My credit union -- incorrect signage

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, but what is the "Penalty" for carrying across the Credit Union sign?

No disrespect, but I'm a little surprised that the NM carry permit holders do not know what the law and consequences are.

Here is what I was given at my Permit to Carry Class and it was discussed in length.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what the penalty is. I don't decide to follow or not follow laws based on the penalty. It would probably depend on how good a day the judge was having, anyway. The law I quoted, NM 10.8.2.16 F., says:

F. Carrying prohibited on private property. In addition to other limitations stated in the act, a licensee may not carry a concealed handgun on or about his person on private property that has signs posted prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons or when verbally told so by a person lawfully in possession of the property.
Click to expand...

Of course, I'm not a lawyer, but that sounds pretty clear to me.

Brad
 
from what i just researched you would be guilty of trespass which is a misdemeanor, and would have your concealed carry license revoked upon conviction.

For New Mexico the penalties are as follows:

Misdemeanor

Imprisoned in the county jail up to one year.
Fine not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000).
Both imprisonment and fine in the discretion of the judge.
 
I guess I'm one of those who see no problems. It is their business, they can conduct it anyway they want. When I had my own office I made the rules, if people didn't like those rules ( very few rules anyway ) they were free to go elsewhere, their loss. I believe a private business has just as many rights to operate their business as I do with the 2nd amendment. Or does anyone believe that their rights trumps everyone's else's? I've read the 2nd a number of times, it gives us certain rights, but nowhere in it does it say you have the right to disregard the rights of others. Of course that is JMO and perhaps I'm old fashion that way. I believe the good neighbor concept go's beyond the home.
 
Oh, there's no "problem" as such. They have a perfect right to post the sign, and in NM it has the force of law (after a brief search, I believe carrying in there would be a petty misdemeanor). They just make themselves look even more foolish by posting the wrong sign.
 
Amusing.

However, though I agree that they've obviously cited the wrong section of NM law concerning no weapons on the premises, if NM DOES have a relevant section of the law with respect to weapons, then you've still been notified.

Unless, of course, New Mexico has specific statutory support on exactly what the signs must say, where and how they're posted, and so forth.

On handgunlaws.com, they have this to say:

"On private property where the owner has posted signs indicating that you may not carry or if the owner tells you that you cannot."

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/newmexico.pdf

Section 10-8-2-16 says that "No Guns" signs carry the force of law on property that has signs posted or that you've been verbally informed. So I don't see where one would get off on a technicality of citing the wrong section of NM code: you've still been informed.

Funny, though. Very funny!

:)
 
I agree, I have no problem with it. I can understand some business folks not being comfortable with me toting in a gun. So if I want to buy their product or service I would not think of walking in with a firearm on my hip or under my shirt. I just found it funny that a credit union would use a bar sign. Maybe cuz it was free from the state.
 
The problem that I have with it is that the Credit Union is lying to the public and stating that it is a felony to carry a firearm in the Credit Union in order to gain compliance to their requiest through intimidation. Not exactly the up front kind of business that I want handling my money. It is their business, and it is their right to lie to the public. Personally, I feel it is every individual's responsibility to know the facts for themselves, so I have no sympathy for those that fall victim to their lies.

What would be really hilarious is if someone went into the credit union and asked the teller for a martini or pina colada. Obviously they must be license to sell alcohol, right?
 
NavyLCDR said:
The problem that I have with it is that the Credit Union is lying to the public and stating that it is a felony to carry a firearm in the Credit Union in order to gain compliance to their requiest through intimidation. Not exactly the up front kind of business that I want handling my money. It is their business, and it is their right to lie to the public. Personally, I feel it is every individual's responsibility to know the facts for themselves, so I have no sympathy for those that fall victim to their lies.

What would be really hilarious is if someone went into the credit union and asked the teller for a martini or pina colada. Obviously they must be license to sell alcohol, right?
Click to expand...

I doubt it's a "lie". A lie implies deliberate deception. More likely it's simply using the incorrect posting out of ignorance for want of any actual/reliable research on the subject.

What they obviously WANT is not post some kind of "no guns" sign. They just happened to cite the wrong section of the law in doing so.

Big difference. Which I applaud the OP for addressing with their manager about.
 
RetiredUSNChief said:
Big difference. Which I applaud the OP for addressing with their manager about.
Click to expand...

I must disagree that it is a big difference....

