A few years ago, Seattle tried to ban guns in public areas, even if you had a concealed weapons permit. The law banned guns anywhere "public" like parks, sidewalks etc. They had signs everywhere. The law was overturned by the state supreme court.

So now they are trying a new approach. The city is now letting private businesses put up stickers that say "No guns allowed inside. Gun free zone."

The hope is that this will make everyone leave their guns at home because they can't enter any business with one, even with a license, and they'd be too scared to leave it in the car where it can get stolen. Effectively, making the entire city a gun free zone.

As of now over 120 businesses have signed up and put the stickers on their doors, including national chains like UPS and Baskin Robbins ice cream.

I'm sending emails to UPS to ask them if they really support this, or if it was a local manager that made this decision. UPS should know that a ton of their business comes from gun owners. Everything I order from Cabela's comes delivered from UPS. I use UPS to ship guns, powder etc. It really pisses me off.

[attachment deleted by admin]

Yep, the criminals will certainly leave their guns at home.

I'll never understand this line of thinking.  These people honestly think that dirtbags will abide by rules.

Its a mental disorder.  It really is.

This current "O"Communist constantly fanning the flames of their "Gun Control" is softening up "the sheeple's" views and leading them to slaughter as written in the "Communistic Play Book"!  It will require hard work and plenty education to turn back the "Red Tide" of CONTROL!  We know it has never been about GUNS and it has always been about CONTROL!   

Get the word out my friend! 

Quote from: Grim Reaper on October 26 2013 12:23:27 PM MDT

So now they are trying a new approach. The city is now letting private businesses put up stickers that say "No guns allowed inside. Gun free zone."

What does their state CCW law say about private businesses putting up signs saying "no guns"?  In many (maybe even most) CCW states, the state CCW law says that if a CCW-holder carries within such a posted private establishment, that no crime has been committed.  If the CCW-holder is "made" and told to leave, and if he then leaves, he has still committed no crime.  If he doesn't leave after being told to leave, then he is guilty of trespassing, nothing more.

A private enterprise within their confines has the leadway as opposed to public passage way/space. Now in their minds they see a benefit,they are own there own. Ill be more than happy to bypass.

Quote from: Mike_Fontenot on October 26 2013 02:26:22 PM MDT

What does their state CCW law say about private businesses putting up signs saying "no guns"? 

I should also have asked what the Washington state CCW law says about local preemption.  Colorado's CCW law wisely prohibits local laws that are more restrictive of CCW than the state law.  I don't know how common this provision is in other states' CCW laws, but I think it's necessary to prevent state CCW laws from being neutered by local authorities.

Quote from: Mike_Fontenot on October 26 2013 02:26:22 PM MDT

Quote from: Grim Reaper on October 26 2013 12:23:27 PM MDT

So now they are trying a new approach. The city is now letting private businesses put up stickers that say "No guns allowed inside. Gun free zone."

What does their state CCW law say about private businesses putting up signs saying "no guns"?  In many (maybe even most) CCW states, the state CCW law says that if a CCW-holder carries within such a posted private establishment, that no crime has been committed.  If the CCW-holder is "made" and told to leave, and if he then leaves, he has still committed no crime.  If he doesn't leave after being told to leave, then he is guilty of trespassing, nothing more.

Mike you nailed it.

The sign only means what the State's Laws says it means.  Here in MN it means nothing and carries no weight of law.  If you carry past the sign, you can be asked to leave, if you do not leave you can be ticketed with "trespassing", no different than walking past a sign that says "No shirt, no shoes, no service".

As for UPS, before you get all involved in the "No Guns" signs at UPS, make sure you understand where these signs are posted.

A "UPS Store" is NOT UPS.  It is a private franchise and not affiliated with UPS.  Yes, same colors and same Logo, but not part of the UPS Corp.  These individual franchise owner can do as they please.     

In Washington, signs have no force of law so they're meaningless.  As far as state premeption goes, our law is one of the better ones because it is pretty explicit and covers everything.  The only thing towns and cities are allowed to do is regulate the discharge of firearms within their boundaries.  Seattle is pissed because they've lost a couple of lawsuits based on preemption and are now pushing to repeal it.

Quote from: norahc on October 27 2013 09:56:52 AM MDT
In Washington, signs have no force of law so they're meaningless. 

Thanks for supplying that valuable local information.  Glad Washington state's CCW laws are among the well-crafted ones.  Any shall-issue CCW laws are better than nothing, but a lot of states impose ridiculous restrictions ... hopefully many of those will become more rational as time goes on.

Has Starbucks put up those new signs?

No clue - I've never gone to $tarbuck$.

