"No firearms" signs on private property in WA.

This is a discussion on "No firearms" signs on private property in WA. within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by M203Sniper Please post text of said law. No such right exists. Rights exist without enumeration. You've got this backwards. Show us the ...

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 50

Thread: "No firearms" signs on private property in WA.

  1. #31
    VIP Member Array matiki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    N.W.
    Posts
    2,917
    Quote Originally Posted by M203Sniper View Post
    Please post text of said law. No such right exists.
    Rights exist without enumeration. You've got this backwards. Show us the law that says property rights don't include the right to control access. That's the correct question.

    There's laws that say you can't refuse to do business with minorities for example. Where's the law that says you can't refuse to do business with someone carrying a weapon, or with no shirt on, or completely nude, or...


    Quote Originally Posted by CopperKnight View Post
    Back to OP's original questions, please. See post #1 if they have been forgotten.

    Recently the city of Seattle announced a gun ban at community centers, city parks, etc.

    A man called a community center, as well as the media, and informed them that he was coming down with a gun. His intent was to establish standing for a lawsuit, since he feared the existing lawsuit over the ban might be tossed due to lack of standing.

    He showed up, was told to leave, and complied. No charges were filed.

    The essential elements to answer the question are there.

    Local News | Suit filed over Seattle gun ban | Seattle Times Newspaper

    It very well could have gone the other way though.
    "Wise people learn when they can; fools learn when they must." - The Duke of Wellington

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #32
    Moderator
    Array gasmitty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Gilbert, AZ
    Posts
    10,371
    Quote Originally Posted by Cold Warrior View Post
    Leon Harrison
    West Carrollton, Ohio
    Sunday, November 29, 2009

    To: The Editor

    Subject: Did the Forza Coffee Shop have a gun-ban door sign

    “Did Forza Coffee Shop have a gun-ban door sign?”

    Brad Carpenter, founder and owner of Forza Coffee and a retired police officer, might really be in trouble if his Parkland, Washington, coffee shop did not have one of those concealed-carry slashed-red-circle gun-ban signs displayed upon the entry door. Such a sign might have stopped an alleged black murder suspect from illegally entering his coffee shop with a handgun, and then shooting and thus murdering four Lakewood police officers, this Sunday morning, before said suspect left and fled this bloody crime scene that is located close to Tacoma.

    Leon Harrison
    West Carrollton, Ohio
    Leon - give this a rest already, OK? No need to post it in more than one sub-forum and I've seen it now in at least three.
    Smitty
    NRA Endowment Member

  4. #33
    Member Array krag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    45
    I carried tonight into the SR500 Wa. Vancouver Mall and checked the front door for a no fire arms sticker because of this thread. Heh!

  5. #34
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,698
    Quote Originally Posted by wildfire adn View Post
    What I am wondering is if you could be arrested for tresspass just for entering a building with one of these signs posted.
    Sure. And that's not simply because you're speaking of Washington state, or of 2009.

    Being innocent often has nothing to do with the accusation(s) being flung at you. Often, all that's required is (a) being accused and (b) being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    In Oregon, I am not aware of any statute that indicates a person is in criminal trespass if a sign is posted and a person is found to be on the property anyway. So far as I know, the only legal statutes on the books cover being asked to leave and refusing to do so. At THAT moment, at least in Oregon, you're subject to charges of criminal trespass unless you immediately leave.

    However, I know of at least one attempt (via a lawsuit) in the past 12mos to get a court to interpret the statutes in this manner: (a) that a posted sign constitutes "prior notification"; (b) that a person has a responsibility to find such signs and comply with the stated policies; and (c) that a person may be held criminally liable for not following the requirements of the signs. The statutes aren't written that way, so I don't know what the person/group bringing the lawsuit hoped to achieve. Haven't heard of it, since.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  6. #35
    Member Array M203Sniper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    238
    That's YOUR opinion ; the law in most states says they do.
    My "opinion" comes from centuries of philosophy and legal precedent.

    'Real property' rights are rights relating to the land. These rights include ownership and usage. Owners can grant rights to persons and entities in the form of leases, licenses and easements. The limits on the right of property owners to exclude, either by refusing to sell or lease or by insisting that non-owners refrain from physically entering their land, are prevalent in property law. However, none of those laws have ever upheld the ability of a property owner to exclude or infringe upon a person's natural, inalienable rights. Legal precedent has been set against the property owner in cases of discrimination based on race, sex or other immutable traits.

