My Bank restricts the use of firearms within the building.

[TexasRifleman]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

......

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]

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]

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]

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]

I wouldn't even let that sign keep me from open carrying while conducting business!

 

[ArmedBear]

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]

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]

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]

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]

 

[divemedic]

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]

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]

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]

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!



-Sam

 

[DELTAJOHN]

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!!!!

John

 

[danbrew]

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..."

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]

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]

Someone close this already.

This should be on incomprehensionofsimpleenglish.com, not here.

 

[Aw4g63]

/\ 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]

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.