My Bank restricts the use of firearms within the building.


PDA






Aw4g63
June 20, 2009, 09:33 PM
So I'm standing in line at the bank. I bank at a local credit union in the east suburbs of Cleveland, Ohio. There's no sign on the door saying "No guns". However in line there is a sign that says:

"We restrict the use of sunglasses, cellphones and firearms while in the bank."

Do you think this means carry? Since it's not posted on the door I'm assuming I have every right to carry since I wouldn't be using my concealed weapon, just carrying it.

Thoughts?

Btw, I wanted to take a picture of the sign but I didn't want to break the rules by using my camera phone. lol

If you enjoyed reading about "My Bank restricts the use of firearms within the building." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Ragnar Danneskjold
June 20, 2009, 09:36 PM
You could always go back with a real camera.

Aw4g63
June 20, 2009, 09:39 PM
I'll just take a picture next time I'm in there and it's busy. They're all very nice people that work there. They wouldn't even notice me taking the picture.

ar10
June 20, 2009, 10:21 PM
It's private property, whether they post the "proper" sign or not they have the right to post a gun buster sign. You have the choice of not doing business with them.

onlymeself
June 20, 2009, 10:33 PM
Why not just ask them I would. Credit unions have some funky rules, like if you have a loan with them and you break one of their rules they may be able to call the loan in.

LSCurrier
June 20, 2009, 11:07 PM
Things sound confusing to me.

I would take my account elsewhere.

Luke

B. Adams
June 20, 2009, 11:08 PM
So you can't carry your cellphone or sunglasses in the bank either?

Seems like you just can't wear the sunglasses or talk on your cell phone, but you can carry your gun, just don't "use" it while in the bank.



I know when I'm at the bank I'm always tempted to set up some steel plates or bowling pins and get some "use" out of my firearm, but then again, my bank doesn't have a sign like yours does. :D


However, if signs like that have weight under Ohio law, you may want to ask for a clarification.

riverrat373
June 20, 2009, 11:41 PM
Think about it! It's a BANK! Bank robbers wear sunglasses, can use cell phone cameras to take pictures and get the layout of the bank, and employees certainly would be suspicious of anyone with a weapon that was not a uniformed cop. Leave your firearm at home or lock it in a secure container in your vehicle when you need to do any banking.

vicdotcom
June 20, 2009, 11:47 PM
Worse they could do is ask you to leave, take off your glasses, turn off your cell etc. It is private property so they still have the right to run it as they see fit or refuse service to anyone who is not complying with their regulations.

There is always the option not to bank there if you don't like the policies. Or open an account where the bank has a drive through window such as the ones here in FL. Of course my bank allows cell phones, but doesnt allow hats to be worn haha.

Laws can also be different depending on state.

docfubar
June 20, 2009, 11:52 PM
"We restrict the use of sunglasses, cellphones and firearms while in the bank."



The word Use means to me you can have those items just not use them. Hey if someone trys to kill you and you use your firearm things have already gone to crap so who cares. The same with calling 911 on your cellphone.

withdrawn34
June 20, 2009, 11:54 PM
Hmm. Yea. So I guess they'll ask you to leave if you're forced to defend yourself.

I don't know about you, but I probably will be doing the rest of my banking business another day anyway if I am forced into a situation with a criminal or such anyway.

B. Adams
June 20, 2009, 11:58 PM
Leave your firearm at home or lock in a secure container in your vehicle when you need to do any banking.
Today 09:08 PM


Gas stations get robbed often as well, should I leave gun at home before I get gas?


A bank is the same as any other business, no reason to disarm just because you're going into one. I don't recommend open carrying into a bank, or most other places, but if you're concealing it correctly nobody should know you've got it.

atomd
June 21, 2009, 12:01 AM
It says that they restrict the "use" of them. So if you have your cell phone in your pocket, that's fine because you're not using it. I guess as long as you aren't firing your gun in there, that's fine too! :D

I've seen a sign in a bank that said they wanted all their customers to remove their hats when inside the bank. I went in there 5 days a week for 6 years with a hat on every time and they didn't say anything. Usually it's the employees that make the call with that stuff. If someone is being a jerk on a cell phone while being helped, the teller can say something about the sign and it's not as confrontational...after all it's obviously the bank policy and not her personally singling out the customer. Man...those cell phone people are so annoying.

NavyLCDR
June 21, 2009, 12:24 AM
Think about it! It's a BANK! Bank robbers wear sunglasses, can use cell phone cameras to take pictures and get the layout of the bank, and employees certainly would be suspicious of anyone with a weapon that was not a uniformed cop. Leave your firearm at home or lock it in a secure container in your vehicle when you need to do any banking.

Nope. I open carry at Navy Fed Credit Union in Oak Harbor, WA every time I go in there and have never been looked at twice by anyone.

And, as stated above many times, they would not ask you to leave if you had sunglasses in your pocket or a cell phone in your pocket. The sign applies to the firearm in exactly the same way. Don't shoot anyone or anything in the bank and you have obeyed the sign.

MedWheeler
June 21, 2009, 12:26 AM
That sign doesn't read the way you think it does. Like others posted, it restricts the "use", but says nothing about the "possession". No hunting, plinking, or displaying your gun, but the use of it to defend the life of you or another innocent probably does not fall within the restricted uses category.
It probably was their intent to prohibit the carrying of firearms, though I doubt they actually think they can ban the possession of sunglasses and cellphones by customers. But, that's not what the sign says, so I wouldn't sweat it at all.

Dokkalfar
June 21, 2009, 12:52 AM
"We restrict the use of sunglasses, cellphones and firearms while in the bank."

well first of all, as stated above, the term 'use' in no way involves the word 'possession' here. Also, the term 'restrict' does not mean 'ban'. Your driving a car is restricted, but not in anyway outright banned. restrict merely means they have some rules/regulations regarding the use of those items. You would need to clarify with bank personnel (not a teller, talk to a manager or call into a corporate office) what those restrictions actually are.

Frog48
June 21, 2009, 01:03 AM
I agree with the others that make a distinction between "use" and "possession". As long as you're abiding by the law, I wouldnt worry about it (IE carrying with a valid CHL, and a bank is not listed as a prohibited place in your particular state).

stickhauler
June 21, 2009, 03:02 AM
It is a requirement of obtaining an Ohio Concealed Carry Permit. Here's a link to the law booklet:

http://www.ag.state.oh.us/le/prevention/pubs/2009_ccw_book.pdf

top of the page, on page 17 lists the wording, under "Private Property And the Workplace." Seems pretty clear to me. I have yet to see a bank in Ohio that allows a concealed carry holder to carry their gun into their place of business, I also have yet to see a church where the prohibition isn't posted. I'd wager they also have the standard prohibition sign posted somewhere as well. My personal bank has the sign posted on the door entering their lobby.

I'm pretty sure if I worked in a bank, and saw a person entering the place with a gun, it would set off the pucker factor pretty quick. Unreasonable? I don't think so, they usually get robbed by people with guns.

shiftyer1
June 21, 2009, 03:14 AM
I find the humor in this sign. Just like a couple weeks ago when my truck broke down 20 yards from a sign the read MAINTAIN YOUR VEHICLE. But I tend to find humor in lots of things.

stickhauler
June 21, 2009, 03:40 AM
In having an off-beat sense of humor. I see signs every day coming out of a construction zone stating "Resume Legal Speed." Does that mean they assume we're running full tilt boogie through the construction zone? Or simply a poorly worded sign?

danbrew
June 21, 2009, 09:39 AM
I've kept machineguns in a safe deposit box in Wisconsin for 10+ years. (long story, acquired the machineguns while living in Wisconsin and later moved to Illinois - where machineguns are prohibited for the average joe). I'd probably been going in and out of this bank for 3-4 years every other weekend or so to get the guns, go shoot, clean 'em, and put 'em back - all in a day or sometimes maybe a long weekend.

One day when I was clanking and banging my way to the little SDB box room with a canvas bag full of machineguns the little old lady behind the counter says "Mr. Dan, we're all curious what you have in those bags that you're always carrying in and out of here." Long story short, we ended up having an impromptu machinegun display right there and there in the lobby of this tiny small town bank right on the border of Wisconsin and Illinois. It's the running joke now that they think I'll jump out of the viewing room with a Thompson or M16 if I happen to be in there when they get robbed. I always laugh and tell 'em that they got more insurance than I do and I'm just gonna stay on the floor and cry while they get robbed.

:D

Deanimator
June 21, 2009, 10:04 AM
top of the page, on page 17 lists the wording, under "Private Property And the Workplace." Seems pretty clear to me. I have yet to see a bank in Ohio that allows a concealed carry holder to carry their gun into their place of business, I also have yet to see a church where the prohibition isn't posted.
Then you haven't been to virtually EVERY bank in Rocky River, Ohio to include:

Key Bank
Huntington Bank
Bank One
US Bank (main branch and satellite branch in Giant Eagle food store)
National City Bank

jon_in_wv
June 21, 2009, 10:13 AM
I saw a sign in Alabama near a construction sight that read, "TRUCKS ENING HIWAY" ...............................

If you don't read dummy that means, Trucks ENTERING Highway. I'm sure the guy who made it sounded it out though.

ar10
June 21, 2009, 10:26 AM
I live in Cen. OH and there are places that have gun buster signs, some are in plain view and some not. Some may not have the perfect most up to date AG sign or even perfect wording. But no matter how you interpret it they do not want guns in their business. Sending letters, protesting, or any other form of argument is not the way for CC carriers to act. In fact it does more harm that good.
We go to a lot of different stores and restaurants. If I see any sign stating they don't want guns on their property, I respect that and disarm.

Aw4g63
June 21, 2009, 10:33 AM
You Did Read The Law Book Didn't You??
It is a requirement of obtaining an Ohio Concealed Carry Permit. Here's a link to the law booklet:

http://www.ag.state.oh.us/le/prevent...9_ccw_book.pdf

top of the page, on page 17 lists the wording, under "Private Property And the Workplace." Seems pretty clear to me. I have yet to see a bank in Ohio that allows a concealed carry holder to carry their gun into their place of business, I also have yet to see a church where the prohibition isn't posted. I'd wager they also have the standard prohibition sign posted somewhere as well. My personal bank has the sign posted on the door entering their lobby.

I'm pretty sure if I worked in a bank, and saw a person entering the place with a gun, it would set off the pucker factor pretty quick. Unreasonable? I don't think so, they usually get robbed by people with guns.


I've read the book three times over, I do each time it's revised. I'm guessing you didn't read my post.

There is NOT a no guns sign on the door.

There is a no "use" of gun sign in the bank at the teller stand.

To "use" of Sunglasses, Phones or Guns. Not possession. There is no gun buster sign posted.



I think this post went over a few peoples heads.

JohnMcD348
June 21, 2009, 10:33 AM
I know my bank(Credit Union) could care less about it. The only sign they have in the front is that prior to entering you have to remove your Helmet, Sunglasses or any other non medically necessary item that obscures the face.

Deanimator
June 21, 2009, 10:36 AM
I live in Cen. OH and there are places that have gun buster signs, some are in plain view and some not. Some may not have the perfect most up to date AG sign or even perfect wording. But no matter how you interpret it they do not want guns in their business. Sending letters, protesting, or any other form of argument is not the way for CC carriers to act. In fact it does more harm that good.
We go to a lot of different stores and restaurants. If I see any sign stating they don't want guns on their property, I respect that and disarm.
The law requires you to not carry a firearm into a posted business.

It does NOT require you to spend YOUR money in that business.

The law does NOT require you to keep silent about WHY you're withholding your money from that business.

I may have to respect a business's RIGHT to make a choice. I don't have to respect the choice.

There's a difference between obeying the law and being a doormat.

Aw4g63
June 21, 2009, 10:43 AM
Before this thread gets mis-led any further I'd like to say that I will continue to carry concealed into my credit union until they post a sign on the door that restricts possession of a gun on premise. They are the best place I've ever banked with.

I'd rather see my money go to them then some giant corp that's failing.

hso
June 21, 2009, 11:04 AM
We restrict the use of sunglasses, cellphones and firearms while in the bank.

Use?

So, they're telling you not to use the bank for a firing range or a cleaning station?

That sign is meaningless from a logical and legal standpoint.

TexasRifleman
June 21, 2009, 11:21 AM
That sign is meaningless from a logical and legal standpoint.


And it may very well be intentional.

I see many "not proper" (not legally binding) no gun signs and they are intended only to calm the soccer moms and sheeple while not restricting lawful carry.

Here in Texas for example we have a "proper" sign, that has a legally binding meaning, and then there are the standard no gun signs, the gun with the red x through it etc.

I asked one store about that sign once, since I knew the owner.

I said "you know that has no legal meaning right?" His answer was certainly he knew it had no legal meaning, he welcomed concealed carriers, but putting it there made the morons feel better so what was the harm.

I suspect this sign prohibiting the use of guns is intentionally confusing, with no weight of the law behind it, may be there for the very same reason.

Avenger
June 21, 2009, 11:26 AM
Actually, the entire sentence is semantically null. It doesn't say anything about what the restrictions actually ARE. For all you know, they just don't want you to have your phone out WHILE STANDING ON YOUR HEAD AND WHISTLING THE DRUM SOLO FROM IRON BUTTERFLY'S "INA GODDA DA VITA". And I wouldn't blame them one bit, that does sound like it would be really annoying.:rolleyes:

mgkdrgn
June 21, 2009, 11:36 AM
"We restrict the use of sunglasses, cellphones and firearms while in the bank."

Thoughts?


My thoughts are that the sign means next to nothing. "Restricting the use" doesn't mean you can be "in possession" while in the bank. You think they are going to call the police on every grandma that walks in the bank with sunglasses? The rent-a-cop bank guard is going to "pop a cap" in anyone who's cell phone rings?

Aw4g63
June 21, 2009, 01:46 PM
Exactly my point. It's a great sign.

It calms anti's and protects pro's.

SHvar
June 21, 2009, 02:12 PM
Im sure if the bank says this, you would be removed by the police if you were carrying on the premises. It is after all the right of the business to prevent you from being present while carrying a firearm. Of course it would be a trespassing charge if you did not leave imediately after being told to. Im sure they can use other charges along with trespassing if they choose to.

"We restrict the use of sunglasses, cellphones and firearms while in the bank."

There are multiple businesses that now have signs around that restrict the use of cellphones, they usually out of courtesy have a sign near the front door saying "no cellphone use", if you use the cellphone they remove you or call the police and charge you with trespassing. In the case of the nicest local theater we have the rules say "no cellphone use, after 6pm no minors (without a parent accompanying them), no talking loudly during the movie", they are serious about these rules, they removed mulitple people for these things. This theater is the best around now because of these rules.
Even my vet clinic does not allow cellphones to be turned on inside the building (because of customers who are glued to their cellphones all day, not having the courtesy of hanging up when dealing with the vets or employess).
The sunglasses, thats a personal preference, but I can see someone tripping and getting hurt then suing the bank if they werent restricted.

TexasRifleman
June 21, 2009, 05:28 PM
e sunglasses, thats a personal preference, but I can see someone tripping and getting hurt then suing the bank if they werent restricted.

The sunglasses restriction is to enable better identification with the security cameras.

The cell phone restriction is to try to limit communication from a lookout to the getaway car, etc.

The gun restriction just makes people feel better, like "something" is being done to deter a robbery.

All of the things on this sign center around robberies.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
June 21, 2009, 05:36 PM
My Bank restricts the use of firearms within the building.

I should HOPE that they restrict the use of firearms while in the building - something along the lines of "self-defense uses only" would make sense, or even "all lawful purposes". It's not a shooting range.

