Freedom1Man
Regular Member
That is some good thinking.
Make sure you get it in writing.
I refuse to shop there at all because of that.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
OC Everett Mall Response to Complaint
- Thread starter Knowledge
- Start date
That is some good thinking.
Make sure you get it in writing.
I refuse to shop there at all because of that.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
There was a case several years ago wish I could find the cite for it were an older lady paid either her property tax or state tax in coins was refused, got sued by the state and she won in court . The courts basically said she made the effort to pay in legal tender it was the states fault for not accepting.
John Hardin
Regular Member
Once again, let's see if we can get some legislative sponsorship for this:
http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/wa_gun_laws_gun_free_zones.txt
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
I would prefer this over some other enforced bills on private property owners but still might have to oppose it on principle. I don't think the state should force someone to have handi bathrooms and stalls, allow people they don't like on their private property, unconstitutional takings as these along with "green" spaces, large easements etc. Who is the state to tell me what I can or can't do on my property?
Malls are conceptually malignant. Everything about them is about drawing you in and keeping you until you give up all your cash in a nearly identical way as casinos. The visual layout and the music they pipe in is designed to put the customer in a light hypnotic trance to make you more susceptible to sales and advertising efforts. You're supposed to feel all warm and happy while you spend way too much. Just like the carnival in Pinocchio, it turns rational people into sheeple. It is the pinnacle of marketing science in action.
A significant part of why open carry is frowned upon is that a firearm seen as a stark reminder of reality and breaks the trance. It's not alone in this either. People routinely get thrown out because of wearing images or slogans that challenge the idea that you are in a safe cocoon. Wear an "Occupy Wall St." shirt and you'll get shut down about as quick as wearing a side arm.
Anyone thinking this is just a conspiracy theory, do a little research. Muzak's corp. business website calls it's own product an "engineered aural environment."
The power of music is undeniable. We'll help you create a memorable experience with custom music expertly tailored to your brand. Muzak is the leading provider of business music. Shouldn't we be yours? - http://www.muzakfcc.com/music.php
A significant part of why open carry is frowned upon is that a firearm seen as a stark reminder of reality and breaks the trance. It's not alone in this either. People routinely get thrown out because of wearing images or slogans that challenge the idea that you are in a safe cocoon. Wear an "Occupy Wall St." shirt and you'll get shut down about as quick as wearing a side arm.
Anyone thinking this is just a conspiracy theory, do a little research. Muzak's corp. business website calls it's own product an "engineered aural environment."
The power of music is undeniable. We'll help you create a memorable experience with custom music expertly tailored to your brand. Muzak is the leading provider of business music. Shouldn't we be yours? - http://www.muzakfcc.com/music.php
amlevin
Regular Member
If all this is true, then why isn't it working at the Everett Mall? If many more merchants move out they'll have enough room for an indoor go-cart track.
This is exceptional thinking and a bit of 'out-of-the-box' cogitation. It breaks the trance and we're all about living entranced. People don't like to be reminded we live in a chaotic and dangerous world at times. They don't want to be responsible - neither for their own safety nor for the duty to avoid trouble. They want to live a thrilling life devoid of consequences. They make up excuses like 'think of the children'.
Kudos.
Last edited:
skiingislife725
Regular Member
Yah that mention of breaking the trance reminded me of a section in "The Tao of Gun", which I think is a great piece to read, especially since it gives you examples and analogies that anti's can relate with, not like the cliches such as "guns don't kill people, people kill people" (well no sh$t, but the gun IS the tool that does it).
Fear of the Responsibility of Personal Power
Why do so many of us otherwise sensible and intellectually honest New Age folks support State mandated gun restrictions? I think one reason is that we're uncomfortable with the full responsibility of our personal power.
I lived in an ashram for many years. It was a very seductive environment for me (at seventeen). I didn't need to think too much. My life was figured out. Even my afterlife was figured out. All I needed to do was meditate, work hard, and participate in a few group activities. I knew I was in heaven and I was helping to bring enlightenment to the world. Whenever someone was thinking about moving out, everyone else would try to convince them to stay for their own good. But now I think there was another, more important reason. You had to keep people from leaving lest you doubt your own reasons for staying.
The dominant paradigm for much of our culture is the Cult of the Victim. It is a very seductive cult. We don't need to think too much. Entire systems are in place to support us and reward us for our victimization. Sovereign people who accept the responsibility of their personal power threaten the Cult of Victim. So like crabs in a bucket who pull back any crab that tries to escape, the victim culture acts reflexively to squash acts of power.
