What is Best Buy's company policy on open carry?

[ManInBlack]

Tell you what... I suggest that a good way to test your position is go OC in a store that is posted "no firearms allowed" (or words to that effect), get trespassed by the store manager who says "leave the store now, you're trespassed" then simply stay put. After the police process you and book you into jail, call me and let me know how your theory worked out. Maybe you're right!

The argument is not whether or not one can stay after being verbally told to leave. I think everyone agrees that you must obey a verbal order to leave private property.

HOWEVER, this debate is whether or not carrying past a "no guns" sign, by itself, in the state of Washington, constitutes grounds for a trespassing charge. I have not seen a cite saying that doing so is illegal, so therefore, it must be legal. If you are told to leave, you must leave, for whatever reason.

 

[Irish.40]

I live in Minnesota about a mile from BB's corporate headquarters. Their Richfield store is their beta test/flagship store. I have OCed in there twice. The first time the store manager approached me immediately and introduced himself and we chatted about the store and all the changes that they are doing now. That was it. He never mentioned my Glock 23 in the serpa 2 holster. Last night I returned to buy a laptop and again he approached me, shook my hand and proceeded to tell me that last time we spoke he was feeling me out. This time he wanted all the customers and employees to know that he approved of me OCing in the store and told me he wished more people would do it. It is safe to say that if the store manager at this location didn't have an issue with it then their company policy at the very least is to follow state laws.

 

[rapgood]

Now you're arguing nonsense. The entire time we've been talking, it's been my assertion that the sign alone does not meet WA's standard of trespass, and that it requires the manager or some lackey to tell you to leave, provided you are at the business with intent and ability to utilize the business and it is open for the general public to do the same. The moment you added "get trespassed by the store manager" you have shifted the discussion. Nowhere have I claimed you may stay in a store after being given notice of trespass.

For being a lawyer, you don't seem great at reading another person's argument.

At this point, you're saying what I said in my first post to you. Does that mean you now agree that a sign alone does not create a lawful condition predicate to access when the place in question is a building open for public use (especially for commercial purposes)?

No. Trust me when I tell you that I am not in agreement with you.

The content of the sign needs merely to say "No Firearms" and nothing else, and be conspicuously posted ("conspicuously" means that it can be seen from outside of the store). There is no RCW or WAC that says it has to be worded in a certain way or be of a certain size in order to have authority. Using your theory, if you don't think the sign is "conspicuous enough" to be to your liking, then you don't have to comply with it. Bzzzzt! Wrong answer. But thanks for playing, and we have some nice parting gifts for you.

No, it doesn't take a "manager or some lackey" to conclude that you violated the store's policy. If they see the firearm, they can simply call LE and ask that you be removed and charged. My suggestion merely was for you to consciously bring the store's attention to the fact that you're armed to test your theory. So, enter the store OC instead and just stand around to see what happens. It's probably a coin-toss whether they approach you first or if, instead, they are frightened by the firearm and just call LE.

And what on earth is a "WA standard of trespass????" The only legally cognizable "standard of trespass" was the original narrow basis for liability for violations of the Fourth Amendment (which since has been significantly enlarged to the "reasonable expectation of privacy" standard), but has no applicability whatsoever to this discussion.

In any event, you are going to believe what you choose to believe. Hopefully, it doesn't get you arrested for violation of RCW 9.41.270, resulting in a criminal record for you and forfeiture of your firearm. A violation of 9.41.270 is really quite easy for a prosecutor to convince a jury.

Good luck!

 

[Tawnos]

No. Trust me when I tell you that I am not in agreement with you.

The content of the sign needs merely to say "No Firearms" and nothing else, and be conspicuously posted ("conspicuously" means that it can be seen from outside of the store). There is no RCW or WAC that says it has to be worded in a certain way or be of a certain size in order to have authority. Using your theory, if you don't think the sign is "conspicuous enough" to be to your liking, then you don't have to comply with it. Bzzzzt! Wrong answer. But thanks for playing, and we have some nice parting gifts for you.