As for the "stupid signs" - no guns allowed signs: If it's not my bank, I ignore them; if it IS my bank, then I change banks if they don't take them down after writing a letter to them.

divemedic
June 21, 2009, 05:45 PM
The thing that people forget about these signs is that YES, you can be charged if a business asks you to leave and you refuse, but that is not the same thing as being arrested for not following the sign. There are several different issues here:

Does any sign that prohibits weapons carry the force of law?

In the Ohio, where the OP resides, it appears that they do. (Thankfully, not in my state)

Does the sign in question meet the requirements?

In this case, probably not. Words mean things, and each word has a meaning that is assigned to it. Ambiguous signs generally are not generally enforceable. Although Ohio law does not specify what verbiage must be on a sign in order for it to be enforceable, this sign is posted INSIDE the bank and is not visible from outside. Since you could not see the sign from the outside, you would be breaking the law as soon as you enter the bank if the sign were enforceable.

The fact that it is vague does not help it either. What the sign does is state that the use of firearms is restricted, but does not state the restriction, nor does it state what constitutes use.

I don't think the sign in and of itself is enforceable.

Then there is the issue of trespassing. A business owner has the ability to ask you to leave. If you refuse, you are trespassing. That has exactly NOTHING to do with the topic of this thread.

RoostRider
June 21, 2009, 05:58 PM
I agree with the philosophy that any business that doesn't follow the letter of the law in posting a 'no guns' sign doesn't care enough to actually try to keep legal gun carrying out.

Business owners are pretty savy about these types of things, and talk to other business owners etc.... They know that having an meaningless sign makes some of their other customers feel safer.... to someone who owns a business, it's a no-brainer (can you tell I own a business?... lol)... now the concealed carry permit holder can come in and feel safe (cause he knows the laws cause he took the course), and so can the Hippy Grandma who is scared to death of guns because her friends dads brother killed himself with one....

I think the hole in the law is intentional, and I think the use of the hole in the law is intentional as well.....

If a store owner (and especially a corporate or the banks lawyers) really wants to keep legal CCW from the store/business, he knows the proper verbage etc that needs to be used.... or he is not very good at his job

jon_in_wv
June 21, 2009, 06:48 PM
From what I read of Ohio state CCW law the sign in your bank doesn't seem to hold up to legal standards. It doesn't say you can't carry concealed at all, it just says you can't use it. I'm not a snake lawyer though.

Lou McGopher
June 21, 2009, 07:46 PM
None of the Charter One branches I've been to have any sign concerning firearms.

Switch banks, perhaps? :-)

rondog
June 21, 2009, 09:04 PM
Funny, I had to make a large withdrawal of cash once from my bank. The transaction was handled in a private room, with a "security guard" present.

I thought it was ironic that the "guard" had absolutely nothing that could be construed as a weapon, yet me, the customer, had two loaded large-caliber handguns concealed on my person. Hey it was MY cash, what's the guard gonna do to protect me?

The same bank was robbed THREE times with that same guard on duty, he always managed to be somewhere else when they happened. Haven't seen him around lately.....

FlaChef
June 21, 2009, 09:08 PM
I wonder if the restriction is something like "No rapid fire. One shot per second maximum". I don't even like ranges with that rule, I would find a different bank if they won't let me do a failure drill at 7 yards.

SCKimberFan
June 21, 2009, 10:20 PM
I really don't plan to use my gun when I go into a bank, so I just keep it holstered and concealed, especially if the sign does NOT meet the legal standard as set forth by the legislature.

Aw4g63
June 21, 2009, 11:28 PM
Well, I went into the bank today wearing my sunglasses, talking on my cell phone while testing a few new mags in my Kahr.....


Seriously though, by law I'm allowed to carry into their business. That sign doesn't restrict me. It's not posted at their entrance.

Extremely Pro Gun
June 22, 2009, 03:26 AM
I hope they get robbed at bat-point and none of the tellers can defend themselves. Dumb bunch of pansy ass ******** coward, right wasteing hippy ****s.

Yeah i totally bet that the next guy to rob the bank is going to have a licensed CCW :banghead: This **** makes me furious!!!:cuss::mad::barf:

Time warner has a no handguns sticker on the window, I carry inside EVERY TIME :eek: **** not being able to defend my self when and where i need to and **** listening to the stickers.:uhoh:

evan price
June 22, 2009, 03:53 AM
Originally Posted by Stickhauler
You Did Read The Law Book Didn't You??
It is a requirement of obtaining an Ohio Concealed Carry Permit. Here's a link to the law booklet:

http://www.ag.state.oh.us/le/prevent...9_ccw_book.pdf

top of the page, on page 17 lists the wording, under "Private Property And the Workplace." Seems pretty clear to me. I have yet to see a bank in Ohio that allows a concealed carry holder to carry their gun into their place of business, I also have yet to see a church where the prohibition isn't posted. I'd wager they also have the standard prohibition sign posted somewhere as well. My personal bank has the sign posted on the door entering their lobby.

I'm pretty sure if I worked in a bank, and saw a person entering the place with a gun, it would set off the pucker factor pretty quick. Unreasonable? I don't think so, they usually get robbed by people with guns.


Stickhauler, I bank at Huntington Bank. They don't post. As a matter of fact, one branch tried to post. I called the Director of Corporate Security about this issue, and they sign came down THAT DAY.
I often am armed, concealed or open carried, when I do my bank business. As a matter of fact when I make large deposits or withdrawals I am always armed. I discussed this with two tellers the day the sign went up (they said a new branch manager put it up on his own initiative.) and they agreed as long as I wasn't robbing the place, a gun wasn't going to cause a problem.

Another anecdote- one of the branches that had been robbed a few times recently went and installed a man trap, with airlock-style doors and a metal detector. It was not posted as such and I thought it was a lobby vestibule. There are'nt any "NO GUNS" signs, either. I was carrying a small polymer framed gun, and the alarm did not go off. I asked the branch manager about it (discreetly) and she told me that it wasn't set very high because people with bags of change were getting trapped in the man trap and the only people who could open it were Corporate Security or managers, nobody else at the branch could over-ride the locks. She did say if I ever got stuck, just show my CCW card and they would let me out.

I am also an Ohioan. The law states ONLY that a "Sign..conspicuously placed" has to be posted stating that carrying firearms is prohibited.

"Use of" is not carrying.

Oh yeah, and churches are not required to post because churches are enumerated under the law.

SHvar
June 22, 2009, 01:03 PM
One reason cellphones and sunglasses can be restricted are for preventing identification, and communication with get away drivers, etc. The primary reason so many businesses restrict cellphone use now is because they, like so many other people in this country are sick of the rude individuals who walk around with the cellphone glued to their ear and face talking into it, or texting 24/7.
If these people had some common sense, a little courtesy, and payed more attention while doing other things in life the use of cellphones would not have to be restricted. Its considered one of the most rude things to do when in a theater restraunt or when dealing or talking to others, and one of the most dangerous while driving.
Check your state laws, dont go carrying in the bank until you know for sure. If the bank says its fine then Id conceal it if you can.

DHJenkins
June 22, 2009, 07:46 PM
"We restrict the use of sunglasses, cellphones and firearms while in the bank."

Am I missing something?

It says "We restrict the use of..."

First off, it says "restrict", not "prohibit", which is open to interpretation.

Second, the only way to "use" your firearm would be to draw it and fire it.

Do they make people leave their sunglasses & cell phone in their cars? If not, I imagine the same rules apply to your legally carried gun.

Zundfolge
June 22, 2009, 07:59 PM
I'm pretty sure if I worked in a bank, and saw a person entering the place with a gun, it would set off the pucker factor pretty quick. Unreasonable? I don't think so, they usually get robbed by people with guns.

What if this was worded thusly?
I'm pretty sure if I worked in a bank, and saw a black person entering the place, it would set off the pucker factor pretty quick. Unreasonable? I don't think so, they usually get robbed by black people.

