Seattle trying new way to ban guns

[norahc]

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

In 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).

[pacapcop]

Well, the hoops one has to get permit to carry with obvious exception of criminal background check. States are throwing in drug and mental health checks which can be manipulated by the anti gunners. In my state and I am sure like others one passes a background check and proceeds on. Just more nonsense for people to mask/hide and make less fluid. I am actually of the belief that certain felons or soft felons should be able to protect themselves. Certainly not hard felons. But we all know where that go's. In Vermont one does not need a permit. Pass background, move on. Pennsylvania, pass background, move on. It's a chipping away process with political feel good policy's that will lead to more costs and hurdles.