w_houle
Member
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.
My Bank restricts the use of firearms within the building.
- Thread starter Aw4g63
- Start date
- Status
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
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
Member
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...
Seemed funny at the time, but then we were looking for reasons to laugh at the situation...
w_houle
Member
There is more than a slight difference between your cell phone and your gun.
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.
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
Moderator Emeritus
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.
Last edited:
w_houle
Member
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
Member
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.
Have a nice one.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
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.
Last edited:
NavyLCDR
member
w_houle said:
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
Member
"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)
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
Member
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
Last edited:
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
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.
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.
Last edited:
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
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...
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
Moderator Emeritus
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.
Last edited:
divemedic
Member
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.
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
Member
And on the other hand I've been places where your CCW permit is restricted to carrying money to the bank.
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
Member
Just not 100% and would rather err on the side of caution rather than the side of jail.
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.
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
Moderator Emeritus
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.
A right not exercised is ... a little bit of security. I'm going to go back to bed now. Well...under my bed, actually.
-Sam
divemedic
Member
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?
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.
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?
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
Member
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.
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
Member
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.
"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
Moderator In Memoriam
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.
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.
- Status