RetiredUSNChief said:
More likely it's simply using the incorrect posting out of ignorance for want of any actual/reliable research on the subject.
Click to expand...

I go back to my original statement, if they can't do enough research to get a simple no guns sign correct, are they really the company I want handling my financial accounts?
 
NavyLCDR said:
I must disagree that it is a big difference....

I go back to my original statement, if they can't do enough research to get a simple no guns sign correct, are they really the company I want handling my financial accounts?
Click to expand...

I guess we'll agree to disagree then.

The credit union, which just may be the LOCAL branch and not even the corporate branch, likely just wanted to post a "no guns" sign to tell people just that. Since they're obviously NOT experts on gun law (as opposed to experts on banking matters), they posted a sign which references the wrong law.

Equating the inability to post the correct "no guns" reference to their ability to conduct regular banking business seems both unfair and unrealistic. The two are effectively unrelated by anything other than some kind of "six degrees of separation" rule. It would be like saying that because someone cannot follow a baking recipe for cookies that they cannot perform their job as, say, an embalmer in a funeral home.


If you wouldn't want to do business with them because you don't agree with their "no guns" policy, fine. Makes total sense to me. But if they simply cited the wrong reference, seems to me that discussing this error with them would be the better course of action.

Who knows...maybe they'll even take the sign down completely as a result. Stranger things have happened!
 
Steelerdude99 raised a very valid point. That IS a credit union, and according to what I understand from MY credit union bylaws, a credit union belongs to the members. They own it. Any change of bylaws or regulations should require a majority vote of the members, and lacking that vote, any signs are strictly the ideas of the management in that credit union at that particular time.

Yes, when I owned my business, I made the rules. But the members own the credit union, so why weren't they polled regarding this signage?
 
Do you actually read EVERY line of the papers that get sent out for such matters?

Most members do not.

As to how much, if any, influence members have as such I don't know...this isn't a matter of how the financial institution works with money. Perhaps matters are different with respect to such postings, not having anything to do with finances.

I'll have to look up NFCU rules and see how this works on such matters. Whenever I get around it. If you have any details, I'd be interested in hearing them.

:)
 
sign removed at Del Rey branch

I complained about the stupid gun policy a few weeks ago. The receptionist knows me and told me to just carry it concealed without telling anyone. She told me it makes her and her coworkers feel safer knowing many of us carry. Last week I noticed that the sign had been removed. I have not had a chance to ask if this was a policy reversal by the Chairman of the Board of FLFCU or not. As a peace officer, I have made some enemies and will disregard the sign. I WILL be packing in First Light's building. The management there has fallen into the trap of creating a victim zone or free-fire zone. How stupid can you get?
 
spymaster2222 said:
As a peace officer, I have made some enemies and will disregard the sign.
Click to expand...

As Joe Civilians we have enemies too called criminals. The difference is that you get special treatment as a peace officer and it is legal for you to carry past some signs that we legally cannot.
 
Last edited:
I passed by the branch the other day (I no longer have one of my accounts there, so I don't go in anymore) and the sign was taken down. I have no idea why, but just same, it's good news to me.
 
Now that Illinois has CC, it's interesting to see that many "no firearms" signs are non-compliant and/or are placed in locations where they're very hard to spot. I recently saw a business that had color-matched its signs to the color of its exterior and produced the logo in a discrete low-lustre bronze color, pretty clearly doing so to ensure that they did not clash or draw undue attention.
 
You know, as much crap as CA gets on these boards, it sure is nice that we don't have these problems with signs. Signs have no force of law in CA.
 
MisterMike said:
Now that Illinois has CC, it's interesting to see that many "no firearms" signs are non-compliant and/or are placed in locations where they're very hard to spot. I recently saw a business that had color-matched its signs to the color of its exterior and produced the logo in a discrete low-lustre bronze color, pretty clearly doing so to ensure that they did not clash or draw undue attention.
Click to expand...

I haven't looked at the actual state statute on this, but here's what handgunlaw.us has to say about Illinois:

"Signs stating that the carrying of firearms is prohibited shall be clearly and conspicuously posted at the entrance of a building, premises, or real property specified in this Section as a prohibited area, unless the building or premises is a private residence. Signs shall be of a uniform design as established by the Department and shall be 4 inches by 6 inches in size. The Department shall adopt rules for standardized signs to be used under this subsection."

Seems to me that such businesses are indeed violating their own state laws on the matter.

If a business wishes to post such prohibitions, then so be it. But they should be very clear about it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top