I would contend that MOST armed citizens (and for that matter black folk) that enter the bank are not there to rob the place ... and those that are certainly aren't going to care about a sign.

jkingrph
June 22, 2009, 11:14 PM
I've seen a sign in a bank that said they wanted all their customers to remove their hats when inside the bank. I went in there 5 days a week for 6 years with a hat on every time and they didn't say anything. Usually it's the employees that make the call with that stuff. If someone is being a jerk on a cell phone while being helped, the teller can say something about the sign and it's not as confrontational...after all it's obviously the bank policy and not her personally singling out the customer. Man...those cell phone people are so annoying.
__________________

I could just see that about hats going over here in Texas.

w_houle
June 22, 2009, 11:34 PM
There is NOT a "no guns" sign on the door.

There is a no "use" of gun sign in the bank at the teller stand.

To "use" of Sunglasses, Phones or Guns. Not possession. There is no gun buster sign posted.
It sounds like the sign was written in a passive aggressive manner. The intent of the sign is for you not to bring a gun in their bank.

TexasRifleman
June 22, 2009, 11:42 PM
The intent of the sign is for you not to bring a gun in their bank.

Really? So the intent is for customers to not bring cell phones into the bank, even if off and in their pocket?

You really believe that to be the case?

p35
June 23, 2009, 12:59 AM
After Mount Saint Helens erupted and covered most of the State of Washington with volcanic ash, a lot of people took to wearing dust masks outside. Some banks put up signs asking people to take their masks off when they entered the bank.

Seemed funny at the time, but then we were looking for reasons to laugh at the situation...

w_houle
June 23, 2009, 12:49 PM
There is more than a slight difference between your cell phone and your gun.

SHvar
June 23, 2009, 12:50 PM
You know what they say about those who ASSUME, it better to ask and verify before you are on the other end of a nervous cops gun and risking being shot.
Im sure they mean to not use your cellphone when in the bank, not to wear sunglasses inside the bank, and not to carry guns in the bank.
None the less, restricting the use of these things is up to them, its their business, and their call when you leave or stay.
So its better to ask them and not assume anything.

TexasRifleman
June 23, 2009, 01:31 PM
There is more than a slight difference between your cell phone and your gun.

No, in terms of legalities and wording of this sign, there does not appear to be. If there was intent to differentiate cell phones from guns the sign would not include both in the "no use" language.

The sign says "no use of cell phones" and "no use of guns".

How in the world do you interpret that sign to mean that cell phones may be carried but not used, but guns can't be used OR carried?

You can't. You cannot have it both ways.

So, if you think this sign says you can carry a cell phone, then you can carry a gun. You just can't use either one without violating, at least, the terms of the sign.

Words matter, especially in the law.

What you "feel" about this makes you sound like the typical anti, going on "feelings" rather than facts.


The sign says ""We restrict the use of sunglasses, cellphones and firearms while in the bank."

Since the sign does not explain what the exact restrictions are, and does not say "please contact manager for info" or some other disclaimer, then we go solely off the language of the sign which says "use".

It restricts the "use" of sunglasses, cellphones, and firearms equally to anyone who can read English without adding emotional context.

Therefore, a "reasonable person" (the basis for most law) would in my opinion interpret the meaning to apply to all things equally, and since it's silly to think a bank would prohibit a customer from carrying his cell phone in his pocket, it is equally silly to think that the bank is trying to prohibit the carrying of a legal gun.

If you DO interpret the word "use" to include carrying, then you MUST apply that restriction to all items and leave the cell phones and sunglasses in the car with the gun.

It's even more silly, bordering on just plain insane, to interpret the sign to somehow have DIFFERENT meanings of the word "use" for the different items simply because of the emotional impact of the items.

w_houle
June 23, 2009, 02:44 PM
My thoughts are on where your head is for this issue... and since you do not want a rational discussion on the issue, and I no longer wish to keep my comments "high road" then I wish you a good day, sir.

CoRoMo
June 23, 2009, 02:49 PM
That makes no sense at all. What part of the discussion lost rationality? Only the part that jumped to a conclusion that the text did not lead us to.

Have a nice one.

TexasRifleman
June 23, 2009, 03:16 PM
My thoughts are on where your head is for this issue... and since you do not want a rational discussion on the issue, and I no longer wish to keep my comments "high road" then I wish you a good day, sir.

In other words you can't think of a reasonable explanation for why the sign would mean one thing for a phone and another for a gun so it's easier to just exit the debate.

I would love to hear a good explanation of why the sign would have a different meaning for different items.

NavyLCDR
June 23, 2009, 03:30 PM
There is more than a slight difference between your cell phone and your gun.

As far as the sign posted in the bank is concerned, there is absolutely no difference between the cell phone, the sunglasses, and the gun.

carebear
June 23, 2009, 06:47 PM
"Use" =

sunglasses - wear

cell phone - talk or text (or an activity that appears identical to such use)

gun - fire (perhaps also point or brandish without firing)

w_houle
June 23, 2009, 07:51 PM
In other words you can't think of a reasonable explanation for why the sign would mean one thing for a phone and another for a gun so it's easier to just exit the debate.

I would love to hear a good explanation of why the sign would have a different meaning for different items.

It's real easy: You have a cell phone. Yes the sign is there. I would say that it is worded in such a was as to allow for selective enforcement, and that's tha part you just aren't getting:banghead: There's phones that pass through that bank and nothing happens... Why? Because They're not acting like the whole world is their phone booth. Don't be pretentious, and hang... up... the... phone! The world isn't going to end simply because you stepped int the bank for a bit. Oh, and take off your bluetooth, it makes you look like a tool!
The gun: how about not being obvious that you are carrying it? Never had to deal with that one because IIRC KS doesn't allow firearms to be concealed/ open carried in banks.
edit: Ahh yes... What got us here in the first place: "We restrict the use of sunglasses, cellphones and firearms while in the bank." Note: It did NOT say prohibit.
http://www.yourdictionary.com/restrict
http://www.yourdictionary.com/prohibit

TexasRifleman
June 23, 2009, 08:39 PM
Yes, restrict, put limits on, and in this case they put limits on the USE, hence the word "use" in the sign. Not "possession"..... "use".

You argue that the sign has selective enforcement built in? That's, uh, how should I put that nicely..... ridiculous, and if the bank attempted to use that argument in this case the judge would laugh them out of a courtroom. If the bank were to argue intentional ambiguity it would pretty much give someone accused of violating the terms of the sign an instant out. Banks have lawyers, and most lawyers are smarter than that. What means do you suggest a person should interpret this sign as having multiple meanings, depending on the item?

If it is selective, why is it worded the way it is? It's very clearly worded to "restrict the use of", not "prohibit", all of the items in the sign.

You are right, it does not say prohibit, so you can carry them all (the items in the list), just not use them. (state law notwithstanding)

None of what you have said even makes any sense.

You yourself put the definitions of the words in your post, and they say exactly what I am saying.

They limit the allowable use, they do not outright "ban" or "prohibit" the items.

Your post basically makes my arguments for me.

In effect, you are saying that the sign means prohibit when it says use, it means selective when it's written inclusively, and it's done that way on purpose?

That's your interpretation of the sign? Seriously?

Then you say "The world isn't going to end simply because you stepped into the bank for a bit." implying that we are arguing whether or not using the cell phone is a good idea. That isn't even the subject of this thread in any way.

The world isn't going to end if you carry a concealed gun into the bank either, though you seem to be under the impression that it will since you claim that somehow cell phones are "different" than guns. That somehow a gun in the concealed holster of a law abiding citizen is "different" than a cell phone.

That is why I consider your posts anti, because you attempt to make a distinction between 2 lawfully owned objects in the possession of a law abiding citizen.

If you believe that a gun in the pocket of a law abiding citizen is more "dangerous" to society than a cell phone, you're probably on the wrong website.