No, it doesn't take a "manager or some lackey" to conclude that you violated the store's policy. If they see the firearm, they can simply call LE and ask that you be removed and charged. My suggestion merely was for you to consciously bring the store's attention to the fact that you're armed to test your theory. So, enter the store OC instead and just stand around to see what happens. It's probably a coin-toss whether they approach you first or if, instead, they are frightened by the firearm and just call LE.

And what on earth is a "WA standard of trespass????" The only legally cognizable "standard of trespass" was the original narrow basis for liability for violations of the Fourth Amendment (which since has been significantly enlarged to the "reasonable expectation of privacy" standard), but has no applicability whatsoever to this discussion.

The "WA standard" is outlined in 9A.52.070 and 080. Both degrees rely on a person who "knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building." Since there's no law saying that you cannot walk past a sign and enter a building open for the public to shop, it's not unlawful. The same "unlawfully" standard is used in 080. So how would you be charged in either case, when you have not broken any law? Only after this point do you get to even needing to look at 090, which provides that the actor must either have a reasonable belief they'd be allowed back or have complied with all lawful conditions imposed upon access.

Since you can't even show that walking past a sign is breaking the law, we don't even get to the rest of the conditions. Those conditions are clearly meant to address situations like "employee says you can't stay in with an openly carried gun or can't come in with a gun at all." Under the (3) exemption, if the employee is mistaken and you have reasonable belief that you may remain there (such as in the Best Buy case, where the store has gone on public record stating they simply follow state law), then you have your defense to criminal trespass. Under the (2) case, you can comply with the lawful conditions imposed by either covering up or leaving your firearm outside, depending on the conditions.

 

[kparker]

rapgood,

A violation of 9.41.270 is really quite easy for a prosecutor to convince a jury.

Then it should be really quite easy for you to cite some cases where people have been charged, prosecuted, and/or convicted of trespass according to your scenario--i.e. enter past a sign saying "no X", police called and person arrested w/o ever having been requested to leave.

 

[WinchesterModel12]

...

 

[Difdi]

No federal or state right can trump the right of a private owner.

Really? Post a "no colored people allowed" sign on the door of your place of business, and see how well it goes...

 

[LkWd_Don]

So if I encroach on someone's property in full view of a "Do not Enter, Private Property" sign that I have a pass until told to leave? Then of what use is the sign?? Especially when conspicuously placed? Is there a specific RCW that covers this?

No there is a difference between Posted Private property and property that is usually open to the public. Best Buy is generally considered as being open to the public. Therefore your license to be there must be revoked and you then remain to be arrested for trespass.

The specific RCW Title and Chapter for this is under Burglary and Trespass RCW 9A.52 and the Definitions are contained in 9A.52.010
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.52.010

A license or privilege to enter or remain in a building which is only partly open to the public is not a license or privilege to enter or remain in that part of a building which is not open to the public. A person who enters or remains upon unimproved and apparently unused land, which is neither fenced nor otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders, does so with license and privilege unless notice against trespass is personally communicated to him or her by the owner of the land or some other authorized person, or unless notice is given by posting in a conspicuous manner. Land that is used for commercial aquaculture or for growing an agricultural crop or crops, other than timber, is not unimproved and apparently unused land if a crop or any other sign of cultivation is clearly visible or if notice is given by posting in a conspicuous manner. Similarly, a field fenced in any manner is not unimproved and apparently unused land. A license or privilege to enter or remain on improved and apparently used land that is open to the public at particular times, which is neither fenced nor otherwise enclosed in a manner to exclude intruders, is not a license or privilege to enter or remain on the land at other times if notice of prohibited times of entry is posted in a conspicuous manner.

emphasis added

As Best Buy is open to the general public, it is not restricted private property. So, I take that as meaning that until I am told to leave that portion of the building that is open to the public by someone in authority of that building, I have license to be there. Now, with the area of the store that is not open to the general public (Store Room, Office, etc) being posted as off limits to non-employees, then being back there without first being invited would be a trespass.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Really? Post a "no colored people allowed" sign on the door of your place of business, and see how well it goes...

Unconstitutionally talking about a "protected" class now. I don't feel the gov has the right to tell a private business owner who they have to do business with.

