Posted: 12/7/2007 9:27:20 PM EDT
| I saw this sign in a window of a store... Got me thinking... What is WA laws regarding CLP and privet property. Some states it illegal to carry if the pp owner post the sign.. |
All it means to me, is the gangbangers know that people are less likely to have guns, I will NEVER go unarmed into a gun free zone. I refuse to be a victim. |
+1 EXCEPT schools, federal buildings, and courts. |
Have a citation for that? I've read through all sections of the RCW related to carry and there is no specific reference to signs or their meaning that I have seen. The way I understand it is that, at most, you could be asked to leave and potentially charged with trespassing if you didn't. It's basically like any other sign that could be put up--like no shirts, no shoes, no service; no purple wigs; no eating; or no singing. Don't act weird, cover your gun fairly well, and you won't have any problem. |
You are incorrect sir. There is nothing in law that 'makes it illegal' to carry on private property in Washington. All they can do, if you reveal yourself, is ask you to leave. If you refuse, you are then guilty of trespass and that will get you in trouble. Washington is unlike some other states where they have used the force of law to disarm you while claiming to allow concealed carry. Like Joe Waldron likes to say - "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and as long as you are properly concealed you won't have a problem. |
thats my standard |
And "don't ask, don't tell" means.........  I went to a motorcycle show in Seattle once. The security bums searched my wife's purse implying "No guns/weapons" but they did not strip search me. Screw-em 
|
| They can only ask you to leave. If you don't leave, then you are tresspassing. Other than that, there is only the places listed in the RCW that are strictly forbidden to carry in. Schools.. courthouse... Bars. The movie theater says no guns, legally, it means little to me. However, being a private business, they have every right to ask me to leave for not following their rules. |
|
And they also have a sign that says "No Outside Food and Drink" but we all know how much candy and such comes in purses and pockets! |
Has it go? Its better to be judged be 12 that carried by 6. |
can't be charged with tresspassing unless clearly posted no tresspassing and the person came on the property anyway or the subject in question has been ordered to leave the property and refuses or has previously already been tresspassed from the location. As far as crime for not obeying the sign it has no force of criminal law IMHO. |
No trespassing signs have no legal force in criminal law whatsoever. The warning has to be given to the individual(s) that are trespassing, and they can then be arrested if they refuse to leave. This is one place in WA criminal law where it is clearly stated a citizen can "detain" a person for the purposes of investigating a misdemeanor (IANALawyer). |
um, well the dead criminals family would have one more bullet in their wrongful death class action lawsuit against you. 
|
Is that a state rule for CC in schools? I thought it was federal. In Oregon it's legal. In Medfords case, you can carry concealed in a grade school unless you are a teacher 
|
RCW 9A.16.110 Defending against violent crime — Reimbursement. (1) No person in the state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting by any reasonable means necessary, himself or herself, his or her family, or his or her real or personal property, or for coming to the aid of another who is in imminent danger of or the victim of assault, robbery, kidnapping, arson, burglary, rape, murder, or any other violent crime as defined in RCW 9.94A.030. (2) When a person charged with a crime listed in subsection (1) of this section is found not guilty by reason of self-defense, the state of Washington shall reimburse the defendant for all reasonable costs, including loss of time, legal fees incurred, and other expenses involved in his or her defense. This reimbursement is not an independent cause of action. To award these reasonable costs the trier of fact must find that the defendant's claim of self-defense was sustained by a preponderance of the evidence. If the trier of fact makes a determination of self-defense, the judge shall determine the amount of the award. |
|
coctailer, this is just a snippet of the section. RCW 9.41.280 Possessing dangerous weapons on school facilities — Penalty — Exceptions. (1) It is unlawful for a person to carry onto, or to possess on, public or private elementary or secondary school premises, school-provided transportation, or areas of facilities while being used exclusively by public or private schools: (a) Any firearm; (b) Any other dangerous weapon as defined in RCW 9.41.250; (c) Any device commonly known as "nun-chu-ka sticks", consisting of two or more lengths of wood, metal, plastic, or similar substance connected with wire, rope, or other means; (d) Any device, commonly known as "throwing stars", which are multi-pointed, metal objects designed to embed upon impact from any aspect; or (e) Any air gun, including any air pistol or air rifle, designed to propel a BB, pellet, or other projectile by the discharge of compressed air, carbon dioxide, or other gas. (2) Any such person violating subsection (1) of this section is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. If any person is convicted of a violation of subsection (1)(a) of this section, the person shall have his or her concealed pistol license, if any revoked for a period of three years. Anyone convicted under this subsection is prohibited from applying for a concealed pistol license for a period of three years. The court shall send notice of the revocation to the department of licensing, and the city, town, or county which issued the license. |
If I read section 9a.52 right Trespassing signs are ok if conspicuously posted, but I don't think it applies in this scenario. but then again maybe I'm misinterpeting it, I usually leave the RCW stuff to Phil in Seattle to post, it makes my brain hurt! RCW website link this is the snippet in question found in the definition part: (3) "Enters or remains unlawfully". A person "enters or remains unlawfully" in or upon premises when he is not then licensed, invited, or otherwise privileged to so enter or remain. 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 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; |
|
That is talking about the non-public areas. If you are in a public area of a store, you have by definition been 'invited' into the store. All they can do it ask you to leave. I also don't think they can detain you, but Kooter would know more about that than I. |
Everyone should understand the difference between law and code. The law has been established through the common history and experience of human civilization. The code is private rules established by those with the authority and power to do so, over which they have jurisdiction. The law has been broken or peace violated when unjust injury against another person or property. To answer the question of behaviour on private property becomes complicated because jurisdiction and definition of injury must be defined. If you sell eggs from your front doorstep that is completely private and under your authority and powers. If you walk into a mall the codes of the state and house code apply to a degree but not totally if those codes violate the law. You have a reasonable expectation of peace gauranteed by law when in public and the mall is public, the mall owners also have the protection of the law and the codes as long as they do not violate the law. Clear ? |
The "problem" that I have experienced before is the trespasser(s) simply say that they didn't see any sign, and/or they don't know where one piece of property starts, stops, or how the lines run. I had to place telephone poles across the back edge of my property to keep vehicles out from where I don't want them, and that finally stopped them. When the blackberries grew up over them, folks would get high centered on the poles, and that is when I would come down and tell them to get the front of their vehicle off my property before I had their vehicle towed. Oh, I have "no trespassing" signs on the poles, but you can't see them anymore, the blackberries have grown over them. I have never heard of anyone getting arrested for trespassing unless they had to go over or through some kind of barrier to get on the property. That is why I said the signs have no force in criminal law. I've never seen a trespassing arrest just because there was a sign and no other action taken or notice given, the police officers I've dealt with don't seem to know or care about that wording regarding the obvious signage, so I guess that what I said comes with a "as much as I have had to do with this issue, the signs don't mean squat". But the poles work pretty good, and I got them for free when the PUD was replacing them. |
|
I AM NOT A LAWYER! My lawyer told me, and it is my clear understanding that State Law clearly says where it is illegal to carry and the law limits it to those places. Stores, public places, etc. can post all the signs they want. They cannot make it illegal to carry your concealed weapon. Where it gets hairy is if for some stupid reason your weapon peaks out and shouts a flirtatious hello or otherwise is detected, they can ask you to leave…upon refusing you will be trespassing. Please…correct me if I am wrong but we are NOT Texas where a legal sign, in proper view CAN make it illegal to carry where they don’t want you to. We have a pretty strong preemption law to prevent this very type of thing. |
|
Look what I just found: AZ Bill to address liability in a gun free zone (2002) I think this is a fucking great idea. If someone wants to disarm folks on private property for liability reasons, than you still have to think about liability if there is an attack. Sure, the odds say there won't be an attack, but your insurance probably won't cover this kind of claim. |