Anti-Gun Businesses

[Blackfeather7]

I don't read "No Weapons" signs and tend to ignore them anyway. For cryin' out loud, I'm carrying concealed what they don't see doesn't exist! I do stash my piece whenever going into establishments that are verboten by law for weapons carry like banks, bars etc.

I don't believe that banks are verboten at least not in Oregon. I don't know or care about bars since I haven't been in one in forty years.

 

[deen_ad]

I don't read "No Weapons" signs and tend to ignore them anyway. For cryin' out loud, I'm carrying concealed what they don't see doesn't exist! I do stash my piece whenever going into establishments that are verboten by law for weapons carry like banks, bars etc.

It's NOT illegal to carry in a bank, they are NOT Federal property, nor does the State prohibit it. The bank itself may but I ignore that and carry anyway.

Deen
NRA Benefactor/Recruiter
WAC member
ACSWW member

 

[deen_ad]

Since when are banks and bars illegal to carry in? (Concealed, but open as well, if you want to make a scene.)

it IS illegal to carry in a bar or restaurant IF children are prohibited from being there. If they allow children to be seated for eating then you can legally carry in a restaurant in WA. McGrath's has a sign at the entrance quoting RCW 9.41 and stating that firearms aren't allowed, but if you know the law then you know they can't stop you. I've seen the same thing at other restaurants with bars also and I just ignore them to.

Deen
NRA Benefactor/Recruiter
WAC member
ACSWW member

 

[deen_ad]

Heheheheh
So much for that one, now its a federal law. they just have to be challenged

"Hi Deen,

While our office is not involved in that case directly, in its story about the decision, The Seattle Times reported, “In Seattle, the Parks and Recreation Department has been in legal limbo since the introduction of the city's gun ban in parks in October 2009. A state court since has ruled that the ban violates state law, but a federal court ruled the city's policy was within the state's constitution. Both cases are on appeal.



Robert Scales, senior policy analyst for the Seattle City Attorney's Office, said it might be "too early to tell" whether the high court's ruling will affect Seattle's parks restriction.”



Here’s the link to the rest of the story:

<broken link removed>



Hope this is helpful,



Janelle Guthrie, APR
Communications Director | Office of State Attorney General Rob McKenna
1125 Washington Street SE | PO Box 40100 | Olympia | WA | 98504-0100
Phone: (360) 586-0725 | Cell: (360) 584-3046 | E-mail: [email protected]
Join Attorney General Rob McKenna's Listserv for the latest news from the AG's office or visit our Web site at www.atg.wa.gov"

So it's not yet settled even in WA!!

I was aware of the State court ruling that the state law applied, but not the Federal one allowing cities to ban guns

 

[CharlesAFerg]

it IS illegal to carry in a bar or restaurant IF children are prohibited from being there. If they allow children to be seated for eating then you can legally carry in a restaurant in WA. McGrath's has a sign at the entrance quoting RCW 9.41 and stating that firearms aren't allowed, but if you know the law then you know they can't stop you. I've seen the same thing at other restaurants with bars also and I just ignore them to.

Deen
NRA Benefactor/Recruiter
WAC member
ACSWW member

In Oregon, it's legal, just as with banks.

 

[BlvdKing]

it IS illegal to carry in a bar or restaurant IF children are prohibited from being there. If they allow children to be seated for eating then you can legally carry in a restaurant in WA. McGrath's has a sign at the entrance quoting RCW 9.41 and stating that firearms aren't allowed, but if you know the law then you know they can't stop you. I've seen the same thing at other restaurants with bars also and I just ignore them to.

Deen
NRA Benefactor/Recruiter
WAC member
ACSWW member

The problem is it is private property which means they actually can stop you and you could be charged with trespassing or worse.

 

[ob1]

The problem is it is private property which means they actually can stop you and you could be charged with trespassing or worse.

I believe that you would find that you still have to be specifically ordered off private property, and then refuse to leave before you could be charged with trespassing......So again, if you are carrying concealed, who's gonna know ? ...... (2CW)

 

[madderg]

Chiam's Bar and Restaurant across from Fred Meyers north is Salem. No concealed carry allowed.

 

[Cougfan2]

Went to a movie at Century Crossing Theaters last weekend. Carried concealed. What sign????

 

[RVTECH]

All Military recruiting offices haha.
just a joke I'm going to guess you all know why so I won't explain.

I do not know the punch line to your joke but I read somewhere where a military member was in possession of empty brass while on a military base, specifically his dorm room, and was going to be charged under the UCMJ. Being a former military Legal Administrator I cannot recall the exact article he would be charged under but it could be trumped up if the time was taken to do so.

 

[deen_ad]

The problem is it is private property which means they actually can stop you and you could be charged with trespassing or worse.

because the specifically quote the law, and it doesn't apply except to the off limits for minors (bar) area only.

If they posted the whole restaurant "No Firearms Allowed" then they could try to have you arrested BUT they need to post the perimeter, then they have to find out you're carrying, then they have to ask you to leave AND you have to refuse. Then and ONLY THEN can they have you arrested for trespassing. The law is very clear on the protocol they must use.


Deen
NRA Benefactor/Recruiter
WAC Member
ACSWW Member

 

[ob1]

If they posted the whole restaurant "No Firearms Allowed" then they could try to have you arrested BUT they need to post the perimeter, then they have to find out you're carrying, then they have to ask you to leave AND you have to refuse. Then and ONLY THEN can they have you arrested for trespassing. The law is very clear on the protocol they must use.


Deen
NRA Benefactor/Recruiter
WAC Member
ACSWW Member

Exactly the point I was trying to make earlier........There is no trespass without failing to leave when asked to do so.
If they have found out you are carrying, something has gone amiss anyway, then if you refuse to leave...you should be arrested. But for that matter, a property owner or their designated representative can ask you to leave private property at any time for any reason, sign or no sign, you must comply or else.

 

[NoOne]

I think lots of the places that post "no firearms" signs do so to keep their liability insurance premiums lower. If their insurance company asks if they allow firearms in the business, then they would pay a higher premium. Sort of like if the fire insurance company asks if you allow open flames, and don't have a fire extinguisher on premises, you will pay more.

Even though I'm strongly in favor of peoples right to carry, if I were running an insurance sales business and had to set premiums, I would charge people more if:
1. they allowed slippery floors.
2. they didn't have handrails near stairs.
3. openly allowed loaded firearms on premises.
4. didn't illuminate the place, and were open after dark.

And the examples could go on endlessly, but you get the point.

I'm guessing most places really don't care unless someone complains, and that is why it is called concealed carry. I notice many of the places where people were asked to leave follow someone's complaint that they saw the firearm, meaning it was NOT properly concealed. If the firearm remains properly concealed, I'll bet nothing will happen.

I have been carrying concealed for over 25 years and have never been asked to leave, never been asked to show my justification for carrying the firearm. All because I keep it concealed. Sort of an offshoot of don't ask, don't tell.

 

[claypigeon]

Something that disturbs me a little is all the people with the "don't ask don't tell", "cocealed is concealed" attitude. From my understanding, if they post no firearms at thier door and you still carry inside then you have broken the law. I carry to protect myself from those who have no regard for the law. I don't want to immulate thier screw the law attitude. If I see a sign that says no firearms I either go somewhere else or I remove my firearm before I go in. These places are private property and we should either abide by thier wishes or not go thier. Just my

 

[NoOne]

Other than government buildings, hospitals and so on that are specified in statute, I don't think that there is any violation of a law by carrying into a private business that has a sign posted. However, if a person has been trespassed, or told don't come back, and they come back after being trespassed, then that IS a violation of the law.

If you can show the statute that you are referring to, then I will be grateful for the new information. Until then, I do not believe it is a violation of a law.

Another issue would be: What if you didn't see the sign for whatever reason?

It is the responsibility of people who carry to know what the laws are regarding carrying firearms in some of the buildings specified in statute. If the sign was in a building not specified by statute, and you don't see the sign, what law would be violated?

I'm seeking information that would help me to comply with laws. I agree that obeying laws is important. However, as I said above, I don't think there is a law regarding private businesses that are not specified in statute, especially if you don't even see the sign. I would appreciate any information on which statute you are referring to.

 

[ob1]

Something that disturbs me a little is all the people with the "don't ask don't tell", "cocealed is concealed" attitude. From my understanding, if they post no firearms at thier door and you still carry inside then you have broken the law. I carry to protect myself from those who have no regard for the law. :

Try to look at it like this: If a private property is posted with such a sign, interpret it like this.

"If you are carrying a gun and we find out about it, you will be asked to leave".

Then unless you expose your weapon and then fail to comply with the order to vacate, you have no violation of any sort. They do have the right to eject you from their business, they do not have the authority to require you be un-armed. That authority lies solely with the state legislature and those persons and places specifically mentioned in the statute, no more, no less.

 

[NoOne]

OB1,
That was the point I was trying to make. If you leave when asked, no criminal offense has been committed. However, if you brandish your firearm, or fail to leave when asked, then there is a criminal offense.

Certainly, whoever posted the sign can gripe, complain, scold etc, but if you leave when asked or told to, no offense has been committed. The obvious exception to this are buildings and facilities outlined in statute. If you return after having been banned (trespassed), even if you return without a firearm, then the offense is trespass. Much like the Tri-met transportation provider in the Portland metro area does.

I'll wait until someone can show a statute that defines a crime related to carrying a firearm into a place (other than those defined in statute) that put a sign on the door. Until then, I plan to use common sense, common courtesy, keep it concealed, and not argue if asked to leave.

I would again point out that in the more than 25 years I have been carrying concealed, I have NEVER been asked to show my identification, CCW permit, or otherwise justify the possession of the firearm. If the firearm is kept properly concealed, no one else knows it is there.

I believe that people who are asked about the firearm they are carrying are either careless about maintaining concealment, are talking too loudly about it, brandishing, somehow bringing attention to them or their firearm, or may even be dumb enough to "show off" and give people a peek at the firearm by not keeping the firearm properly covered up. Those who are stupid enough to deliberately open their clothing and thereby give someone a peek at their new pistol while in public deserve all the grief and embarrassment they get.

The unfortunate part is that the dummies who do that, reflect poorly on those people who DO go to the effort to maintain concealment.

We haven't even started on the lousy tactics (true beginner level) of letting others know about your firearm before you need it. That would be a different thread altogether.

 

[claypigeon]

Other than government buildings, hospitals and so on that are specified in statute, I don't think that there is any violation of a law by carrying into a private business that has a sign posted. However, if a person has been trespassed, or told don't come back, and they come back after being trespassed, then that IS a violation of the law.

If you can show the statute that you are referring to, then I will be grateful for the new information. Until then, I do not believe it is a violation of a law.

Another issue would be: What if you didn't see the sign for whatever reason?

It is the responsibility of people who carry to know what the laws are regarding carrying firearms in some of the buildings specified in statute. If the sign was in a building not specified by statute, and you don't see the sign, what law would be violated?

I'm seeking information that would help me to comply with laws. I agree that obeying laws is important. However, as I said above, I don't think there is a law regarding private businesses that are not specified in statute, especially if you don't even see the sign. I would appreciate any information on which statute you are referring to.

There isn't any one statute that covers this in its own. But these are all I need to keep me from carrying in a place that is posted no firearms.

&#167; 164.205&#185;

Definitions for ORS 164.205 to 164.270
As used in ORS 164.205 (Definitions for ORS 164.205 to 164.270) to 164.270 (Closure of premises to motor-propelled vehicles), except as the context requires otherwise:

(1) "Building," in addition to its ordinary meaning, includes any booth, vehicle, boat, aircraft or other structure adapted for overnight accommodation of persons or for carrying on business therein. Where a building consists of separate units, including, but not limited to, separate apartments, offices or rented rooms, each unit is, in addition to being a part of such building, a separate building.

(2) "Dwelling" means a building which regularly or intermittently is occupied by a person lodging therein at night, whether or not a person is actually present.

(3) "Enter or remain unlawfully" means:

(a) To enter or remain in or upon premises when the premises, at the time of such entry or remaining, are not open to the public or when the entrant is not otherwise licensed or privileged to do so;

(b) To fail to leave premises that are open to the public after being lawfully directed to do so by the person in charge;

(c) To enter premises that are open to the public after being lawfully directed not to enter the premises; or

(d) To enter or remain in a motor vehicle when the entrant is not authorized to do so.

(4) "Open to the public" means premises which by their physical nature, function, custom, usage, notice or lack thereof or other circumstances at the time would cause a reasonable person to believe that no permission to enter or remain is required.

(5) "Person in charge" means a person, a representative or employee of the person who has lawful control of premises by ownership, tenancy, official position or other legal relationship. "Person in charge" includes, but is not limited to the person, or holder of a position, designated as the person or position-holder in charge by the Governor, board, commission or governing body of any political subdivision of this state.

(6) "Premises" includes any building and any real property, whether privately or publicly owned. [1971 c.743 &#167;135; 1983 c.740 &#167;33; 1999 c.1040 &#167;10; 2003 c.444 &#167;1]
&#167; 164.255&#185;

Criminal trespass in the first degree
(1) A person commits the crime of criminal trespass in the first degree if the person:

(a) Enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling;

(b) Having been denied future entry to a building pursuant to a merchant's notice of trespass, reenters the building during hours when the building is open to the public with the intent to commit theft therein;

(c) Enters or remains unlawfully upon railroad yards, tracks, bridges or rights of way; or

(d) Enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises that have been determined to be not fit for use under ORS 453.855 (Purpose) to 453.912 (Governmental immunity from liability).

(2) Subsection (1)(d) of this section does not apply to the owner of record of the premises if:

(a) The owner notifies the law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over the premises that the owner intends to enter the premises;

(b) The owner enters or remains on the premises for the purpose of inspecting or decontaminating the premises or lawfully removing items from the premises; and

(c) The owner has not been arrested for, charged with or convicted of a criminal offense that contributed to the determination that the premises are not fit for use.

(3) Criminal trespass in the first degree is a Class A misdemeanor. [1971 c.743 &#167;140; 1993 c.680 &#167;23; 1999 c.837 &#167;1; 2001 c.386 &#167;1; 2003 c.527 &#167;1]

&#167; 164.245&#185;

Criminal trespass in the second degree
(1) A person commits the crime of criminal trespass in the second degree if the person enters or remains unlawfully in a motor vehicle or in or upon premises.

(2) Criminal trespass in the second degree is a Class C misdemeanor. [1971 c.743 &#167;139; 1999 c.1040 &#167;9]

A no firearms sign posted at the entrance to a premises would be a "lawfull direction not to enter" if you have a firearm on your person. Now you have possibly commited criminal tresspass in posession of a firearm.

&#167; 164.265&#185;

Criminal trespass while in possession of firearm
(1) A person commits the crime of criminal trespass while in possession of a firearm who, while in possession of a firearm, enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises.

(2) Criminal trespass while in possession of a firearm is a Class A misdemeanor. [1979 c.603 &#167;2]


Still a misdemeanor but now a class "A"

I don't think the "I didn't see the sign" excuse is going to go any further than the "I didn't know the speed was only 25mph" excuse. As long as they are properly posted at the entrance of the establishment.

 

[NoOne]

Claypidgeon,

I agree with the interpretation of law which says that once you have been officially "trespassed, ejected, or told not to come back" for whatever reason, doing so is in fact an offense.

Until you have been told to not come back, I do not believe that a crime has occurred.

It would be interesting to get an interpretation on this from a prosecuting attorney, because they would be the ones to decide whether or not to proceed with a case in court.

I also agree with that "I didn't see the sign" and "I didn't know the speed limit" are about the same thing. But violation of a privately posted speed limit on private property (much as a privately posted firearms sign) is unlikely to be successfully prosecuted in court. But again, I would be interested in a prosecuting attorney's take on this issue.

I have been wrong before, and I'm pretty certain I'll be wrong again before I cash in. If I am convinced I'm wrong, I would be a fool not to admit it. I'm not convinced yet though, however, the prosecutor's input would go a long way toward convincing me.

 

[claypigeon]

Claypidgeon,

I agree with the interpretation of law which says that once you have been officially "trespassed, ejected, or told not to come back" for whatever reason, doing so is in fact an offense.

Until you have been told to not come back, I do not believe that a crime has occurred.

It would be interesting to get an interpretation on this from a prosecuting attorney, because they would be the ones to decide whether or not to proceed with a case in court.

I also agree with that "I didn't see the sign" and "I didn't know the speed limit" are about the same thing. But violation of a privately posted speed limit on private property (much as a privately posted firearms sign) is unlikely to be successfully prosecuted in court. But again, I would be interested in a prosecuting attorney's take on this issue.

I have been wrong before, and I'm pretty certain I'll be wrong again before I cash in. If I am convinced I'm wrong, I would be a fool not to admit it. I'm not convinced yet though, however, the prosecutor's input would go a long way toward convincing me.

164.205 3 c states "lawfully directed not to enter." Other parts say "asked to leave" and "asked not to return". The way this one reads I would not want to stake my freedom on the fact that a visual request not to enter with a firearm posted at the entrance is not a lawfull direction not to enter. I like the out of doors too much.