I'd rather know who the bigoted, homophobic, xenophobic folks are so that me and my family don't give them money.

 

[tai4de2]

I'm really impressed about the call from the manager in Bellevue, and the implications for lawful carriers (both OC, CC) being welcome in the store.

I will continue to shop there and might even make a point to ask for the manager next time and express my approval. I'm sure anti's who get offended by the sight of a gun in the store would make some noise so I like the idea of balancing that out so we are not just a silent (and easily overlooked) minority.

 

[Tactical SS]

Is it attached to a Mall? Sometimes the Mall general rules of admittance with supersede the stores.

The South Hill Mall has signs on the door stating that No firearms are allowed "except in compliance with State and Federal Law" state law allows open carry, thus my interpretation would be it's allowed... in any event Best Buy is in it's own building and not apart or attached to the South Hill Mall.

 

[LkWd_Don]

The South Hill Mall has signs on the door stating that No firearms are allowed "except in compliance with State and Federal Law" state law allows open carry, thus my interpretation would be it's allowed... in any event Best Buy is in it's own building and not apart or attached to the South Hill Mall.

I am so rarely at the South Hill Mall, I did not know that about the sign. Thanks for the update. I view it the same as you do, that open carry would be permitted as open carry is legal by Washington State law.

Does Best Buy own that building or are they leasing from the Mall Owners? Doesn't make much difference if the Mall supports State Law anyway, especially with Best Buy already supporting State Law.

 

[Mainsail]

I went in to BB here in Silverdale to look at the Transformer Infinity tablet. I wasn't OC because I don't OC when I'm planning on negotiating on an item.

Anyway, I got them to price match NewEgg.com who had it for $488 with no sales tax and free shipping, and that was out the door, so they rolled the sales tax into the price.

They seem very willing to bargain lately.

 

[rapgood]

I wasn't OC because I don't OC when I'm planning on negotiating on an item.

 

[hermannr]

Indeed, that is a common misconception, that and the state legislature would not seem, through preemption, to have restricted state agencies, departments and the like.

That is the assumption Seattle made..and lost. Seattle did not restrict firearms on park property by ordinance, they let the parks department do it by rule...did not work.

Same goes for Oregon and Colorado's fuss with their University system, and I have no doubt if someone would challanege the WA universties, they would lose for the same reason.

The pre-emption statute say the state legislature reserves to itself the right to regulate firearms and anything related, except for those things specifically stated in RCW 9.41.300...

State agencies (like F&W) that have restrictive rules for the loaded carry of long guns in a vehicle...have the very specific authority in RCW 77. If it isn't specifically authorized in an RCW, it isn't authorized.

 

[golddigger14s]

I wasn't OC because I don't OC when I'm planning on negotiating on an item.

Last time I went to the Lacey BB was to get a deal on a new fridge, didn't stop me from OC'ing. Amazing how cooperative the sales people are when you are carrying a 1911.

 

[leitung]

Hmmm... Perhaps you are right. I guess all that money I spent on law school and getting a license to practice law was wasted. Sigh...

BURN!!!

Anyway, I OC'ed in Best Buy in Silverdale the other day without as much as a peep from anyone.

No guns inside = None of my $ go inside

Period.

 

[Grapeshot]

--snip-- I wasn't OC because I don't OC when I'm planning on negotiating on an item.

You're just going about normal, every day activities. Why would you not OC then?

 

[Vitaeus]

<assumption> we have the gloriously vague 9.41.270 here,

It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.

at least one person has been convicted under it for doing nothing but arguing with the police that it is legal to OC in Washington, I have not seen the transcripts of the case, but six folks on the jury bought the prosecutions arguments that they had violated this law.

 

[amlevin]

Does Best Buy own that building or are they leasing from the Mall Owners?

Almost all of these large companies Lease their buildings. Makes their Balance Sheet's look better for Wall Street. Even if they buy the land, build the building themselves, they will almost always sell it with a "Lease Back" agreement.

Rent is 100% deductible each year. Depreciation of non-residential property is spread over 39 years.

It's almost always a given that these Mall Complex Buildings are owned by someone other than the occupant but the occupant still has the right to make their own rules for use.