Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 36

Thread: Open Carry news story regarding someone carrying in the mall

  1. #1
    Regular Member skeith5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    357

    Open Carry news story regarding someone carrying in the mall

    http://www.komonews.com/news/local/190321871.html


    "Man carries gun openly into mall, gets verbal lashing"

    "Mendiola says his weapon does draw glances in public, but he says he means no harm and meant no harm at the Sears in Vancouver Westfield Shopping Center on Wednesday when he stopped in to look at some tools."

    Glad to see the police don't appear to have been involved in this incident and that it was resolved without their interaction.
    Too lazy to do a blog! Follow me on Twitter instead! @6ShotScott

  2. #2
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Even a sign has no legal effect.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667
    http://www.katu.com/news/local/Man-c...190305991.html

    VANCOUVER, Wash. – One man believes he's within his rights to openly carry a gun in a mall, but almost two months after the Clackamas Town Center Shooting, that belief triggers an immediate gut reaction for many.

    But how do Derek Mendiola's rights stand up against a store's right to kick him out?

    Mendiola says his weapon does draw glances in public, but he says he means no harm and meant no harm at the Sears in Vancouver Westfield Shopping Center on Wednesday when he stopped in to look at some tools.

    He went in wearing his 9 mm Taurus pistol on his shoulder. He says he was surprised how an employee took issue with his gun and started verbally attacking him for having it.

    "For somebody to harass me for just following my rights is a pretty big deal. It's just like telling me, I can't breathe air, I can’t live," he said.

    He claims he would have been perfectly happy to leave if he'd simply been asked politely to do so.

    He said he wears it outside his clothing because "if you have it tucked in, it's considered concealed and then if you don't have a concealed permit that is illegal."

    Mall general manager Paige Moreau said she was aware of the incident. She said the mall's code of conduct prohibits firearms in the mall. But she couldn't confirm whether that rule was posted anywhere inside the mall. KATU News did not observe any signs posted Thursday prohibiting firearms and couldn’t find a notice posted on the mall's website.

    Washington's open carry law allows gun owners to legally carry their weapons in plain sight. But Moreau said the mall is private property, so it's allowed to make these rules.

    Washington gun rights expert and author, Dave Workman, says she's right. But a simple sign or two would help.

    "It is their private property," he said. "But still it wasn't posted off limits to firearms and so he really didn't violate any law by going in there open-carrying a firearm."

    Later in the day Mendiola said now that he knows it’s against the mall’s rules to bring a firearm on the premises, he’ll respect that and leave his gun at home.

    Still, he says it would help a lot if they'd post a notice somewhere.

    He says he’s applied for a concealed weapons permit, but mall rules don't make an exception for concealed weapons permits. So even if someone has one, and is carrying, the mall can legally ask the person to leave and have them arrested for criminal trespass if they refuse.

    The law is essentially the same in both Oregon and Washington and businesses in both states have the right to set the rules for how they manage their private property.
    Live Free or Die!

  4. #4
    Regular Member Fibresteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Woodland, WA
    Posts
    50

    Open Carry news story regarding someone carrying in the mall

    I've open carried in this mall before prior to the Clackamas shooting. Tend to conceal whenever there now.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
    Posts
    1,762
    "But still it wasn't posted off limits to firearms and so he really didn't violate any law by going in there open-carrying a firearm."


    Implying that carry into a business that is posted is a crime. Great.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Slightly right of center
    Posts
    166
    Quote Originally Posted by deanf View Post
    Implying that carry into a business that is posted is a crime. Great.[/FONT][/COLOR]
    He usually gets this stuff right. An oversight maybe? Not good, though.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,327
    Washington's open carry law allows...
    #$$^#^!@% press-droid!

  8. #8
    Regular Member Alpine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Mercer Island
    Posts
    661
    We've heard of lots of people asked to leave malls due to OC on here, but never once did it make the news, I guess the local NW media is declaring sides in this war on firearms...
    Last edited by Alpine; 02-08-2013 at 09:23 AM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    He says he’s applied for a concealed weapons permit, but mall rules don't make an exception for concealed weapons permits. So even if someone has one, and is carrying, the mall can legally ask the person to leave and have them arrested for criminal trespass if they refuse.