    The right to self defense is a natural right just like the right to life and free association. It may not be taken by anyone private person and governments included.

    Thomas Hobbes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    John Locke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Thomas Paine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    It is a perversion of terms to say that a charter gives rights. It operates by a contrary effect — that of taking rights away. Rights are inherently in all the inhabitants; but charters, by annulling those rights, in the majority, leave the right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few. ... They...consequently are instruments of injustice.

    The fact therefore must be that the individuals themselves, each in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a contract with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist.
    "Words can be as lethal as bullets; Choose them carefully, Aim them well & Use them sparingly."

  7. #36
    Member Array M203Sniper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    238
    Rights exist without enumeration. You've got this backwards. Show us the law that says property rights don't include the right to control access. That's the correct question.
    In short your property rights do not include the ability to regulate behavior. They do not include the ability to stop another person from exercising their rights.
    "Words can be as lethal as bullets; Choose them carefully, Aim them well & Use them sparingly."

  8. #37
    Senior Member Array wjh2657's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lafayette, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,167
    As this post was from Washington state which has very open gun laws (Tennessee pretty much delineates property owners' rights in their laws) I don't even feel comfortable addressing this from a legal viewpoint. The main thing here is a matter of courtesy. If somebody (businesses, by law, are entities) feels they don't want guns on their property, avoid them or be courteous and follow their wishes.

    We are rapidly approaching a perceived attitude of "I'll carry my d--- gun where I want to and blow you away if you don't like it."

    Some of the posts here would probably help help seal the Brady Bunch law packages with the public. Some of you sound pretty scary!

    I CCW with a TN HCP everyday and at home. I own many guns and I shoot on a very regular basis. BUT, I don't walk with a swagger with pearl handled 1911s in a low slung buscadero rig and scare the h--- out of my neighbors (OC is legal in TN btw). Common sense has to prevail here. By all means carry OC if allowed, but if you are going to OC do it tastefully and with courtesy.

    I remain a good neighbor and a Christian, even though there is a Smith and Wesson in my pocket or on my belt. As a result, people I know (and who know I carry) have never been disturbed by it. Keeping a benevolent attitude in the public will help assure that I will keep my HCP.

    I think most people will find that what we can do and what we need to do are not always the same thing.

    By all means go armed, I do, but do it with common sense.
    Retired Marine, Retired School Teacher, Independent voter, Goldwater Conservative.

  9. #38
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,698
    Quote Originally Posted by M203Sniper View Post
    In short your property rights do not include the ability to regulate behavior. They do not include the ability to stop another person from exercising their rights.
    Let's be very clear about what we're talking about, and what we're not talking about.

    1. In the USA, property rights are fundamental and do not trump other fundamental rights.

    2. In the USA, being armed is a fundamental right, and it also does not trump other rights, property rights included.

    3. These two rights, property rights and the right to be armed, coexist as equals.

    4. When you're being denied entry or presence at a facility because you're male, or are wearing green shoes, or don't have a tie, or aren't a member, or are stinking up the place, or have a firearm (aka "weapon") on you, or whatever other reason the property owner deems relevant, you're merely being denied entry or presence. YOU ARE NOT being denied your right to be armed, to defend against attack, to life or anything else. You're simply being asked to leave, as is the right of the property owner.

    5. To allow anything less to a property owner is to disavow property rights. If you think about that for a moment (or awhile, whatever it takes), you should appreciate that we no more want the destruction of property rights than we want the destruction of any other fundamental right. The trick is to find a way that they all mutually coexist. As such, this is the way property rights coexists with the right to bear arms: you can bear arms anywhere you have a right to be; you do not have the right to be at a private location unless you are the property owner; and, you only have temporary approval to be there by leave of the property owner.

    6. We are not speaking of the exercise of the right to defend yourself if attacked, which is something else entirely. If you end up attacked, by all means defend against it. Nobody is stopping you. Not even the property owner, whom you might well find is right there with you in defending against the attack.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  10. #39
    Ex Member Array NavyLT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    471
    Quote Originally Posted by swatspyder View Post
    The only thing an employee of that business can do is trespass you if they see the gun on your person.
    I must respectfully disagree with you, swatspyder. The property owner or their employees cannot tresspass you if they see your gun. They must ask you to leave. If they ask you to leave and you do not, then they can call the cops for trespassing.

    If they call the cops first, before asking you to leave, you cannot be charged with trespassing. See the court case St. Joseph vs. Alamagordo (spelling check?) Police. The courts ruled that the police unlawfully detained St. Joseph because they removed him from a theater without the management of the theater first asking him to leave. Washington law is the same as New Mexico in that context.

    Just like in the Seattle "No Guns" parks and community centers that ex-mayor chuckles created - there is nothing criminal nor illegal about carrying past a sign posted at a location other than those places prohibited by state law.

  11. #40
    Ex Member Array NavyLT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    471
    Quote Originally Posted by kmbrcstm2 View Post
    We have a 'no firearms' sign at my place of employment. The reason management decided to put up the sign in the first place is because we had an issue with what appeared to be an armed security guard in our store. He was not wearing any kind of badge, was decked out in 5-11 tactical gear and open carrying a firearm. Our customers began to get nervous and one of them approached management and asked if they should leave because they thought a SWAT team was setting up in our store. We lost customers because of the tacticool ninja and when we approached him to ask if he was a LEO he got an immediate attitude and became overly defensive; essentially making the situation worse.

    The sign was in the window the next day. Just keep it concealed and if someone asks you about it be polite and professional.
    Nice reaction. Instead of dealing with one individual and telling that one individual not to come back dressed like that, the business instead attempts to hamper the rights of all other law abiding citizens who don't bother anyone else. When are the going to learn THE PROBLEM IS NOT THE GUN!

  12. #41
    Member Array M203Sniper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    238
    CCW9MM Let's be very clear about what we're talking about, and what we're not talking about.
    I don't disagree with your line of thought at all and I am not some crazy "I'll carry my gun wherever I want ." whacko. I would not break the law and I am not advocating it.


    Property rights are VERY misunderstood. Your personal view depends upon your political view in a lot of ways. I am referring to the legal definition of an individuals property rights, not the ability to hold and aquire wealth but the rules that govern real estate.

    I want to use something else as an analogy.

    The right of free association.

    While the United States Constitution's First Amendment identifies the rights to assemble and to petition the government, the text of the First Amendment does not make specific mention of a right to association. Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court held in NAACP v. Alabama that the freedom of association is an essential part of the Freedom of Speech because, in many cases, people can engage in effective speech only when they join with others. The Supreme Court has found the Constitution to protect the freedom of association in two cases (NAACP v. Alabama, 1958 and Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 1984).
    As a property owner, the following occurs;

    A group with whom you disagree, let's say it's #*#*# come into your place of business with the intent of using the service you advertise and provide.

    There is no lawful way you can prevent them from eating at your restaurant or buying a product that will stop them from continuing on to their planned protest.

    You can ask them to leave for any reason or no reason. You may serve half of them before you see that the buttons or t-shirts they wear represent something that scares you or that you hate.

    Nothing you can lawfully do will prevent them from exercising their right to assemble.

    If they choose to hold a #*#*# club meeting in your place of business you can eject them, but putting up a sign that says they may not enter your business for the purpose of lawfully and peacefully exercising their rights is a violation of those rights, even though you can not actually prevent their exercise.

    No matter how you feel about it, an individuals rights absolutely trump whatever right you have to decide on the disposition of your property.

    One has nothing to do with the other and they can co-exist.

    you can bear arms anywhere you have a right to be, and you do not have such rights to be at a private location other than by the leave of the property owner.
    but he has to ask someone to leave, inviting a trespassing charge, in order to hold any legal ground. He can not stop them from entering with the express purpose of stopping the free exercise of someone elses rights, which are lawfully protected or even simply recognized as being inherent to life and fundamental to all men.

    I would not enter a building while armed, with a sign that had the force of law behind it, that would be incredibly stupid. A sign that has no legal force is only displaying the wishes of the owner and those are not important until I am asked to leave.

