Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Now THAT would make a GREAT sign!
-Sam
My Bank restricts the use of firearms within the building.
- Thread starter Aw4g63
- Start date
- Status
Now THAT would make a GREAT sign!
-Sam
NavyLCDR
member
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.
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.
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
Moderator Emeritus
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
member
SHvar said:
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.
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.
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
member
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
Member
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.
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.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
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
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.
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
Member
"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
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
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.
Thank you for asking and getting the answer that matters.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Oh my GOD! You mean words matter and words mean what they say?
Who would have thought......
NavyLCDR
member
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
Member
Finally then.
- Status
