A bank in town is a little safer now.

[gunnutery]

I just thought I'd share an observation I made today.

Of the five banks we have in town, one of them originally posted signs saying "no weapons allowed" after our state adopted a shall issue permit law. Today as I passed by I noticed that they had taken down their no weapons signs.

I'm not sure what exactly made them come to their senses, but I'm counting it a win for the good guys.


Anyone have any other wins they'd care to share?

 

[TriTone]

It'd be great to know what the thinking behind taking the sing down was.

If you have a chance, you might inquire for everyones benefit, and let us know.
With Wisconsin's new bill, this would be useful information.

Best Wishes,

Tri

 

[NavyLCDR]

If you have a chance, you might inquire for everyones benefit, and let us know.

My vote would be to let sleeping dogs lie. What if the sign was removed for some other reason than a change in allowing legal firearms? What if it was for window maintenance, or some rogue manager didn't like it and took it down. Now we come along and ask what happened to the sign, and someone says, "Oh crud, we need to put that back up, thank you for bringing that to our attention!"

 

[gunnutery]

That was kind of my idea, I couldn't think of a tactful way to ask (if I was going to anyway). I'm not a member of this particular bank for other reasons and one obvious reason. And for a non member to inquire would seem tacky. I'm definately curious, but not enough so to risk getting the sign back up.

Congrats to you Tritone for getting the shall issue as well this year. I haven't read the language on your new law, but ours does not address methods for businesses that wish to limit legal concealed carry. So the common interpretation by the AG's office is for businesses to put up signs if they wish, then if someone is found to be carrying, they will have to be asked to leave, then if the person refuses they could be charged with trespassing.

There have only been two instances that I'm aware of involving armed people causing problems in a business, and according to the news articles, there was not enough information to determine whether or not the person actually had a CCW permit (but of course the news companies want to infer that they did). My guess is that the people causing problems did not actually have permits.

 

[TennJed]

My vote would be to let sleeping dogs lie. What if the sign was removed for some other reason than a change in allowing legal firearms? What if it was for window maintenance, or some rogue manager didn't like it and took it down. Now we come along and ask what happened to the sign, and someone says, "Oh crud, we need to put that back up, thank you for bringing that to our attention!"

I completely agree. I have worked in and for banks my whole life. Unless this is a small community bank I can almost guarantee that this was NOT made at the corporate level. It is most likely an oversite or that individual branch manager. Best not to bring attention to it.

Banks as a whole are not gun friendly. For instance if a security guard draws their weapon during a robbery they WILL NOT be back at work the next day. Their job is to be a visual deterant and to become eyes during a robbery

 

[shoot14me]

I completely agree. I have worked in and for banks my whole life. Unless this is a small community bank I can almost guarantee that this was NOT made at the corporate level. It is most likely an oversite or that individual branch manager. Best not to bring attention to it.

Banks as a whole are not gun friendly. For instance if a security guard draws their weapon during a robbery they WILL NOT be back at work the next day. Their job is to be a visual deterant and to become eyes during a robbery

If that security guard doesn't draw his/her weapon during a robbery he/she very possibly MAY NOT be back for other reasons, such as - HE/SHE MAY BE DEAD because their weapon stood in leather. Rather to be fired than be fired upon without retalation. I'm sure he/she would be able to find a sympathetic bank to work for if this scenario ever came to pass!

 

[Bobson]

If that security guard doesn't draw his/her weapon during a robbery he/she very possibly MAY NOT be back for other reasons, such as - HE/SHE MAY BE DEAD because their weapon stood in leather. Rather to be fired than be fired upon without retalation. I'm sure he/she would be able to find a sympathetic bank to work for if this scenario ever came to pass!

Agreed. I've worked as a security guard for a couple of different companies, and let me tell you, there's nothing quite like knowing you're putting yourself in harm's way (potentially), but being told to NOT fight back under any circumstances. In other words, working as a mobile security camera with blood... and getting paid just barely over minimum wage at the same time. I wouldn't fault any guard for using a gun if the situation called for it, even if just having that gun was against the rules.

I'd use one if it came to that. Damn the job and everyone else. I'm not going to let myself or anyone else be killed if I can prevent it.

 

[TennJed]

If that security guard doesn't draw his/her weapon during a robbery he/she very possibly MAY NOT be back for other reasons, such as - HE/SHE MAY BE DEAD because their weapon stood in leather. Rather to be fired than be fired upon without retalation. I'm sure he/she would be able to find a sympathetic bank to work for if this scenario ever came to pass!

I agree with and just to be clear....if he/she is fired upon there may be a different outcome. But most bank robberies do not have gunfire exchanged.

I have worked for 3 different banks over the last 17 or so years and I can tell you I know of cases at all 3 where secuirty was asked not to come back (they are emploued by an independant company not the bank) because they pulled their weapon in a robbery. One in particular I knew the guard pretty well personally and he was assigned to parking lot duty with the security company.

If they were fired upon the punished may not be the same.

All said I do agree with you and I salute anyone who is an armed guard. Tuff job for not enough money.

 

[valnar]

I don't understand. Why have a security guard then? Do the banks not want their robberies stopped?

 

[youngda9]

In Indiana those signs don't mean squat. You can either ignore them or take your buisness elsewhere if you choose. They are good indications of anti businesses and victom zones. Those signs just cost them money in the long run.

 

[rondog]

Heh, I had to do a deal at my bank once involving a large withdrawal of cash, handled in a private room. There was a "security guard" present, acting all business-like, but no weapons I could see. AFAIK, I was the only one armed, with a .45 on my hip and a .38 in my pocket. Of course, nobody could see those either.

 

[NavyLCDR]

I don't understand. Why have a security guard then? Do the banks not want their robberies stopped?

The security guard is there more for handling unruly customers and to be a witness. Banks don't care about stopping robberies, because of FDIC they won't lose anything in a robbery. If the bank attempted to stop a robbery by the use of force they would stand to lose much, much more in a civil lawsuit case.

 

[valnar]

If the bank attempted to stop a robbery by the use of force they would stand to lose much, much more in a civil lawsuit case.

Damn lawyers. That's just sad.

So what's to stop anyone from coming into a bank with a mask on, demanding money, and quietly leaving? (Not that I plan on doing that, but it begs the question).

By your statement above, does that mean private citizens shouldn't try to stop it either, assuming they were carrying?

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

So what's to stop anyone from coming into a bank with a mask on, demanding money, and quietly leaving? (Not that I plan on doing that, but it begs the question).

That seems to be the M.O. for most bank robberies lately in this part of the country. No guns a-blazin or anything hollywood about it, they just hand the teller a note, get the money and walk away. I could never be a bank teller because I'd cram their note somewhere unpleasant and tell them to be more creative and not so lazy.

 

[Cards81fan]

Damn lawyers. That's just sad.

The lawyers are simply transactors of the law. In Oklahoma at least, jury trials award civil settlements. Seems to me that the will of the people is at work here.

I believe the expression goes, ahem, "Don't hate the player, hate the game."

 

[hermannr]

Small bank in OR actually posted a sign that your legal OC/CC is welcome. Where I live there is no problem OC/CC into our bank.

However; what I am having trouble with is, some banks actually still employ security guards? Really good security cameras, yes, but actual guards? Not where I live.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Damn lawyers. That's just sad.

So what's to stop anyone from coming into a bank with a mask on, demanding money, and quietly leaving? (Not that I plan on doing that, but it begs the question).

By your statement above, does that mean private citizens shouldn't try to stop it either, assuming they were carrying?

Well, most banks have signs that prohibit the wearing of masks, hats, and sunglasses, so that should stop robberies by masked persons.

However, as stated later, most robberies are simply someone walking in, demanding money, filling up a bag and walking out:

http://www.pnwlocalnews.com/whidbey/swr/news/118519924.html

As far as if you want to stop the bank robbery with your gun, that's a personal decision.

 

[cardinalfan]

One little community credit union has gone a step in the other direction. They will no longer allow you to wear 'hoodies' or hats when you enter the bank. This along with the No Concealed sign on the door.

 

[BSA1]

Just some thoughts;

The haul for most robberies is usually not very large. It is usually just the contents of the tellers drawer.

Exploding dye packets. You hear about them all the time on the news. They explode in the parking lot or robbers car staining the money and robber with red dye. Red colored money does not spend.

CCTV provide nice clear photographs for the 6:00 news.

Silent alarm systems.

Cops are bad shots. Security guards even worse. In my community they requalify once a year and any practice comes out of your pocket.

Unless the BG introduces weapons and the threat to use it why not let him go? Once bullets start flying everywhere think about innocent bystanders.

I think eveyone here would feel guilty if a round they fired crippled or kill a bystander.

 

[SigP229R]

In Indiana those signs don't mean squat. You can either ignore them or take your buisness elsewhere if you choose. They are good indications of anti businesses and victom zones. Those signs just cost them money in the long run.

In N.C. the bank rules have nothing to with it since you are by law not allowed to cc in banks or financial institutions. As I just finished posting in another thread the bad guys are not going to obey the law so it would seem prudent to give the law abiding citizens the capability to defend theirselves but N.C. apparently doesen't agree with that line of thought.

 

[msparks]

I'm so glad I don't have a local bank. All my banking is done online.

My soon be wife banks with regions and they had a gun buster on the door. I went in the other day with her to get a cashiers check for a house refi we were doing. Took my piece out but left the Serpa on with the holster exposed. Just pisses me off you can't carry in the bank.

We will be closing that account next week and moving to my bank.

Thumbs up to those that can carry in their bank! I do see several around our area that don't have the signs.