    So if one is carrying concealed, and nobody see's it, is it really there???
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  10. #10
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    So if one is carrying concealed, and nobody see's it, is it really there???
    In the mind of the anti-freedom types, if they don't know you're exercising your right they don't know to stop the exercise of the right.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  11. #11
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    I believe Sears has a "follow state law" policy. Don't know for positive, but I believe that is(was) their policy.

    If the guy was in Sears, he was complaining to the wrong people, and the security guard was way out of line.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Lord Sega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Warrenton, Oregon
    Posts
    317
    Even if Sears is firearms friendly and follows Washington State law (and I'm not sure what Sears Corporate says about that), by Sears being a leasee of the mall would they not fall under the mall owner's rules (or however it might be written into their contract)?

    So, even if he entered by the Sears door, shopped only in Sears, and never stepped into the mall proper, and left by the Sears door, the mall owners (by their representatives i.e. mall cops) could trespass him... correct?

    OR we can push the "public accommodation" in that that while the mall is a private business, by being open to the public, the public can enter to do business and the public does not lose their Constitutional rights (as long as it does not interfere with the business... i.e. standing in the middle of Sears waving a Bible or Koran and shouting out about the End of the World would be interfering).

    LINK: Judge Napolitano on Gun Rights
    Last edited by Lord Sega; 02-09-2013 at 02:03 AM.
    "Guns are not the problem … crazy is the problem” ... “We cannot legislate our society to the craziest amongst us.” - Jon Stewart
    “I do not love the bright sword for it's sharpness, nor the arrow for it's swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend." - Tolkien

  13. #13
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by hermannr View Post
    I believe Sears has a "follow state law" policy.


    So just exactly what does that statement mean? "Follow State Law" doesn't really mean anything as there is no State Law requiring them to allow firearm carriers on their property.

    State Law does, however, give them the right to ask one to leave and if that person refuses then file a trespass complaint against them.

    This "follows State Law" discussion has been chewed more than a street hooker's bubblegum.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
    Posts
    1,762
    OR we can push the "public accommodation" in that that while the mall is a private business, by being open to the public, the public can enter to do business and the public does not lose their Constitutional rights
    Public Accomodation does not deal with constitutional rights. It secures access rights to private property for protected classes. Gun carriers are not a protected class.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Batousaii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Kitsap Co., Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,234
    Quote Originally Posted by deanf View Post
    <snip> Gun carriers are not a protected class.
    - But we should be. At least that we should be from government.
    - As for private property rights vs. my right to carry in an establishment open to the public.... mixed feelings here.
    Last edited by Batousaii; 02-09-2013 at 12:44 PM.
    ~ ENCLAVE vmc ~
    The Enclave is looking for patriotic motorcycle riders in Washington State who support liberty and freedom for all. ~ Check us out!
    ~
    * " To be swayed neither by the opponent nor by his sword is the essence of swordsmanship." - Miyamoto Musashi.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    So just exactly what does that statement mean? "Follow State Law" doesn't really mean anything as there is no State Law requiring them to allow firearm carriers on their property.

    State Law does, however, give them the right to ask one to leave and if that person refuses then file a trespass complaint against them.

    This "follows State Law" discussion has been chewed more than a street hooker's bubblegum.
    Are you being intentionally obtuse? I have to think that if you are familiar with the discussion of these policies here then you still don't have a clue what they are about.

    All this means is that the company has a policy of allowing firearms on their property as long as the firearms are carried in a manner compliant with state law.... In other words, so long as the carrier "Follows State Law".

    That being said, what this mean in real life when you walk into a given store of a company that has this kind of policy is NOTHING. If you walk in the store OC and the first employee to see you asks you to leave you have to leave. Get their name and call the store management and get it straightened out. After you have the store management straightened out walk into the store again, and if that same or another employee asks you to leave then you have to leave. If you get it finally straightened out for real, and you go to the store every day for 5 years straight without incident, and then one day an employee asks you to leave... you have to leave. The existence of this kind of policy, and your knowledge of its existence, will never be a defense against a trespassing charge.