    We are not speaking of the exercise of the right to defend yourself if attacked, which is something else entirely.
    This I disagree with. Cats have claws, skunks have stink and even little bambi had spots - all creatures are given the ability to defend themselves. I am a sentient being with opposable thumbs and I get to choose the best method for my own survival. That includes everything from situational awareness, passiveness, to flight and fisticuffs and lethal force.
    "Words can be as lethal as bullets; Choose them carefully, Aim them well & Use them sparingly."

  13. #42
    Member Array OLDPUPPYMAX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    115
    Interesting, isn't it. Gun grabbers can trample your 2nd amendment rights to bring your weapon into their building, but I can't refuse to rent MY private property to an Islamic thug. It seems that only the LEFT has the power to abrogate one's Constitutional rights.

  14. #43
    VIP Member Array matiki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    N.W.
    Posts
    2,917
    Quote Originally Posted by M203Sniper View Post
    In short your property rights do not include the ability to regulate behavior. They do not include the ability to stop another person from exercising their rights.
    We're not talking about regulating behavior. We're talking about regulating access. And that is a fundamental right of property owners.

    I noticed you cited some philosophic writings in another response. Here's a citation from an economist and a bit of a philosopher that I happen to agree with. This, I believe, is where you and I find our differences.

    Each of us has a natural right--from God--to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? - Frederic Bastiat, The Law
    The Law
    "Wise people learn when they can; fools learn when they must." - The Duke of Wellington

  15. #44
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,698
    Quote Originally Posted by matiki View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by M203Sniper View Post
    In short your property rights do not include the ability to regulate behavior. They do not include the ability to stop another person from exercising their rights.
    We're not talking about regulating behavior. We're talking about regulating access. And that is a fundamental right of property owners.
    Thank you.

    That's right. They must coexist in order for each to be a fundamental right of a free person.

    In other words, your "right" to pee on the carpeting stops in my living room. At that point, I can suggest (supported by law) that you find your own patch of carpeting to defile if that's your bent. None of which is infringing on your right to defile carpeting as you see fit ... on your own nickel, when it's not costing anyone else theirs. On your own carpeting, not mine. This is the nature of having multiple rights coexisting together. It's nothing new.

    Think hard before answering, though. What if one were to trump the other? How far along that road would we allow ourselves to go, hm? That slope is slippery, there. The ultimate result of either being trumped is that (a) property holders could deny you the ability to be armed or (b) those with arms could deny you the property you feel is yours. Bad results, either way.

    We grouse very loudly, here, about how bloody awful it already is, where neither is well-supported in practice ... neither property rights nor the right to be armed. Both are mere shadows of what they once were.

    Coexisting, however, these rights support and defend each other as two of the most important rights free people have. In short, you cannot really have one without the other, not in a free society that values sanctity of the person. And without these two, you cannot really end up with practical protection of life, liberty or happiness.

    BTW, Bastiat is a good one, for learning about the rights and limits of Man. Highly recommended.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  16. #45
    Ex Member Array Cold Warrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    West Carrollton, Ohio
    Posts
    1,059
    Sorry, this better letter to editors seems to fit in different areas: News; crimes; signs; CCW laws, etc. I have a hunch that the Brady Bunch is already in passionate action. I will bet with regrets that NONE of our local Ohio newspapers print it in any way in any case, because it might hurt someone's feeeeellllliinnnnnggggs.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Legal question about "Firearms Prohibited" Signs
    By BrianM in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: December 3rd, 2010, 04:43 AM
  2. List of states that I can ignore "NO CCW" signs"?
    By Will B. Droopy in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: March 1st, 2010, 08:44 PM
  3. Good Report: Criminals ignore "gun free zone" signs
    By kimberland in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: February 3rd, 2009, 05:20 PM
  4. PRESIDENT BUSH SIGNS "PROTECTION OF LAWFUL COMMERCE IN ARMS ACT"
    By JT in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: October 30th, 2005, 11:56 AM

Search tags for this page

brad carpenter lawsuits

,

brad carpenter of tacoma wa

,

carrying concealed on privite property in washington sate

,

concealed carry on private property washington state

,

laws around no guns on premises in wa

,

no firearms sign washington state

,
no handgun sign in wa
,
private business in state of washington with no firearms sign
,
wa state firearm on private property
,

washington concealed carry private property

,

washington state gun statute private property

,

washington state no gun sign

Click on a term to search for related topics.