Quote from: norahc on October 27 2013 09:56:52 AM MDT
In Washington, signs have no force of law so they're meaningless.  As far as state premeption goes, our law is one of the better ones because it is pretty explicit and covers everything.  The only thing towns and cities are allowed to do is regulate the discharge of firearms within their boundaries.  Seattle is pissed because they've lost a couple of lawsuits based on preemption and are now pushing to repeal it.

I don't believe you are correct. I'm the district manager of loss prevention for a security company in Seattle. Seattle has a very in depth trespassing program. The state of Washington might not have any laws that give signs the force of law, but Seattle Municipal Code does. The city cannot ban guns, however, on private property the rules are different. An owner of a property can pretty much make up whatever rule they want for their property unless it's prohibited by statute, such as smoking laws. Every article I have seen on this says that a person could be charged with trespassing if they enter a building with a firearm and this sign is posted. This rule is based on the same laws that allow a business to require shoes and shirts to be a customer.

"A "Gun Free Zone" decal has been placed in a window of a participating business and a person who violates the rule could be considered to be a trepasser." -CBS News

"The program is based on the same laws that allow businesses to require shirts and shoes to receive any service. At least 100 local merchants are now calling their businesses gun free zones." K0MOnews.com

""We are here to support businesses that do not wish to have guns on their premises" Mr. McGinn said in a statement. "The police department regularly enforces trespass laws when a visitor to a business violates that business's rules. We will continue to do so, and I thank these businesses for standing up for the safety of their customers." -Washington Times

 GR, you may be correct. 
It is important for those that wish to carry a firearm know the Law in their State and wherever this wish to carry .  Guessing or getting it from the news channels is not an option. 

I carry one of these in my wallet along with my permit.  I also have several copies in my vehicles.  You would be surprised how many LEO in my community do not know the Law.  Having one of these can help.

Note the section on carrying on posted property.

Looks like Minnesota falling into subtle gun control.

Quote from: pacapcop on October 28 2013 03:09:01 PM MDT
Looks like Minnesota falling into subtle gun control.

Explain?

Quote from: Grim Reaper on October 28 2013 12:20:18 PM MDT

Quote from: norahc on October 27 2013 09:56:52 AM MDT
In Washington, signs have no force of law so they're meaningless.  As far as state premeption goes, our law is one of the better ones because it is pretty explicit and covers everything.  The only thing towns and cities are allowed to do is regulate the discharge of firearms within their boundaries.  Seattle is pissed because they've lost a couple of lawsuits based on preemption and are now pushing to repeal it.

I don't believe you are correct. I'm the district manager of loss prevention for a security company in Seattle. Seattle has a very in depth trespassing program. The state of Washington might not have any laws that give signs the force of law, but Seattle Municipal Code does. The city cannot ban guns, however, on private property the rules are different. An owner of a property can pretty much make up whatever rule they want for their property unless it's prohibited by statute, such as smoking laws. Every article I have seen on this says that a person could be charged with trespassing if they enter a building with a firearm and this sign is posted. This rule is based on the same laws that allow a business to require shoes and shirts to be a customer.

"A "Gun Free Zone" decal has been placed in a window of a participating business and a person who violates the rule could be considered to be a trepasser." -CBS News

"The program is based on the same laws that allow businesses to require shirts and shoes to receive any service. At least 100 local merchants are now calling their businesses gun free zones." K0MOnews.com

""We are here to support businesses that do not wish to have guns on their premises" Mr. McGinn said in a statement. "The police department regularly enforces trespass laws when a visitor to a business violates that business's rules. We will continue to do so, and I thank these businesses for standing up for the safety of their customers." -Washington Times

Which means that the law they are using to back it is trespassing...and for it to be considered trespassing, you have to remain on the property after being asked to leave.

RCW 9A.52.090 - Criminal Trespass - Defense  http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.52.090

QuoteIn any prosecution under RCW 9A.52.070 and 9A.52.080, it is a defense that:

     (1) A building involved in an offense under RCW 9A.52.070 was abandoned; or

     (2) The premises were at the time open to members of the public and the actor complied with all lawful conditions imposed on access to or remaining in the premises; or

     (3) The actor reasonably believed that the owner of the premises, or other person empowered to license access thereto, would have licensed him or her to enter or remain; or

     (4) The actor was attempting to serve legal process which includes any document required or allowed to be served upon persons or property, by any statute, rule, ordinance, regulation, or court order, excluding delivery by the mails of the United States. This defense applies only if the actor did not enter into a private residence or other building not open to the public and the entry onto the premises was reasonable and necessary for service of the legal process.

I don't have a link handy to Seattle's Trespassing law but under state law there is a valid defense under section (2).