imported post
I sent Mr. Zook the following email:
Dear Mr. Zook,
I am in receipt of an email that was sent to a friend of mine that states that Pacific Place does not allow any possession of firearms at all.
Though people have sent emails probably stating that they'll never shop there again, I wanted to offer a few pieces of information on the legal and political specifics of the mall's firearms ban. I do like Pacific Place, so I was shocked to hear that there was a no firearms rule, and I wish to have it reversed. I used to be an HR representative and a security officer so I had to follow legal trends when it came to rule setting.
1) Putting in restrictions on possession on any item places a legal duty on your security forces to enforce them. If there was a shooting at the mall (not in self defense), Pine Street Management would likely be the first target of any lawsuit filed by someone who was shot there, or their estate. There would be plenty of claims that can be filed, lack of duty of care (because you didn't put up metal detectors at every entrance), and several other tort claims. If Pacific Place were to be entirely neutral on the subject, as in no policy at all, there is no duty, and any such lawsuit, if it is filed (unlikely once the attorney determines it's there's no rule to sue over), would be dismissed in short order.
2) Putting in restrictions on possession of firearms also puts your tenants in a position of not being able to make decisions for their establishment for attracting customers. By stepping beyond regulating unlawful conduct and banning firearms, your tenants also lose money by the lack of our business that are going to other places such as WalMart, which follows state law on firearms possession for those that shop there.
3) The laws of the State of Washington require that one possess a pistol license to carry a loaded firearm in one's car. Concealed carry simply won't be detected by your security forces unless you want to resort to metal detectors and other invasive detection methods that no customer or tenant will tolerate. This essentially makes it that almost anyone who decides to open carry in Washington needs a pistol license. In order to receive a pistol license, one must be 21 years of age, pay $60 to their local law enforcement agency, and pass 4 background checks (NCIC, FBI Fingerprint, WSP Fingerprint, and Mental Health Background check) to make sure that they are not convicted felons or domestic violence offenders. Over 5 percent of the age eligible population of Washington have pistol licenses (240,000). I am in the process of finding official statistics that are citable (it escapes me and my usual government source for this document has been moved), but it's been proven that a person who gets a license to carry are among the most law abiding citizens you can ever have shop at your mall. We are much less likely statistically to steal from your tenants as those who are not licensed, and we are required by law to be on our best behavior or lose the things we worked so hard for. Can you say the same for non license holders?
4) WalMart and quite a few other stores have absolutely no policy on the subject. Though I generally do not prefer to shop at WalMart (I'm not a big fan of their lack of quality control), I can and I have. I loved Pacific Place, and I still do, and I can spend a tremendous amount of money on big ticket items, or going to Gameworks which is in your building. Money made by your tenants equals more money made for Pine Street Group However, there are plenty of places I can go where I'm more welcome, and I'm sure plenty of my friends and family in the area here would agree with me. Lots of small businesses up in Capitol Hill simply have no policy either.
I hope that you consider the points above and consider removing the rule. If yourself or other management at the Pine Street Group want to speak with me in person to put a face on the subject, please feel free to email me back.
Regards,
Lonnie Wilson
PNWOCG