Gun ownership is the quintessential threatening act of power to the victim paradigm. It's like waving a pentagram in Salem, Massachusetts in the 1600's. Deep down folks know they're responsible. But their denial requires they eliminate anything that reminds them of what they're denying. That may explain much of the negative reactions to my owning and wearing a gun.
Gun ownership requires that a person acknowledge and ponder at great length the responsibility of their personal power. Nothing symbolizes that responsibility like putting on a gun. And nothing threatens someone who's afraid of the responsibility of their personal power like someone wearing a gun.
Whom does the gun in the care of the good-hearted person threaten? It threatens the criminal, the State apparently, and also individuals who have learned to fear the responsibility of their personal power and the unpredictable potential of their spiritual sovereignty should it ever be free of externally imposed restrictions.
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/tao.asp
Last edited:
John Hardin
Regular Member
How is that proposal telling a private property owner what they can or can't (or must) do on their property? It does not prohibit the declaration of a "gun free zone" or require the owner do anything else if they wish to declare one; all it does is make explicit the liability for any damages that result from doing so.
If you have suggested changes, please offer them!
ManInBlack
Regular Member
A person who doesn't even own a firearm could make a claim under this proposal, even though he wasn't disarmed by the property owner, only his own stupidity.
1) To the feds, a "terrorist attack" is any crime in which the perpetrator is found to be in possession of the Constitution. I don't think we should look to the feds for guidance on the application of any state law.
2) The last thing this country needs is more specially-privileged victim groups.
Property owners should be able to set whatever rules they want on their own property, as anyone is there, is there voluntarily, and if they don't like it, they are free to LEAVE.
Should a property owner who requires shirts and shoes for service be held expressly liable if a 400 lb behemoth overheats and kicks over in his store?
Why can't we just respect everyone's rights to life, liberty, and property. If you feel that the rules for entering property belonging to someone else infringe on your liberty, it is incumbent on you to leave.
I have never understood this perverse desire to force or "strongly encourage" (using the force of government, of course) property owners to make rules that we like. I vote with my dollars, and let property owners know why I am doing so.
Malls are economic parasites. As the host(local economy) dies, so does the parasite. Those that own and run malls have failed to see the economic trends and adjust. They are still charging pre-recession rent to tenants now taking in 30% of what they were eight years ago. No matter how good your marketing is, bad management will kill a business.
Bill Starks
State Researcher
All parties generally must consent to the interception or recording of any private communication, whether conducted by telephone, telegraph, radio or face-to-face, to comply with state law. Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.030. The all-party consent requirement can be satisfied if “one party has announced to all other parties engaged in the communication or conversation, in any reasonably effective manner, that such communication or conversation is about to be recorded or transmitted.” In addition, if the conversation is to be recorded, the requisite announcement must be recorded as well. Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.030.A party is determined to have consented to recording if he is aware that the recording is taking place. Washington v. Modica, 149 P.3d 446 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).
<edit> helps if I had actually read through the whole thread before posting.....
<edit> helps if I had actually read through the whole thread before posting.....
Last edited:
Knowledge
Regular Member
I agree, they should retain their freedom to set the rules. However if you're going to have the rules, put up a sign, don't come pulling people out of the dressing room to ask them to leave.
Last edited:
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Who again is the state to make me liable for what I do with my private property and for other people's actions or lack of actions?
I must admit I am torn a little on this issue because I feel it is wrong to deny us the right to even have it in the car, because that infringes upon my right to carry to your business. I don't have the solution and don't feel state involvment on private property is the answer either. My fall back is individual liberty and property rights over state intrusion upon that. I think we need to roll back all these rules of what "free" people can do with their property.
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
Facts;
Your house is not open to the public, a mall/business is.
You're not required a license to live in your house, the state makes malls and businesses get a license.
Now for the rest of it.
A mall is a expecting large numbers of people. Since this is true then they should be putting up CLEARLY marked signs to display an intent to disarm you.
That way you can take your patronage elsewhere and vote for a pro-freedom store using your money as your voter box.
Last edited:
ManInBlack
Regular Member
Neither of the above has any bearing on the matter.
A business is not open to the public for any legal purpose. For instance, you can't just go "hang out" inside a store, even if your behavior is legal. It is open to certain members of the public (those who are seeking to buy goods) for a specific, voluntary purpose (transacting business). Do you think that businesses shouldn't be allowed to have "no shirt, no shoes, no service" policies? After all, going around shirtless and barefoot is an expression of 1A-protected speech. Should businesses have to allow unruly individuals to hang out on the property, wearing vulgar t-shirts and flipping the bird to real customers? Of course not, even though that is a 1A-protected activity as well.