Art Eatman
June 23, 2009, 08:56 PM
From the OP, the sign says, "We restrict the use of sunglasses, cellphones and firearms while in the bank."

Sure, it could have been worded better. Big deal. If I saw that, it would mean to me that they don't want you wearing sunglasses, yapping on your cellphone, or toting a firearm.

Else, they wouldn't have mentioned those items at all.

Folks here hadn't oughta be playing Philadelphia Lawyer with a bunch of word games...

TexasRifleman
June 23, 2009, 09:16 PM
Folks here hadn't oughta be playing Philadelphia Lawyer with a bunch of word games...

You assign the meaning to be "use" to the phone and sunglasses, but the meaning to be tote or "possess" to the gun, even though the sign does not say that.

How do you arrive at that based on the wording of the sign?

it's OK to carry my cell phone and sunglasses in my pocket but not to do the same with a lawfully carried handgun?

"Using" the cell phone means placing a call, "using" the gun means having it in my ankle holster untouched?

I'm asking for someone to explain that. I get "feelings" and "my gut says" but the words of the sign DO have meaning, and why is it wrong to take the meaning of the words to be exactly what is written?

Is "using" your gun simply carrying it where "using" your cell phone implies more than simple carrying"? If so, why?

I don't believe you could argue that having a gun in your pocket is "using" it if having a cellphone in your pocket isn't "use" as well, that's what I am asking someone to explain to me.

As for playing lawyer that's pretty much why Texas law at least is written the way it is, to avoid putting law abiding people in the position of having to play guessing games about the meaning of signs. There is one and only one sign that concealed carriers must obey, the rest can be happily ignored here.

divemedic
June 23, 2009, 10:01 PM
Never had to deal with that one because IIRC KS doesn't allow firearms to be concealed/ open carried in banks.

How can you live in a state, and come on a gun board, presumably with a CCW, and not even know that banks are not on the list of prohibited places in KS?

That seems to tell me that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Folks here hadn't oughta be playing Philadelphia Lawyer with a bunch of word games...


Word games? I am reading the sentence and not trying to figure out what the writer MEANT, instead I am reading what the writer SAID. How can "restrict the use" meant that you cannot wear sunglasses, while meaning you cannot talk on the phone, and have still a third meaning with regards to firearms? Or is this a continuation of the "property rights" meme?

unspellable
June 23, 2009, 10:54 PM
And on the other hand I've been places where your CCW permit is restricted to carrying money to the bank.

Dokkalfar
June 23, 2009, 11:08 PM
If I saw that, it would mean to me that they don't want you wearing sunglasses, yapping on your cellphone, or toting a firearm.

Well if that is what the banks means by their sign, then well done to you for figuring it out. You won't get in trouble for not carrying your firearm into that bank. You will, however, be defenseless when you have no need to be. Besides, just because you think they dont want you to do something doesnt mean you cant do it.

However, legally, the intent of the sign doesn't matter if the wording does not convey that intent. I could say: "I like lasagna" but if I mean for you to understand: "I want lasagna", there's a difference. the first states an opinion, the second actually says something. 'A bunch of word games' is exactly what legalese is. Hence the term technicality, or loopholes. while the bank may want to discourage/not permit firearms on the premises, the sign legally does not enforce such a policy in any way.

w_houle
June 23, 2009, 11:50 PM
How can you live in a state, and come on a gun board, presumably with a CCW, and not even know that banks are not on the list of prohibited places in KS?

Just not 100% and would rather err on the side of caution rather than the side of jail.

SHvar
June 24, 2009, 01:22 AM
Simply put, turn your cellphone off when going in the bank, dont wear sunglasses, and leave your gun in the car.
But, if you so choose to (by your own choice), carry in and find out what happens. Thats your choice. Debating and playing word games like was mentioned (the Philly lawyer) can only cause more problems.
Simple, ask the bank management what they mean on each of these objects. As a concerned citizen who carries a gun legally, you would like clarification so as to not cause a problem.
Then you can post and clarify for all of us, dont play Russian roulette with the law because of the confused wording.
Maybe you could clarify that if they wish to restrict the carry of a gun they should post a legal sign saying no guns at the outside door.

Sam1911
June 24, 2009, 08:26 AM
dont play Russian roulette with the law because of the confused wording

Always assume that you don't have the right under the law to do something. Especially if there are people somewhere who might not do those things or want you to do those things. Laws are written to say specific things, but they probably mean lots of other things too -- it's just so hard to tell! It's best not to do things, in case the law also meant that you can't do those things, either.

I just stay in my house. And don't do things. :uhoh:

A right not exercised is ... a little bit of security. I'm going to go back to bed now. Well...under my bed, actually.


:evil:

-Sam

divemedic
June 24, 2009, 08:34 AM
It always amazes me that there are so many on this board who are tacit supporters of the antigun position. Many of you claim to be gunnies, but then support antigun positions under the false pretext of "property rights."

Funny thing is, when it comes to anti-discrimination laws, you claim that those are OK, and "property rights" are not an issue. When it comes to anti-gun positions and laws, all of a sudden the rights of the property owner are at the forefront.

The law is what it is, the sign says what it says. As for me, I carry wherever I legally can, and that means knowing and understanding the law. Why take away your own rights? Aren't there already enough restrictions on your freedom, without you creating more?

Just not 100% and would rather err on the side of caution rather than the side of jail.

Let me help you out:

http://handgunlaw.us/states/kansas.pdf

Not a word about banks, except that a business owner can prohibit CCW if there is a sign posted that meets the requirements. Know the laws.

Deanimator
June 24, 2009, 09:24 AM
Switch banks and there's no problem.

Don't give your business to curs who won't protect you and won't allow you to protect yourself.

To the best of my knowledge, NONE of the banks in Rocky River is posted. Try Key Bank where you live.

Make sure your bank knows WHY you're switching.

DHJenkins
June 24, 2009, 09:59 AM
You cannot change the meanings of the words "use" and "restrict", so quit trying.

"use" does not mean "have on your person" and "restrict" does not mean "prohibit".

If a blind person were to come into the bank, are they going to demand he remove his sunglasses?

If you're filling out loan paperwork and can't remember your wife's SSN, are they really going to have a problem with you calling her on your cell phone to get it?

Hence the use of the word "restrict" instead of "prohibit". It's a stop-gap designed to give employees the right to tell customers to get off the phone or to remove their glasses while they're in front of a teller.

NFA weapons are "restricted", not "prohibited", and "using" my credit card is different from carrying it.

Nothing disgusts me more than the bastardization of the english language. If they want to prohibit those items, then the burden is on them to put up a sign that says so.

"We restrict the use of air pollutants" is not the same thing as "NO SMOKING".

And this has nothing to do with arguing the finer points of law, Art Eatman - it's middle school level English.

Art Eatman
June 24, 2009, 12:32 PM
TR, I could not care less about what the dictionary says. I figure the bank-doofus who wrote the sign wants me to leave my gun outside. It's the intent, not the wording: If they didn't worry about guns inside, guns would not have been mentioned.

No sunglasses? They want their cameras to see my smiling face.

No cellphones? I guess they worry about their computers; I don't know. That's about the only worthwhile reason, if it's indeed worthwhile. The bank guy is probably operating on, "Well, they said..." like a lot of folks will do.

Trying to figure out what folks mean with a bank sign is no worse than trying to figure out some of the posts on THR. :D

TexasRifleman
June 24, 2009, 12:35 PM
TR, I could not care less about what the dictionary says.

The law cares very much about words and the meaning of words.

If a bank moron chose the wrong word, that's the bank problem and if the bank tried to push this issue in court it would be most likely that they would lose.

The law IS a word game, which is why it is important.

The sign means what it says. It says not to use your gun. That's VERY clear using the words that the bank put in the sign and that's what would happen in a courtroom.

It's entirely possible the sign means exactly what it says and I can't quite figure out why we have had 3 pages of debate on why the sign might mean something other than what it says.

SHvar
June 24, 2009, 12:42 PM
This makes me think of the Bill Clinton disussion years ago, whats the meaning of "is".
Yes they should clarify better, but then again maybe they should post the sign in 15 languages so other people who understand those languages can get what they mean better (sarcastic).
For those who think that the bank not allowing you to carry inside is an antigun thing, go back to dreaming.
Its up to the business or property owner to decide whether you can carry there, if you think otherwise you are wanting to take away the property owners rights.
Im not one bit antigun, but if I tell you to keep your gun off my property you better do as I say, THATS MY RIGHT.

NavyLCDR
June 24, 2009, 12:46 PM
TR, I could not care less about what the dictionary says. I figure the bank-doofus who wrote the sign wants me to leave my gun outside. It's the intent, not the wording: If they didn't worry about guns inside, guns would not have been mentioned.

How hard is it to take the sign at face value for what it says! IT DOES NOT SAY PROHIBITED. IT DOES NOT FORBID CARRYING. Guns are listed in the same list as cell phones and sunglasses, so why the hell are we trying to place further restrictions on guns than we are on cell phones and sunglasses in that bank! ***?!? Are we supposed to be GD mind readers to figure out what some idiot MEANT to say on a GD sign!

It's a damn good thing that we aren't out there preaching this exact same B.S. to the courts regarding gun laws. Otherwise, we would be telling the courts, "Well, judge, I am sure the intent of this law here as written by an anti-2A believing politician was to forbid me to possess any kind of means of self defense, so..."

Dang it, if the GD bank wanted to forbid the possession of guns in their bank, then they should just put up a GD sign that says, NO FIREARMS ALLOWED at the door. How f.... hard is that? THE BANK is the one that posted the stupid sign, make the GD bank abide by it!

TexasRifleman
June 24, 2009, 01:09 PM
Im not one bit antigun, but if I tell you to keep your gun off my property you better do as I say, THATS MY RIGHT.

Certainly. But if you tell me not to use my gun and cell phone, and I leave them in my pocket, I have done exactly what you say. You never said not to bring it on your property, just not to use it once I was there.

Why is this so hard for some of you to understand? This has nothing to do with property rights, this has to do with language.

This is 2nd grade English here. Sign say no use gun....me no use gun....gun stay in pocket with phone.... all happy now.

How do you get to ANY other interpretation of that sign using the English language?

The comparison to Clinton's "is" thing is pretty accurate.

DHJenkins
June 24, 2009, 01:32 PM
How do you get to ANY other interpretation of that sign using the English language?

You can't. You have to forget language and use feelings, intuition and/or the ability to read minds to get to a different interpretation.

Sam1911
June 24, 2009, 01:33 PM
There is an epidemic around here! This is starting to look EXACTLY like the thread on gun shows that ran for over 200 posts without either side making a dent in the others' convictions.

That thread covered the matter of the ETHICS-vs-LAW of violating the stated "NO LOADED GUNS ALLOWED" policy of a gun show promotor, when the law does not require you to heed that policy.

This is a wee bit simpler, though.

In this case, the bank never told you not to bring in your gun. They just said, don't "USE" it. Yes, Virginia, sometime's it's just as simple as reading what was written.

There really should be no further need for discussion of this one. You aren't violating the law, and they haven't even asked you to leave it outside! What the he!! are we arguing about?

...:confused:...

Now, if we want to go back to arguing whether carrying a concealed weapon, unbeknownst to the property owner, and not affecting him in any way, BUT, in violation of his stated policy actually violates HIS rights somehow -- AND whether such violation is more aggregious than the abdication of your moral duty to provide for one's own defense at all times...well, the previously mentioned 200+ post logic hash should be required reading.

I'm not sure we want to go there again ...

-Sam

w_houle
June 24, 2009, 01:40 PM
Sign != Law
That is the first premise of my argument.
The sign in question is worded both weakly and ambiguously. Claiming the sign is more than that is intellectually dishonest. I am glad to work with signs with a similar intent; which is to say that the signs are there to help me deal with people who don't listen to me without the signs.

TexasRifleman
June 24, 2009, 01:42 PM
Sign != Law
That is the first premise of my argument.

That is not correct in the state under discussion.

Ohio law has no specific requirement for signs but does allow for property owners to post signs. Violating those signs would be a violation of the law.

From the Ohio Attorney General, a recommended "proper" sign, with the force of law.

http://www.ag.state.oh.us/le/prevention/pubs/cc_hb12_sign.pdf

Notice that it says carry, possess, words that clearly mean don't have it on your person. No ambiguity.

Ohio Attorney General also puts this in their concealed carry handgun booklet:

The law does not say precisely what language must be on the sign.
At a minimum, signs must be conspicuous and inform people that
firearms and/or concealed handguns are prohibited. However, the law
suggests that the prohibited locations post a sign that substantially
says the following:

Unless otherwise authorized by law, pursuant to the Ohio Revised Code,
no person shall knowingly possess, have under the person’s control,
convey, or attempt to convey a deadly handgun or dangerous ordnance
onto these premises.


So signs absolutely carry the weight of law and in the case of the sign under discussion it's pretty much impossible for a "reasonable person" to reach the conclusion that it clearly prohibits legally carried firearms based on the language in bold since the sign in question only says "use".

Seriously, 2nd grade English skills in use here, regardless of what the "feelings" are.

The Ohio Attorney General also cautions property owners:

Businesses and persons wishing
to post such signs are strongly advised to consult their legal counsel
for language, style, format and placement.


This caution is a warning to property owners that just because you put up a sign you still have a requirement to be clear in your intent, which again this sign fails to do.

ArmedBear
June 24, 2009, 01:43 PM
Since I have no intention of using my gun in the credit union (regardless of how much fun it might seem to plink at the little 3D cardboard promo stuff on the counter), I wouldn't let such a restriction keep me from carrying a concealed firearm when I deposit a check.

NavyLCDR
June 24, 2009, 05:52 PM
I wouldn't even let that sign keep me from open carrying while conducting business!

ArmedBear
June 24, 2009, 05:55 PM
OC would depend on how much spare time I had, and my willingness to waste it that day. I do understand the concern of a bank when they see a gun (and the people at my credit union are very nice so I'm not motivated to go make their lives difficult).

Frog48
June 24, 2009, 07:43 PM
I figure the bank-doofus who wrote the sign wants me to leave my gun outside. It's the intent, not the wording

Wording isnt important? Lets explore this from a different angle, for a moment...

Lets assume that the "bank-doofus" is truly a doofus. What if he wrote the sign saying "No tuna salad sandwiches", yet his intent was for the sign to say "No guns"? Since his intent was to prohibit guns, should be mind-readers and deduce that tuna salad sandwhich = gun?

See, words are important. The changing of a lone word can materially shift the significance of a phrase.

If he had meant for your to leave your gun outside, he would have said that. But he did not. Take the sign for what it says, nothing more and nothing less. "We restrict the use of sunglasses, cell phones and firearms in the bank." Dont "USE" the gun, and you havent run afoul of the sign's message.

w_houle
June 24, 2009, 08:17 PM
That is not correct in the state under discussion.

Ohio law has no specific requirement for signs but does allow for property owners to post signs. Violating those signs would be a violation of the law.

From the Ohio Attorney General, a recommended "proper" sign, with the force of law.
Not really incongruous with my statement.
Notice that it says carry, possess, words that clearly mean don't have it on your person. No ambiguity.
Thus my problem with the origional sign, and thus the reason I said simply because it's a sign, doesnt make it law.
This caution is a warning to property owners that just because you put up a sign you still have a requirement to be clear in your intent, which again this sign fails to do.
I believe this is where I facepalm, and is thus the reason why I have said all that I have said. Because as you read this and actually SEE that simply putting up a sign does not a law make:banghead:

TexasRifleman
June 24, 2009, 09:08 PM
Because as you read this and actually SEE that simply putting up a sign does not a law make

So you are now agreeing with me in my statement that this gun does not restrict your ability to carry a concealed gun into the bank?

Your statements earlier were:

The intent of the sign is for you not to bring a gun in their bank.

I would say that it is worded in such a was as to allow for selective enforcement

But then you say this, which mirrors what the Ohio Attorney General has said:

Note: It did NOT say prohibit.

Prohibit is the key word as that is the word the AG recommended sign uses.

You said:

The sign in question is worded both weakly and ambiguously.

Which is what the AG cautions against.

The sign appears to have no legal effect in this case. The sign does not prohibit anything. The sign is worded ambiguously. That's what you have said up to this point, quoting your own statements.

If the sign were properly worded it COULD have the force of law behind it, as the AG says. So signs most certainly can have legal impact, but this one fails that test.

So you agree with my belief that an Ohio resident can freely ignore this sign and carry lawfully into this bank?

Glad that's settled.

w_houle
June 24, 2009, 09:41 PM
:p
:scrutiny:
:neener:

divemedic
June 24, 2009, 11:22 PM
If the sign were properly worded it COULD have the force of law behind it, as the AG says. So signs most certainly can have legal impact, but this one fails that test.

That is pretty much what I said 54 posts ago, way back in #37.

SHvar
June 25, 2009, 12:20 AM
Simple way to prevent alot of problems for yourself, ask the bank manager if it is against any bank policies to carry your gun in the bank, then tell us what they told you.
Maybe then explain to them that the sign is worded as such to cause confusion, or to make one assume that they can carry in the bank, not use.
If the bank manager says "no dont bring it in here", then you will know, and maybe the bank will clarify if the signs intent is to prohibit.
If you choose not to and get caught, Im sure you will hear "I told you so" from someone, then you can come back here and hire a Philly lawyer to argue the sign in court, to get you out of trouble.
After all the law and the meaning of words and phrases can be changed by the higher priced lawyer, and banks have lots of money to spend, Im sure you dont.
Just ask, its that simple.

divemedic
June 25, 2009, 07:26 AM
Why ask and then point out the sign is flawed? So they can put up a sign that IS effective under the law?

Now I know what all the anti's mean when they say they want to regulate the use of firearms. May your chains rest lightly upon you.

Sam1911
June 25, 2009, 07:54 AM
Why ask and then point out the sign is flawed? So they can put up a sign that IS effective under the law?

Now I know what all the anti's mean when they say they want to regulate the use of firearms. May your chains rest lightly upon you.

"Please, Sir, I just wanted to inform you that you are not adequately restricting my rights. I assume from your sign that you wish me to be disarmed in the event that someone wants to rob us here. Let me give you some advice as to how to properly tighten the screws..."


...


In our next lesson, "Excuse me, Officer, but I'm SURE you could get these cuffs to tighten up more if you'd use a little leverage..."

And. "Oh Jailer! I do beleive you've dropped your keys by my cell door! Why, you'd have been looking for those all night! Glad to help!

:D

-Sam

DELTAJOHN
June 25, 2009, 07:58 AM
OK, let me get this straight, as long as my gun stays holstered, and on my person, it's not being used. But, if I pull it out and start busting walnuts with the butt plate, I'm in violation. I Can live with that!!!! :neener:

John

danbrew
June 25, 2009, 09:30 AM
Well, maybe. The problem with this particular sign is that it says:

"We restrict the use of sunglasses, cellphones and firearms while in the bank."


Hmmm... would be much cleaner if they said "No Guns Allowed" or "Don't shoot anybody". What does "restrict" really mean anyway?

to confine or keep within limits, as of space, action, choice, intensity, or quantity.

To confine? To keep within your person, perhaps. To keep within limits? Maybe shooting only one round per second like some gun ranges.

While true you never know what a bad guy is gonna do, if I'm in the bank packing and George Clooney and his gang walk in and want the bank's money? Sheeet. I'm just gonna sit there and watch. And if I feel like kicking the manager in the balls afterwards, maybe I'll go tell him, "'ya know, I had my .44 right here today and dearly wanted to help out, but then I saw your sign..." :D

snicker. of course i'm not drawing down on anybody unless it's me or them. screw the bank's money, that's what insurance is for.

Art Eatman
June 25, 2009, 09:41 AM
Sticking with Texas law, with no open carry and the "3006" sign requirement, for starters.

I figure my interpretation is as I've stated above. That doesn't mean I'm happy with their deal, and I'm quite likely to figure "concealed means concealed". (Do as I say, not as I do. :)) And I'm not gonna say boo to the banker/jeweler/whichever sort of business in which I see such a sign--not during my first encounter with the sign, anyway.

I may well come back later, all cleaned up nice and shiny, and seek out the Big Boss Man and point out that if he wants my business, he would do well to change his attitude about lawful carry--and unlawful carry is already covered by statute.

DHJenkins
June 25, 2009, 09:41 AM
Someone close this already.

This should be on incomprehensionofsimpleenglish.com, not here.

Aw4g63
June 25, 2009, 09:53 AM
/\ I agree.


As the original poster:


I can't believe this thread got this much out of hand.

The sign is posted inside the building. INSIDE THE BUILDING. This means after you have entered the building and walk 50 feet, you see the sign. In Ohio a forbidden carry zone sign must be posted at the entrance that states carry is forbidden.

Some people will argue about anything on this forum.

TexasRifleman
June 25, 2009, 10:36 AM
Some people will argue about anything on this forum.

This thread is proof of that. People are to the point of arguing what the word "use" means.

Hilarious thread in some ways, but sad in others.

The part that is sad is that we have supposedly pro gun people arguing for ANY excuse to have their right to carry limited.

"NO, that sign MUST be there to restrict my rights, I don't feel good about it otherwise" "I must be kept from carrying a gun, please!"


If he had meant for your to leave your gun outside, he would have said that. But he did not. Take the sign for what it says, nothing more and nothing less. "We restrict the use of sunglasses, cell phones and firearms in the bank." Dont "USE" the gun, and you havent run afoul of the sign's message.

And even more to that, they use the word "restrict" which to me says you can even USE the gun in some circumstances. IF the bank is being robbed and a CCW drops the guy DRT before he shoots a teller I'm pretty sure that would fall within the acceptable use policy of the bank.

Restrict vs prohibit, as we've been talking about.

Sam1911
June 25, 2009, 10:43 AM
IF the bank is being robbed and a CCW drops the guy DRT before he shoots a teller I'm pretty sure that would fall within the acceptable use policy of the bank.


Now THAT would make a GREAT sign!

-Sam

NavyLCDR
June 25, 2009, 12:14 PM
Actually, state and Federal laws also RESTRICT the USE of a firearm in the bank as well, just like state and Federal laws RESTRICT the USE of a firearm everywhere else! For instance, it is illegal to USE a firearm to shoot someone because you don't like the color of their shirt, therefore our USE of our firearm is RESTRICTED by law. So, I guess for the "sign whisperers" out there who can judge what the intent of the sign is, then the same must apply to the laws that RESTRICT our USE of firearms and the intent must be to make it illegal to possess a firearm in the same areas that their USE is RESTRICTED by law.

SHvar
June 25, 2009, 12:38 PM
The choice is yours to get caught then run the course in the legal system to defend your version of what the sign means, good luck, I hope you have lots of disposable money to fight it.
Those who think asking about the intention of the sign is antigun, go back to wearing your tinfoil hat and full body condom, Mars is calling you.

TexasRifleman
June 25, 2009, 12:44 PM
hose who think asking about the intention of the sign is antigun, go back to wearing your tinfoil hat and full body condom, Mars is calling you.

It's called knowledge of the law. If I am knowledgeable of the law and I know that this sign in question has NO legal impact on me then that's good enough.

To continue to question the "intent" even after the legality is 100% settled because you somehow feel uncomfortable with a gun is anti, or at the very least silly.

It's not tinfoil.

As concealed carriers we need to be very familiar with the law and in this case the law is very clear.

To continue to worry about it, even after the legal side is settled, fits into what we see a lot of lately, and there was even a sticky thread on it for a while, about not "acting like we're guilty" of something.

We are law abiding citizens legally carrying guns. Why do we insist on living in fear, even when the law is behind us?

It might not be anti completely, but it shows a belief that somehow guns are dangerous to society. And, in the hands of law abiding citizens we've seen over and over that they are not.

The comment earlier in the thread that guns are "different" than cell phones is an example of this.

In the hands, or pockets, of a law abiding citizen they are NOT different, one poses no more danger to society than the other and until we start acting like it we're not doing the pro gun side any good.

NavyLCDR
June 25, 2009, 01:08 PM
The choice is yours to get caught then run the course in the legal system to defend your version of what the sign means, good luck, I hope you have lots of disposable money to fight it.

WHY? They cannot prosecute you for anything, in Washington state anyway, for not abiding by the sign, even if the sign would state NO FIREARMS ALLOWED. In this case, someone catches you carrying the gun in the bank. SO WHAT?!? Even if the sign stated NO FIREARMS ALLOWED, in Washington state, management calls the cops and the cops show up, management points to the sign and points to your gun, SO WHAT?!? Cops can't do anything at that point, cops cannot enforce company policy, they can only enforce laws.

Now, when management asks you to leave their premises and you don't, then the cops have a law that they can enforce.

It seems like we, as responsible gun owners and carriers, have become just as much terrified of engaging in lawful activity, trying to read the minds of creators of signs as the anti-s who are terrified of our guns.

Keoni
June 25, 2009, 01:27 PM
"This is 2nd grade English here. Sign say no use gun....me no use gun....gun stay in pocket with phone.... all happy now."

Makes sense to me.

ArmedBear
June 25, 2009, 01:37 PM
Look. The sign says that "use" of certain things is restricted.

That means, "Don't chat on your cell phone or take pictures with it in here. Don't wear your sunglasses in here. Don't wave your gun around."

NOBODY would interpret this sign as meaning that a cell phone in your pocket is a problem IN THE LEAST.

NOBODY would interpret this sign as meaning that sunglasses in your pocket are a problem IN THE LEAST.

The bank would NEVER confront you about sunglasses in your shirt pocket or a cell phone on your belt. EVER. They don't intend to.

Why would a gun be any different?

To me it says, "If you are talking on your phone, taking picture with it, wearing sunglasses, and we see a gun, we will suspect that you might want to rob us." They are giving a reason for confronting a potential ROBBER.

There's nothing about this sign, either literally or "reading between the lines" that says you can't have a concealed firearm.

OC might be pushing it, and I respect banks' right to try to avert robberies.

But a gun, cell phone or sunglasses in your pocket or purse are not violations of the letter or the "spirit" of this sign.

NavyLCDR
June 25, 2009, 02:28 PM
OC might be pushing it, and I respect banks' right to try to avert robberies.

Why would open carrying be pushing it? The gun is carried in a holster the same way, regardless of whether others can see it or not. The visibility of the gun is not the issue.

Gryffydd
June 25, 2009, 02:40 PM
Leave your firearm at home or lock it in a secure container in your vehicle when you need to do any banking.

:barf:

ArmedBear
June 25, 2009, 02:40 PM
I'm not saying it's "pushing" anything in a legal sense.

We have a bit more of a politeness culture here than I've experienced in Washington, though.

Okay, a LOT more.

I usually carry a gun in my pocket. If I'm on the way back from a hiking trail and I have a big revolver or .45 on my belt, I'd still bank. But I don't have to make it a point to OC my otherwise-mostly-concealed gun.

That said, I never worry much about "printing", or a grip sticking out of my pocket.:D

Sam1911
June 25, 2009, 02:51 PM
Why would open carrying be pushing it? The gun is carried in a holster the same way, regardless of whether others can see it or not. The visibility of the gun is not the issue.

Legally speaking you're exactly right.

Practically speaking, however, it gets touchier. By carrying openly you're forcing the bank personnel to make a decision and interpret the bank's policy -- in light of the sign's wording, especially -- on the spot and without the benefit of legal review by the bank's counsel.

As we've seen here, even die-(kindof)-hard gunnie folks can get a little "over-cautious" when interpreting that sign. I'd be MIGHTY surprised if the average bank teller would immediately jump to "our" view of the sign's importance.

Assuming that they'd be rational enough to not be pressing the hidden panic button the minute they saw a gun (not all would be), you stand a better than 50/50 chance that the manager is going to very politely ask you to remove your gun from his bank. Now, regardless of the law, or even the true intent of the framers (Ha!) of that sign, you must leave or open yourself to a charge of trespassing.

You may debate the point with him/her -- might even win. You may decide to take your business elsewhere as you've cleared up (sort of) the bank's position on armed customers. But, instead of letting the sign be what it is (no more & no less) and CCW-ing, by OCW-ing you've pushed the folks working there to make something of it.

Might be a good thing. They may agree with "our" interpretation.
Might be any of several bad things. Asked to leave. Gotta find a new bank. Cops w/ drawn weapons, etc.

Might be worth it. A lot of OC folks like to point out that they are putting our rights under the noses of the public as a way of increasing awareness -- and the inconcvieniences of calming down hyperventillating bank managers and chatting with the local SWAT team are par for the course.

Anyway, "pushing it" is a decent way to sum it up, IMHO.

-Sam

ArmedBear
June 25, 2009, 02:54 PM
Practically speaking, however, it gets touchier. By carrying openly you're forcing the bank personnel to make a decision and interpret the bank's policy -- in light of the sign's wording, especially -- on the spot and without the benefit of legal review by the bank's counsel.

Right. And around here, they're some really nice people doing their jobs. In Idaho, most are probably gun owners, too. Some might be carrying for all I know.

They're doing their jobs with a smile and a friendly hello.

Why would I WANT to make their lives difficult in this situation?

Frankly, I don't.

Might be worth it. A lot of OC folks like to point out that they are putting our rights under the noses of the public as a way of increasing awareness -- and the inconcvieniences of calming down hyperventillating bank managers and chatting with the local SWAT team are par for the course.

Sometimes they're right. There's a time and place for that IMO.

I just don't need to make life difficult for some nice people doing their jobs, when there's no point to be made.

JohnBT
June 25, 2009, 03:34 PM
"The bank would NEVER confront you about sunglasses in your shirt pocket"

I wear sunglasses into my bank all the time and have frequently worn them in my parents' 5 banks & credit unions over the past 2.5 years while doing all their banking/investing/spending/etc.

Some of these branches have the nohats nophones noglasses nowhatever signs and I ignore them. If they make me remove my prescription sunglasses they will have take me by the hand and guide me back to my car - with ALL of our money because that will be the end of us banking with them.

John

Aw4g63
June 25, 2009, 10:44 PM
I spoke with the president of the credit union. He said the sign is exactly what I suggested. Carry is fine. Use is prohibited. Thus no gun buster sign on the door.


Eat that, arguers. I enjoy evey second of that.

SHvar
June 26, 2009, 12:23 AM
Thank you for clarifying and doing what makes sense, not assuming. This entire discussion could have been avoided. After all if they did intend for you not to carry in the bank, and you took the advice of one of these "Philly Lawyers", they sure as heck would not be standing up for your rights in court.
Thank you for asking and getting the answer that matters.

TexasRifleman
June 26, 2009, 12:41 AM
He said the sign is exactly what I suggested. Carry is fine. Use is prohibited. Thus no gun buster sign on the door.

Oh my GOD! You mean words matter and words mean what they say?

Who would have thought......

NavyLCDR
June 26, 2009, 07:17 AM
And, in court, just try enforcing, "Well regardless of what I actually WROTE DOWN in that contract, what I meant to say was..." :banghead:

CoRoMo
June 26, 2009, 10:04 AM
Finally then.

If you enjoyed reading about "My Bank restricts the use of firearms within the building." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!