Open carrying at the mall

LkWd_Don · Dec 10, 2012

darkside said:
Does anyone remember what the original topic was? Or have we wandered to far afield to find our way back to the tracks?

Open Carry, but in fact carry of any firearms being restricted in Malls.

Trigger Dr · Dec 10, 2012

LkWd_Don said:
My point exactly, However, if I were to say something now that just happened to resemble some future occurrence, such statements I make now, could be used against me at that time.

If you can not understand that, then I pity you and what harm you may cause yourself should you brazenly announce what you will do in any given circumstance that might then be used against you.

Maybe you would be willing to openly discuss how you might articulate your own actions in any particular circumstances where you may need to draw and use your firearm so that we all might be enlightened as to what your actions would be in advance. :arrow: (said another way, so that we might have knowledge of what your premeditated acts might be)

Remember even if you are joking and tell someone things you could imagine doing, then someone else does those things and they just happen to follow the exact same pattern that you gave, you have made yourself out to be the most likely suspect, even if you have an alibi.

Per this quote you have already laid the ground work for going to jail
Originally Posted by LkWd_Don
I have no posted signs on my property, but if someone I do not know enters my property without my express invitation, and I see a strange bulge that I suspect is a concealed weapon, Do I have to wait before I shoot? Absolutely Not!

LkWd_Don · Dec 10, 2012

Trigger Dr said:
Per this quote you have already laid the ground work for going to jail
Originally Posted by LkWd_Don
I have no posted signs on my property, but if someone I do not know enters my property without my express invitation, and I see a strange bulge that I suspect is a concealed weapon, Do I have to wait before I shoot? Absolutely Not!

So sayeth You!

Now, maybe you would care to explain why?

It seems that you are claiming to know what might be going through my mind or what all possible scenarios I might be thinking of are, to so emphatically state that I would be going to jail. So, enlighten us oh wise one.

darkside · Dec 10, 2012

Bravo. You remembered the original topic. You may continue with your hijacking.

Good day.

Grim_Night · Dec 10, 2012

Wow... derailed train and another beating of a dead horse...

leitung · Dec 10, 2012

It's very simple, if they don't want my gun inside, they don't want me inside, which means they also don't want my money.

I will honor their policy by not bringing my self defense tools into their establishment by not visiting.

LkWd_Don · Dec 11, 2012

leitung said:
It's very simple, if they don't want my gun inside, they don't want me inside, which means they also don't want my money.

I will honor their policy by not bringing my self defense tools into their establishment by not visiting.

I agree! It is far too simple! Why should anyone who usually OC's revert to CC, just to violate the rights of a Property Owner? Especially when those same folks would scream bloody murder if someone violated their rights.

Hypocrisy!

Metalhead47 · Dec 11, 2012

LkWd_Don said:
I agree! It is far too simple! Why should anyone who usually OC's revert to CC, just to violate the rights of a Property Owner? Especially when those same folks would scream bloody murder if someone violated their rights.

Hypocrisy!

Reality.

You must never go to a first run movie theater either.

Whether a business open to the general public has (or should have) the same rights to exclude as private property or a private club is still very much open to debate in the first place.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

DCKilla · Dec 11, 2012

LkWd_Don said:
I agree! It is far too simple! Why should anyone who usually OC's revert to CC, just to violate the rights of a Property Owner? Especially when those same folks would scream bloody murder if someone violated their rights.

Hypocrisy!

Violating someone's rights is far from violating policy. Your assumptions are far fetched and absurd. When told to leave private property for whatever reason, I leave out of respect. If never told to leave and sticking around, how can that ever be violating property rights?

LkWd_Don · Dec 11, 2012

DCKilla said:
Violating someone's rights is far from violating policy. Your assumptions are far fetched and absurd. When told to leave private property for whatever reason, I leave out of respect. If never told to leave and sticking around, how can that ever be violating property rights?

See, now that is a logical response for someone who has no prior knowledge of the restriction against firearms in the Tacoma Mall, or most any other mall for that matter.

The problem I see, is that many here cover this same topic again and again constantly bragging about how they know the restriction exists, yet simply switch from OC to CC, and carry anyway. Thus, ignoring that Property Owners rights, violating his/her express wishes, all while showing themselves to be little more than hypocrites!

A property owner has no obligation to provide advance notice. You're entering upon his/her property is an acceptance of his/her rules. So the Mall Owners simply telling you that firearms are not permitted on their property and then telling you to get off their property and not bring the firearm back is a courtesy to you, not a requirement that they must uphold.

I will challenge anyone to show me where I am mistaken and property owners have a legal obligation to notify you of their rules before you set foot on their property.

DCKilla · Dec 11, 2012

LkWd_Don said:
See, now that is a logical response for someone who has no prior knowledge of the restriction against firearms in the Tacoma Mall, or most any other mall for that matter.

The problem I see, is that many here cover this same topic again and again constantly bragging about how they know the restriction exists, yet simply switch from OC to CC, and carry anyway. Thus, ignoring that Property Owners rights, violating his/her express wishes, all while showing themselves to be little more than hypocrites!

A property owner has no obligation to provide advance notice. You're entering upon his/her property is an acceptance of his/her rules. So the Mall Owners simply telling you that firearms are not permitted on their property and then telling you to get off their property and not bring the firearm back is a courtesy to you, not a requirement that they must uphold.

I will challenge anyone to show me where I am mistaken and property owners have a legal obligation to notify you of their rules before you set foot on their property.

I haven't carried in the Tacoma Mall. I encourage my wife to shop at the South Hill Mall(OCed there a couple of times) because of the problems OCers had with Tacoma. On the other had, if there is no stopping her, I will follow along concealed at the Tacoma Mall.

Freedom1Man · Dec 11, 2012

LkWd_Don said:
See, now that is a logical response for someone who has no prior knowledge of the restriction against firearms in the Tacoma Mall, or most any other mall for that matter.

The problem I see, is that many here cover this same topic again and again constantly bragging about how they know the restriction exists, yet simply switch from OC to CC, and carry anyway. Thus, ignoring that Property Owners rights, violating his/her express wishes, all while showing themselves to be little more than hypocrites!

A property owner has no obligation to provide advance notice. You're entering upon his/her property is an acceptance of his/her rules. So the Mall Owners simply telling you that firearms are not permitted on their property and then telling you to get off their property and not bring the firearm back is a courtesy to you, not a requirement that they must uphold.

I will challenge anyone to show me where I am mistaken and property owners have a legal obligation to notify you of their rules before you set foot on their property.

Please don't call corporation owned property private property.

Citizens/humans have rights, corporations don't.

If I cannot violate the rights of a rock then I cannot violate the 'rights'[sic] of a corporation.

You're screaming for an apple to oranges comparison. Your private property is owned by right. You own it or have a private/not for public use, lease on it. A mall has a open for the public intent. To enter a mall one does not have to open your gate or cross a line of signs screaming "keep out."

A mall says, "Welcome please come in," and if they do have any anti-gun signs they are hidden from view unlike your no-trespassing signs which you're not trying to hide. A mall might have various entrances through stores that have no anti-gun policies also. So one path of entry might be through a friendly business.

You should really try the search function because this issue has been fleshed out fairly well in the past.

Heck I had even proposed that if they don't want guns there that the mall post large signs in such a way that they are difficult to not see much like your use of colorful "no trespassing" signs I am sure are larger than a bumper sticker and not colored to blend in with the back ground. If a mall has a no-rights policy and you go there, that sign has no legal effect. Otherwise if it did have a legal effect then all the malls might post 2"x2" anti-gun signs in locations that are hard to find and have you arrested for violating it.

So enough with the apples to oranges comparison of private property rights.

Metalhead47 · Dec 11, 2012

Freedom1Man said:
Please don't call corporation owned property private property.

Citizens/humans have rights, corporations don't.

If I cannot violate the rights of a rock then I cannot violate the 'rights'[sic] of a corporation.

You're screaming for an apple to oranges comparison. Your private property is owned by right. You own it or have a private/not for public use, lease on it. A mall has a open for the public intent. To enter a mall one does not have to open your gate or cross a line of signs screaming "keep out."

A mall says, "Welcome please come in," and if they do have any anti-gun signs they are hidden from view unlike your no-trespassing signs which you're not trying to hide. A mall might have various entrances through stores that have no anti-gun policies also. So one path of entry might be through a friendly business.

You should really try the search function because this issue has been fleshed out fairly well in the past.

Heck I had even proposed that if they don't want guns there that the mall post large signs in such a way that they are difficult to not see much like your use of colorful "no trespassing" signs I am sure are larger than a bumper sticker and not colored to blend in with the back ground. If a mall has a no-rights policy and you go there, that sign has no legal effect. Otherwise if it did have a legal effect then all the malls might post 2"x2" anti-gun signs in locations that are hard to find and have you arrested for violating it.

So enough with the apples to oranges comparison of private property rights.

This.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

amlevin · Dec 11, 2012

Freedom1Man said:
Please don't call corporation owned property private property.

Citizens/humans have rights, corporations don't.

Corporations are People. They are a group of people called shareholders. The officers of the Corporation are merely their Managers and yes, they do have rights to manage their property as they see fit. The Laws allow it and the Courts have found it to be Constitutional.

You may want it to be different but just remember, "You can wish in one hand and crap in the other. There's no question as to which one will fill up faster". Don't expect any change in how Corporations exercise their Right when it comes to property they own.

Flopsweat · Dec 11, 2012

Grim_Night said:
Wow... derailed train and another beating of a dead horse...

Well, maybe... it's not to late.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeyN2YfAwas
To learn how to love
And forget how to hate
:dude:

Freedom1Man · Dec 11, 2012

amlevin said:
Corporations are People. They are a group of people called shareholders. The officers of the Corporation are merely their Managers and yes, they do have rights to manage their property as they see fit. The Laws allow it and the Courts have found it to be Constitutional.

You may want it to be different but just remember, "You can wish in one hand and crap in the other. There's no question as to which one will fill up faster". Don't expect any change in how Corporations exercise their Right when it comes to property they own.

Wrong.

Corporations are not people, they are entities that exist only with government permission to exist. If a corporation breaks a law can it go to jail? No. If you break a law you can go to jail though. What about the corporate share holders? Should they not spend time in jail when they benefit financially for a corporation breaking a law? I think so. Do they spend time in jail for it? NO! Have you ever seen a corporation? Have you ever been able to punch one? NO! Thus corporations are not living being and they are not really people despite what the courts claim.

You don't need a corporation for a group of people to own something.
There need not be any shares issued for a corporation to exist.

Just because laws allow something does not make it right. Besides I wouldn't trust those criminals in black robes as far as I can throw them.

The laws said slavery was legal too, are you saying that those laws are good laws? What about the laws saying that cocoa leaves are illegal to have/use? They are safer than most over the counter sodas and other drugs.

BigDave · Dec 11, 2012

Another Mall Shooting in Clackamas Oregon 2 dead 4 injured so far.
http://www.katu.com/news/live

I posted this here as to the discussion and some will call this hypocritical and I don't really care but I do and will continue to carry concealed in a Mall or Store even if their POLICY is anti-gun as carrying anyways it's not against the law it only becomes an in issue in Washington State when you are asked to leave and do not ie Trespass.

tombrewster421 · Dec 11, 2012

BigDave said:
Another Mall Shooting in Clackamas Oregon 2 dead 4 injured so far.
http://www.katu.com/news/live

I posted this here as to the discussion and some will call this hypocritical and I don't really care but I do and will continue to carry concealed in a Mall or Store even if their POLICY is anti-gun as carrying anyways it's not against the law it only becomes an in issue in Washington State when you are asked to leave and do not ie Trespass.

I'm with you there Dave.

gogodawgs · Dec 11, 2012

BigDave said:
Another Mall Shooting in Clackamas Oregon 2 dead 4 injured so far.
http://www.katu.com/news/live

I posted this here as to the discussion and some will call this hypocritical and I don't really care but I do and will continue to carry concealed in a Mall or Store even if their POLICY is anti-gun as carrying anyways it's not against the law it only becomes an in issue in Washington State when you are asked to leave and do not ie Trespass.

I will also carry CC when it is legal to do so yet in an area where the property discourages carry. I will carry where legal. I do not see this as hypocritical...

LkWd_Don · Dec 11, 2012

Freedom1Man said:
Please don't call corporation owned property private property.

Citizens/humans have rights, corporations don't. ~~ snipped ~~
So enough with the apples to oranges comparison of private property rights.

Corporations, do not just spring up out of the ground as Corporations, and/or do not found themselves.
Just as Governments also do not just spring up, they are founded by people (are you saying that people have no rights?) with a common goal or agenda, the same applies to corporations.

I know of no corporations in existence that are not managed by people (again are you saying that people have no rights?), be it a select individual or the sum of all existing share-holders. The greater number involved in the management, the greater weight of their collective Voice. This in no way means that these people have no rights, but if we look to the Republican form of Government that was promised to us in our Constitution, the sum of their collective voice is still only one, giving it no greater weight than yours or mine. http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A4Sec4.html

So your commentary is not only misdirected, it is without a doubt, ignoring reality.

Open carrying at the mall

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Opt-Out Members

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member