Amazon/Vulcan tryto prohibit legal carry in SLU plaza and Terry Ave Starbucks

[8ball]

Apparently the new plaza in Terry Ave North is supposedly private property, and the landlord (Vulcan) and/or the tenant (Amazon) claims to prohibit all weapons, including legal carry, except LEO. What is interesting is that there is a Starbucks there as well, and if you read the sign below, which is hidden behind a pillar on the east side of the plaza, it claims to prohibit you from carrying in the Starbucks since it is in the 440 Terry Ave building.

I'd love to see what concessions Vulcan got from the city for this 'public' plaza where our Constitutional rights are voided.

If you aren't familiar with the area, the Security Officers they refer to are the unarmed Amazon security in black shirts and tan cargos. Of course, they won't be anywhere nearby when you are mugged by some of the crazies who still hang out in SLU.

Ironically one of Paul Allens Vulcan companies holds a Federal Firearms License. Guns for me, but not for thee?

Read More

 

[deen_ad]

Here in WA all they can do is ask you to leave if you're found to be carrying, if you refuse then and only then can they charge you and then it's only for trespassing.

 

[mjbskwim]

Absolutely no idea as to where you are talking about but if it's private property,they can do what they want.Starbucks has no say in it since they are renters there it seems.
Plenty of other buildings to frequent,if you need to.

 

[deen_ad]

Absolutely no idea as to where you are talking about but if it's private property,they can do what they want.Starbucks has no say in it since they are renters there it seems.
Plenty of other buildings to frequent,if you need to.

The OP was posting about private property so that's what I was answering.
If you have a CPL then you can legally carry anywhere in WA state that is private property. And Starbucks or any other company can only charge you with trespassing if you ignore the signs, (which is most of us do), are found to be carrying and refuse to leave. Now a place that is licensed to serve hard liquor and minors are prohibited is different, the the laws change. As do they for primary schools, but not colleges. Banks are the same, they must find out you are carrying, ask you to leave and you refuse, then they can charge you with trespassing. Check you RCW's (9.41).
The laws are different for court buildings, police stations etc. but that wasn't what the OP was questioning.

 

[Nwcid]

Send the company a certified letter stating that they are accepting personal responsibility and liability for your safety from the moment you leave your car to access their property.

The other option is to quit doing business with with any company in there and explain to them why. Of course getting more like minded folks to do so will help as well.

Of course as dean stated CC, they can do nothing about it.

 

[mjbskwim]

The OP was posting about private property so that's what I was answering.
If you have a CPL then you can legally carry anywhere in WA state that is private property. And Starbucks or any other company can only charge you with trespassing if you ignore the signs, (which is most of us do), are found to be carrying and refuse to leave. Now a place that is licensed to serve hard liquor and minors are prohibited is different, the the laws change. As do they for primary schools, but not colleges. Banks are the same, they must find out you are carrying, ask you to leave and you refuse, then they can charge you with trespassing. Check you RCW's (9.41).
The laws are different for court buildings, police stations etc. but that wasn't what the OP was questioning.

And so what's that got to do with what I said?

This is still America and they do have the freedom to say no weapons.
Just like you have the freedom to decide to CC or just not frequent the building or of any companies that are in it.
Not saying I agree with their decision,just that they do have the freedom to do it.

BTW,I don't think the wording actually says anything about private or non private property,just specifies where it's illegal.
The government can't actually say you can CC on any private property since they don't own it.It does specify carrying on your own property.

 

[Grommit327]

And so what's that got to do with what I said?

This is still America and they do have the freedom to say no weapons.
Just like you have the freedom to decide to CC or just not frequent the building or of any companies that are in it.
Not saying I agree with their decision,just that they do have the freedom to do it.

BTW,I don't think the wording actually says anything about private or non private property,just specifies where it's illegal.
The government can't actually say you can CC on any private property since they don't own it.It does specify carrying on your own property.

Don't quote me on this but I believe they are going about it in the wrong way. There are certain sizes and wording that have to be on a sign to prohibit weapons on your property. However, I am all for them being able to prohibit carry because this is America after all. I will just choose not to do business with them (even though Vulcan does make some really cool stuff)

 

[rolandson]

Absolutely no idea as to where you are talking about but if it's private property,they can do what they want.Starbucks has no say in it since they are renters there it seems.
Plenty of other buildings to frequent,if you need to.

Took me a little bit to figure out that SLU is the South Lake Union area of Seattle...I moved out of Seattle 15 years ago; guess they've been busy fixin up the hood. They aren't "trying" to prohibit legal carry...they have succeeded. It's their house, they can do as they wish.

 

[mjbskwim]

Knowing how Seattle politics is,they probably got permits faster by posting 'no weapons' signs.

 

[8ball]

My issue is that this is a open plaza which Vulcan likely got concessions from the city for building, and in turn they go ahead and take away first and second amendment rights in what was supposed to be a 'public' space.

I bet 99% of the people walking through this area and stopping at Starbucks are not aware that they are now in a rights free zone.

 

[deen_ad]

Don't quote me on this but I believe they are going about it in the wrong way. There are certain sizes and wording that have to be on a sign to prohibit weapons on your property. However, I am all for them being able to prohibit carry because this is America after all. I will just choose not to do business with them (even though Vulcan does make some really cool stuff)

Not in WA state, all they have to do is post it as no weapons allowed, doesn't have to be a certain size or wording.

Private property can be posted, I'm not arguing that, just the they can't have you arrested just for having a handgun on the property if you have a CPL. The law is very specific.

1. They have to somehow know you're carrying.
2. They have to ask you to leave.
3. You have to refuse to leave.
Then and only then can you be arrested and then only for trespassing.

Schools, and public buildings are different.

 

[evltwn]

Yet another example of attempted dictatorship by corporate ninnies. Y'all wring your hands about being charged with tresspassing. I will continue to carry concealed where I damned well please, as I will continue to protect my life as well as that of my loved ones. I am trying very hard not to tremble at the thought of a tresspassing citation as I write this.

 

[hermannr]

Actually I view private property rights a bit different than what I hear here. I think Starbucks probably has a view similar to mine.

The first thing you have to realize, there is private property, let's say your house (leased or owned, does not matter) This private property is not open to the general public and access is restricted to whomever you invite (short of a search warrent). In this type of private property I agree, the owner has the right to control what goes on in his private space.

However: There is another type of "private" property that is completely different. That is a business that deals with an unrestricted general public. Starbucks is a good example, or Wal-Mart. This is not because they do not "own" but lease the property (normal business stradigy for these types of businesses), but because the general public has unrestricted acccess. I do not believe these types of business have the legal "right" as private property owners to restrict what "rights" their customers have, or do not. Don't think so? What do you thing would happen if Wal-Mart put up a sign that said you could not enter if you were _______ (insert your own prefered flavor, black, white, woman, man, Catholic, Islamic etc)

No, when they open their doors to the general public, they give up their rights to "discriminate" against any legit group. Our right to carry is just as much a legal right as our right to whatever religion (or not) we wish to have. Is this specifically written in law? No, but it very well could be and it would not be any more of an infringement than any other specified group.

Think about the Sikh religion. It requires their men (over the age of 12) to go armed (usually with a dagger) at all times "to protect themselves, their families, their country and to defend against all injustice". It is part of their religion (really is) NYC has had to make exemption for the Sikh's that live there specifically for that reason. Now you are going to tell me a place of public accomidation (does not necessarily mean a place to sleep, but more a place that caters to the general public) can tell a Sikh he cannot patronize their property because he is armed? If they do that, they are discriminating against his religion, and that is a published no-no.

At least in WA, if a business wants you to leave, they have to tell you in person...signs are not worth the material and ink that they are printed on. Even so, if that business caters to the general public, I do not think they should be able to ban weapons. They gave that right up when they opened their doors to the general public.

 

[Nwcid]

Hermannr very interesting point. I am a huge proponent of personal freedom but you make a very good argument that I can stand behind.

 

[Dunerunner]

I don't think the gang bangers are going to abide by a sign prohibiting weapons, so I will carry concealed where ever I can (obvious areas excluded). If asked to leave because someone determined I was carrying, I will. If a business refuses access because I am carrying, I will take my business elsewhere. It's private property, they can do what they want. Funny that the liberturds don't understand that gun free zones are kill zones for the bad guys.

 

[joeroket]

Don't quote me on this but I believe they are going about it in the wrong way. There are certain sizes and wording that have to be on a sign to prohibit weapons on your property. However, I am all for them being able to prohibit carry because this is America after all. I will just choose not to do business with them (even though Vulcan does make some really cool stuff)

The signs prohibiting firearms you are referring to are for establishments that are off limits to persons under 21 as classified by the LCB. There are other signage requirements but those are not related to firearms in any way.

 

[joeroket]

hermannr - I agree with you but the things you are referring to are classified as civil rights. Until SCOTUS deems the 2nd a civil right anyone can request that you leave, or have you forcibly removed if you refuse, from property that is under their control or they are an agent for the controlling party, such as a walmart employee or joe blow cashier at your local mini mart.

 

[8ball]

Curious - this 'public' plaza used to be a public alley and was signed over by the city to Vulcan. I wonder what the terms on that were? Anyone got a friend at Seattle DPD?

 

[riverrat373]

I'm amazed at how many "lawyers" are on this forum dispensing free advice!