A property owner does not cede his private property rights simply because he tries to make a living.
You may not have to get a business license to live in your home, but you have to get a permit to build it, you must pay taxes on it every year, it must comply with local codes, etc. In some states, you must get a permit to legally carry a gun at all, or even to purchase one. This does not mean that the right has somehow been altered.
Government action does not change the fundamental nature of our unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property.
ETA: Just last week, I had another forum member try the same line of hogwash with regards to driver's licenses and whether driving is a "privilege." His argument was that since the government requires a license to drive, it is a privilege, but since the government doesn't require him to get a license to own a gun, that is a right. He shut up quick when I pointed out that in some locales, licenses are required to both own and carry (keep and bear) a firearm.
The 9th Amendment is key. Saying that we have only those rights specifically enumerated is to get the entire concept of the Constitution backwards. The Constitution is there to restrain the federal government, and specifically outline its powers. It was not created to constrain the citizenry and its exercise of liberty.
Last edited:
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
I am saying that if a business is open to the public, granted it is for those who are looking to buy something, then if it doesn't want gun carriers in a store then it should be required to POST IT CLEARLY. The No Shirt, No Shoes thing is clearly posted along with no smoking signs, cash only signs or signs saying they accept "magic money cards," etc.
That is what that line of thought was plain and simple. The flip side is that some businesses get the local government to help kick people off of their properties to build in a location to increase the local tax revenue.
Now since we are talking about PRIVATE property then most businesses do not qualify. The property is owned by an artificial entity called a corporation that cannot exist without the government signing off on it. So the government can pass laws that would affect corporate properties that are generally open to the public without violating any property rights.
If I break in to your house you are an injured party and would appear in court to say, "Yes he did it and damaged/stole (list of property)." I as the accused would be able to face my accuser in court. It's my right.
If you do that to a corporate property then you never face the corporation you only face the lawyers who do work on it's behalf. If a corporation accuses you then your rights are being violated due to the fact that you never get to face your accuser.
Different realities different rules. You are flesh and blood with natural inalienable rights a corporation is not natural and only has the powers that the government grants it.
Please don't even touch the right to travel/drive thing unless you're really willing to make it a new thread and have the lists of court rulings on that subject.
So let's just end that subject line right now on this thread please. I
Last edited:
amlevin
Regular Member
And if he sends his Attorney to represent him, his Attorney is essentially "Him".
Your argument is an old one but it flies about as well as a Walrus. There are laws against trespass and yes, the police departments can enforce them. It's real simple. If you remain in a place where you have been asked to leave you are no longer there legally. That's trespass.
Good luck on convincing any Court that a corporation doesn't have these rights.
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
I would like to see you kiss a corporation and let me know how well it kisses.
I know that the courts are corrupt.
However it's been my observation that you cannot put the corporate lawyer on the stand for questioning. I could put you on the stand though.
So just realize that the courts corrupt I know that. I am stating rights and facts. I do know that your rights are violated by the courts all the time.
I am not advocating trespassing. ... Never mind.
ManInBlack
Regular Member
1) Private property owners shouldn't be "required" to do anything. Asking you to leave at their discretion is the prerogative of a private property owner.
2) Not all businesses post no-shirt/no-smoking/no-whatever signs. They are still well within their rights to kick you off for violating their unwritten policies.
LOL! That's a good one. Where did you get the idea that corporations are not private? What you are saying is that if I get four of my buddies together, and we start a business and incorporate it as an S-Corp, we lose our private property rights. That is blatantly untrue, and I'd like to see a cite from the Constitution authorizing such.
A corporation is private property owned by multiple individuals known as shareholders. Those shareholders retain private property rights. This is no different from a business organized as a sole proprietorship or partnership; you can't have one of those either without the government "signing off on it" in some way (business license, etc.). Again, government action does not change the fundamental nature of rights.
You only have the right to "face your accuser" (really, the state's witnesses against you) during a criminal prosecution, not a civil action.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confrontation_Clause
It's the same principle; I'll touch it all I want. You argued that since businesses are required to get a license to operate, somehow it changes the nature of their private property rights. I am pointing out that you are incorrect. If you don't like the driving example, think of the 2A. Just because some states [wrongly] require a license to exercise the right, does not mean that citizens of those states have had their natural right to keep and bear arms converted into a privilege; it only means that government is full of a$$holes.
Once again, government action/inaction or regulation/deregulation has no bearing on the nature of rights.
Freedom1Man said:
Last edited: