a criminal court wouldn't be concerned with them.

"management" asking you to leave was not illegal. Any employee can ask you to leave at any time for any reason and you must comply or face a trespass charge.

I'm not saying don't complain. I'm just saying if any employee asks you to leave, you must. Retorting with "well that's not Walmart policy - see I have this email to prove it" will not provide immunity from prosecution.

We've had this debate before. Can they ask you to leave? Probably. However, could be cited/convicted of trespassing? No.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.52.090

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; or

(4) The actor was attempting to serve legal process which includes any document required or allowed to be served upon persons or property, by any statute, rule, ordinance, regulation, or court order, excluding delivery by the mails of the United States. This defense applies only if the actor did not enter into a private residence or other building not open to the public and the entry onto the premises was reasonable and necessary for service of the legal process.

 

[deanf]

imported post

(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; or

The other person empowered would be any representative of the business. The license can be revoked by anyone.

 

[joeroket]

imported post

duplicate of Deans last post.

 

[diesel556]

imported post

joeroket wrote:

Section 3 of 9A.52.090 is where the catch is. As soon as you are asked to leave you are no longer licensed to be on the property. As long as you are not being asked to leave for something that is a protected right then you must leave when asked.

Quote McKennas opinion has no bearing on this thread as that opinion is based off the question if a municipality can ban firearms or trespass people from city property because of a firearm. It has absolutely no application to private property.

That doesn't entirely make sense to me. Perhaps you can explain it further.

Based on what you are saying it sounds like any condition is lawful if it does not contradict a "protected right".

Isn't it true that there are some conditions that don't contradict a protected right, yet are still unlawful?

 

[diesel556]

imported post

deanf wrote:

(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; or

The other person empowered would be any representative of the business. The license can be revoked by anyone.

That is an OR clause the items are not interdependent, and item (3) isn't in question. We are discussing item (2).

 

[deanf]

imported post

Protected Class. Such as race. I can't ask you to leave my store because you are black.

Some jurisdictions may have protected class rules more restrictive than the federal ones. Gun ownership or possession is not a protected class anywhere that I am aware of.

 

[deanf]

imported post

confusing post deleted.

 

[diesel556]

imported post

deanf wrote:

Protected Class. Such as race. I can't ask you to leave my store because you are black.

Some jurisdictions may have protected class rules more restrictive than the federal ones. Gun ownership or possession is not a protected class anywhere that I am aware of.

Well, it would also be unlawful if a condition of your license to remain in the storerequired you to commit an illegal act (i.e. "Please cover up that weapon, or I will have to ask you to leave" when the carrier does not have a CPL). In that case based on item (2) it seems you would have a legal defense.

I am sure that there are many other "unlawful conditions" beyond the scope of protected class.

 

[diesel556]

imported post

deanf wrote:

You're the one that bolded proviso (3). Why would you bold it if not the subject of question?

The "lawful conditions" question has been settled. We are on to (3), a discussion of which you opened.

I didn't open (3), nor did I bold it.

My first post on the subject is below (you'll notice the multipe italicized instances of "lawful condition" ):

I would guess that "Not being disruptive/disorderly" is a lawful condition you may impose on your patrons.

I am curious if "No weapons" is also a lawful condtion, as no breastfeeding is NOT a lawful condition and itis not evenprotected by the Constitution.

EDIT: I think you may be confusing my posts with those ofKildars

 

[deanf]

imported post

Yes. Sorry. Confusing your posts with others.

 

[deanf]

imported post

"Please cover up that weapon, or I will have to ask you to leave"

You are being given three choices: (1) Cover up, and be in violation of the concealed firearms law. (2) Don't cover up and refuse to leave, and be in violation of the trespass law. (3) Leave. Which do you choose?

 

[joeroket]

imported post

diesel556 wrote:

joeroket wrote:

Section 3 of 9A.52.090 is where the catch is. As soon as you are asked to leave you are no longer licensed to be on the property. As long as you are not being asked to leave for something that is a protected right then you must leave when asked.

Quote McKennas opinion has no bearing on this thread as that opinion is based off the question if a municipality can ban firearms or trespass people from city property because of a firearm. It has absolutely no application to private property.

That doesn't entirely make  sense to me.  Perhaps you can explain it further.

Based on what you are saying it sounds like any condition is lawful if it does not contradict a "protected right".

Isn't it true that there are some conditions that don't contradict a protected right, yet are still unlawful?

Going alon with what Dean has already said, if you are being asked to leave for something that puts you in a protected class or it is a protected right, such as skin color, breast feeding, display of religious symbols, then you may refuse as whoever is asking you to leave for one of those reasons is in violation of the law. Keep in mind of what falls under the federal discrimination laws and there may be some things, such as breast feeding, that is protected by state law.

If they are asking you to leave because they say your too loud, you have a firearm, your manner of dress is inappropriate ( ie; no shirt no shoes no service ) then you either leave or face a trespass charge. Property owners can ask you to leave for any reason they see fit provided they are not violating a discrimination law.

 

[deanf]

imported post

Property owners can ask you to leave for any reason they see fit provided they are not violating a discrimination law.

And by extension any employees in the absence (or presence) of the owners, as they have custodial possession.

 

[joeroket]

imported post

deanf wrote:

Property owners can ask you to leave for any reason they see fit provided they are not violating a discrimination law.

And by extension any employees in the absence (or presence) of the owners, as they have custodial possession.

Ahhh I forgot that part. Thanks Dean.

 

[diesel556]

imported post

joeroket wrote:

If they are asking you to leave because they say your too loud, you have a firearm, your manner of dress is inappropriate ( ie; no shirt no shoes no service ) then you either leave or face a trespass charge. Property owners can ask you to leave for any reason they see fit provided they are not violating a discrimination law.

So "lawful condition" only applies to discrimination laws? Interesting.

 

[diesel556]

imported post

deanf wrote:

"Please cover up that weapon, or I will have to ask you to leave"

You are being given three choices: (1) Cover up, and be in violation of the concealed firearms law. (2) Don't cover up and refuse to leave, and be in violation of the trespass law. (3) Leave. Which do you choose?

I'm not trying to debate personal choice here. What I am trying to do is understand the limitations of premise owner's right to trespass.

I haven't seen a response yet that negates my examples validity as an "unlawful condition" if imposed by the premise owner. Based on item (2) in the RCW your 3rd choice is not legally required, andyour 2nd choice might be defensible in court.

My understanding is only based on the reading of that RCW however, so I'm sure there are holes in it.