    Also, State law does not give shopkeepers any right to trespass someone. That is a natural right of the shopkeeper, as natural as the right to keep and bear arms, or trespass someone from your home. The only thing that we the people (the first branch of the government) allow the State to do is limit this right in necessary ways for the betterment of society, such as not letting you trespass someone from your business based on their race, gender, religion, etc.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Batousaii View Post
    - But we should be. At least that we should be from government.
    - As for private property rights vs. my right to carry in an establishment open to the public.... mixed feelings here.
    Bat, my compatriot, I see your second statement there under 2 different lights.

    If it's someone running a business by way of a state permission slip (business license) and the shop is generally open to the public then, gun carries would be in a protected class.

    If a citizen is running a business of common right (no permission required) then the property is truly private and as such even if generally open to the public, private rules can be established even against the government listed protected classes (eg you could ban guns, wheel/power chair people, anyone who can't speak English).
    Last edited by Freedom1Man; 02-09-2013 at 11:52 PM.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  18. #18
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    I feel there should be no such thing as "protected" classes on private property.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  19. #19
    Regular Member skeith5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    357

    Re: Open Carry news story regarding someone carrying in the mall

    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    I feel there should be no such thing as "protected" classes on private property.
    +1. If I want to start a business and not serve specific groups I should be allowed to. The consumers can then decide if my business is going to fail or thrive.
    Too lazy to do a blog! Follow me on Twitter instead! @6ShotScott

  20. #20
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    I feel there should be no such thing as "protected" classes on private property.
    If that was in response to my post, I hope you understand why I posted the two views.

    They do not disagree with you at all. All I am saying is that taking a state issued license you are agreeing that, in those licensed endeavors, you're going to play by the state's "rules" right wrong or otherwise.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  21. #21
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by skeith5 View Post
    +1. If I want to start a business and not serve specific groups I should be allowed to. The consumers can then decide if my business is going to fail or thrive.
    No license required then. I'll agree with you.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  22. #22
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    If that was in response to my post, I hope you understand why I posted the two views.
    It was a general statement on the topic, of "protected" classes, we have a nation of give me's and I deserve special attention because........

    I understand the problem of discrimination and sympathize with it, but the government fix (licensing is part of that scheme) has created more problems than it solves.

    We all have disabilities and are not "normal" in some way, we must just learn to live with our shortcomings and try to use our weaknesses to strengthen our stronger abilities.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philipsburg, Montana
    Posts
    3,137
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    So if one is carrying concealed, and nobody see's it, is it really there???
    Attempt to rob "one" and find out.
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." -- George Washington

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Port Orchard, Washington, USA
    Posts
    897
    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    Later in the day Mendiola said now that he knows it’s against the mall’s rules to bring a firearm on the premises, he’ll respect that and leave his gun at home.
    Hmm, I will respect their right to their rules and not shop there.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Port Orchard, Washington, USA
    Posts
    897
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Sega View Post
    Even if Sears is firearms friendly and follows Washington State law (and I'm not sure what Sears Corporate says about that), by Sears being a leasee of the mall would they not fall under the mall owner's rules (or however it might be written into their contract)?

    So, even if he entered by the Sears door, shopped only in Sears, and never stepped into the mall proper, and left by the Sears door, the mall owners (by their representatives i.e. mall cops) could trespass him... correct?

    OR we can push the "public accommodation" in that that while the mall is a private business, by being open to the public, the public can enter to do business and the public does not lose their Constitutional rights (as long as it does not interfere with the business... i.e. standing in the middle of Sears waving a Bible or Koran and shouting out about the End of the World would be interfering).

    LINK: Judge Napolitano on Gun Rights
    When a business leases or rents a space it becomes their private property just like when you rent a house it becomes your private property. The rental/lease contract give the leaser all rights. If Sears has a "follow state law" rule for their stores then the employee was very in the wrong and the mall cannot tell Sears to kick out customers who are armed.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •