Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Auburn Supermall

  1. #1
    Regular Member Mainsail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Silverdale, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,532

    Post imported post

    From the Supermall website:

    The mall, including its parking lot, is private property. In order to maximize the enjoyment,
    convenience, and safety of our guests, the following standards of conduct are set forth for
    the purpose of protecting the center’s legitimate business interest. Any violation of the
    code interferes with the commercial nature and function of the center. As a visitor on this
    property, you are prohibited from engaging in any of the following activities while on this
    property.
    Examples of such activities include, but are not limited to:
    • Carrying or possessing any weapons of any kind, including weapons carried pursuant
    to a valid permit.
    OK, should I treat this as prohibiting me from carrying there, or as just CYA on their part?

    I have OCd in there before without incident, albeit only for a short time.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Mainsail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Silverdale, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,532

    Post imported post

    I sent them this through their website:

    Sir or Madam,

    I was looking at your website to get directions to the mall, when I came across the ‘Standards of Conduct’. Specifically, the first item, which reads: “Carrying or possessing any weapons of any kind, including weapons carried pursuant to a valid permit.”

    Does this mean that I cannot shop in the Supermall? As a concealed pistol permit holder, I have passed a thorough background check locally and through the FBI. As I am sure you are aware, people with no regard for the law will likewise have no regard for your rule, and will carry their illegal firearms regardless. I personally find it insulting that you will look the other way and allow illegal firearms to enter the mall (face it, without intrusive checks, there is nothing you can do to prevent their entry) while disarming those of us who carry a firearm legally. I believe this creates an unacceptably dangerous condition wherein I would be unable to protect myself and my family either inside the Mall or out in the parking lot.

    You are, without knowing it, driving business away from the Mall, something your lessees should be made aware, with this policy. There are several websites devoted to the creation and maintenance of Do Not Patronize lists. The Supermall will have to be added to these lists given the duplicitous rule that allows illegal firearms carry while prohibiting legal firearms carry.

    I would ask that you reconsider this hypocritical rule and allow legally carried firearms in the Mall and on Mall property. I look forward to hearing from you.


  3. #3
    Regular Member GreatWhiteLlama's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Bothell, Washington, USA
    Posts
    287

    Post imported post

    Great letter Mainsail.

    I would also be interested in reading their answer since it is my understanding that at one time, (this is hearsay) they had a leaser that sold firearms. I do not know this for a fact, but was told by a friend who went shortly after they opened.

    Please keep us apprised.
    "...our media are palace eunuchs gazing avidly at the harem of power and stroking their impotent pens in time to the rape of our liberties."
    -Sarah Hoyt

    "America is at that awkward stage; it's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
    -Claire Wolfe

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,487

    Post imported post

    It's a very well written letter, but I am affraid you will probably get the corporate cookie cutter response. Something like this:

    Dear valued customer,
    Thank you for contacting us about your concerns. We appreciate your feedback and hope that you enjoy shopping at our Auburn location. For the protection of our customers (they may throw in: after the recent shooting at the Tacoma Mall), we prohibit firearms from our premises. We promote a peaceful shopping environment. For your safety, we have a full time security staff and which is aided by our local police department. We hope that you enjoy shopping at our centers.





  5. #5
    State Researcher dng's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,290

    Post imported post

    You are a professional evil cookie cutter letter writer, aren't you?

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,762

    Post imported post

    OK, should I treat this as prohibiting me from carrying there, or as just CYA on their part?
    Your joking, right? It says you can't carry there. That means you can't carry there. It's very clearly written.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,487

    Post imported post

    deanf wrote:
    OK, should I treat this as prohibiting me from carrying there, or as just CYA on their part?
    Your joking, right? It says you can't carry there. That means you can't carry there. It's very clearly written.
    As much as I dislike the mall's rule, I have to agree with you. It may not be a law but it is their policy. As property owners they have the right to set these restrictions as terms of use of their property. Now they can't have you arrested, but they can ask you to leave and not return. I wouldn't challenge their propert rights, but that's just because I personally support all rights, not just gun rights. The burden of freedom is that you have to accept everyone else's freedom.

    It's up to you whether this sign means "don't carry" or "don't open carry". Personally, after the tacoma mall and the utah mall, it just means the later to me.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    expvideo wrote:
    deanf wrote:
    OK, should I treat this as prohibiting me from carrying there, or as just CYA on their part?
    Your joking, right? It says you can't carry there. That means you can't carry there. It's very clearly written.
    As much as I dislike the mall's rule, I have to agree with you. It may not be a law but it is their policy. As property owners they have the right to set these restrictions as terms of use of their property. Now they can't have you arrested, but they can ask you to leave and not return. I wouldn't challenge their propert rights, but that's just because I personally support all rights, not just gun rights. The burden of freedom is that you have to accept everyone else's freedom.

    It's up to you whether this sign means "don't carry" or "don't open carry". Personally, after the tacoma mall and the utah mall, it just means the later to me.
    I agree fully with this. However mine and my family's safety comes before store policy.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Monroe, Washington, USA
    Posts
    356

    Post imported post

    I keep a few of these in my glovebox. I've printed them on standard business card stock.



    In addition to dropping them in those giveaway goldfish bowls so many places seem have I usually ask for the manager and when I hand him/her one I tell them just how much money I am now going to spend somewhere else. Then I usually send a follow up letter to the company headquarters or in the case of a locally owned business, directly to the owners.

    I refuse to patronize despots.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,487

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    expvideo wrote:
    deanf wrote:
    OK, should I treat this as prohibiting me from carrying there, or as just CYA on their part?
    Your joking, right? It says you can't carry there. That means you can't carry there. It's very clearly written.
    As much as I dislike the mall's rule, I have to agree with you. It may not be a law but it is their policy. As property owners they have the right to set these restrictions as terms of use of their property. Now they can't have you arrested, but they can ask you to leave and not return. I wouldn't challenge their propert rights, but that's just because I personally support all rights, not just gun rights. The burden of freedom is that you have to accept everyone else's freedom.

    It's up to you whether this sign means "don't carry" or "don't open carry". Personally, after the tacoma mall and the utah mall, it just means the later to me.
    I agree fully with this. However mine and my family's safety comes before store policy.
    I couldn't agree more.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Redmond, Washington, USA
    Posts
    618

    Post imported post

    Mainsail wrote:
    From the Supermall website:

    The mall, including its parking lot, is private property. In order to maximize the enjoyment,
    convenience, and safety of our guests, the following standards of conduct are set forth for
    the purpose of protecting the center’s legitimate business interest. Any violation of the
    code interferes with the commercial nature and function of the center. As a visitor on this
    property, you are prohibited from engaging in any of the following activities while on this
    property.
    Examples of such activities include, but are not limited to:
    • Carrying or possessing any weapons of any kind, including weapons carried pursuant
    to a valid permit.
    OK, should I treat this as prohibiting me from carrying there, or as just CYA on their part?

    I have OCd in there before without incident, albeit only for a short time.
    That notice carries no weight of law. Besides, there are entrances to the mall where you wouldn't even see it. All you have to do is leave when/if asked to leave. That is your only legal responsibility.

    As to whether you would want to spend money/support a place that would even consider creating a victim rich zone is something only you can answer.

    Please help our growing organization: http://www.nwcdl.org

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Monroe, Washington, USA
    Posts
    356

    Post imported post

    I understand that this forum is dedicated to open carry. I also understand that I am the new kid on the block regaring this particular forum.So maybe there's something here I don't understand yet. However I have been carrying a sidearm both as a sworn officer and as a private citizen for over 30 years. I also understand that The Powers That Be at theStuper-mallare embracing this silly notion that some of the more insecure sheeple may become mentally disoriented at thevery sight of a mere mortal with a firearm. But those sheeple are blissfully unaware of what they cannot see. Out of sight out of mind is the name of the game here.

    So why is it that you never see a gaggle of gun owners picketing and boycotting places like the Stuper-mall who refuse to allow lawful concealed carry? After all isn't the operative word concealed? In theory no one should ever knowthat you're packing. Why ban a lawful activity that people aren't even aware of? CCW is an invisible event. So why do WE allow thisprejudice to continue? Am I the only one who feels insulted by all of this? Is anyone else the least bit outraged?

    And here's another point... not only can you not carry your firearm into the mall but you cannotleave it in your car since you're not allowed to even bring it into the parking lot! So what are we supposed to do? Leave our guns at home and make a special trip just to the victim-rich zone? Afterwards we can return home, strap up and then finish our shopping? Why are there ANY gun ownerspatronizing these places?

    We had a perfect opportunity this week, with he trial of that looney-toon down in Tacoma. If there had only been ONE lawfully armed person in the mall that day to stop him, perhaps the gentleman in the wheelchair for the rest of his life (that the TV stations loved to interview) might still be walking today.Ask him if he feels his safety was "maximized" by prohibiting anyone the means to stop his attacker. If that were me I'd be outraged thatI was denied the chance thatanyone of myfellow mencould have come to my aid.

    Now many of the other states have permits to carry "weapons" or "firearms" butall Washington has is a Concealed PISTOL License. So it's not as if anylaw-abiding citizens will be attempting to carry an evil AK orAR beneath their Starter jacket. So what does the Stuper-mall have to fear from lawful concealed handgun carry?



    What would happen if this sign was posted?

    • Carrying or possessing any narcotics of any kind, including narcotics carried pursuant to a valid prescription.

    Hell's Belles™, it's every bit as silly.
    And I'll wager there would bemore than a few letters of protest as well as a LOT of people ignoring it. And I'll go as far as wagering that one of the local "news" organizations would make more than a passing mention of the absurdity of it. So why haven't any of the localseemingly gun-friendly television stations done a story on this? Except of course for Komo-4 since they have Ken (the hr is silent) Schram.

    What's next? Signs prohibiting the carrying of tobacco products into the mall even if you're not smoking?

    Also... according to the verbage of the aforementioned sign,an off-dutysworn LEO cannot carry there either. And it couldbe construed to include on duty/uniformed officers as well.




  13. #13
    Regular Member Mainsail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Silverdale, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,532

    Post imported post

    BluesBear wrote:
    We had a perfect opportunity this week, with he trial of that looney-toon down in Tacoma. If there had only been ONE lawfully armed person in the mall that day to stop him, perhaps the gentleman in the wheelchair for the rest of his life (that the TV stations loved to interview) might still be walking today.
    The man in the wheelchair was carrying concealed at the mall that day, he worked at the knife store. If I recall correctly, he tried to reason with the gunman and was shot by him.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Redmond, Washington, USA
    Posts
    618

    Post imported post

    Mainsail wrote:
    BluesBear wrote:
    We had a perfect opportunity this week, with he trial of that looney-toon down in Tacoma. If there had only been ONE lawfully armed person in the mall that day to stop him, perhaps the gentleman in the wheelchair for the rest of his life (that the TV stations loved to interview) might still be walking today.
    The man in the wheelchair was carrying concealed at the mall that day, he worked at the knife store. If I recall correctly, he tried to reason with the gunman and was shot by him.
    Actually, the man was Dan McKown. And he was armed. Rather than drawing and firing from cover, he approached the gunman and tried to command him to drop the weapon.


    He walked to the front of the store to see what was going on, and took a defensive posture, crouched to one side in the store’s entrance. He had his gun out, but tucked it back into his belt, under his clothes, after thinking better of it. Meanwhile, Maldonado walked past the Kits store. “We had eye-to-eye contact the whole time,” McKown said. He is unsure if Maldonado saw his weapon. McKown, standing, said to Maldonado, “I think you need to put that gun down, young man.” McKown’s hand was back near his gun. Maldonado swung his barrel over and opened fired from the hip. “Every one of his shots got some part of me,” McKown said.
    From http://dwb.thenewstribune.com/news/l...-4853200c.html.

    Please help our growing organization: http://www.nwcdl.org

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Monroe, Washington, USA
    Posts
    356

    Post imported post

    Yes he was armed. And does anyone notice how that fact has (thankfully) largely been ignored. Why do I say thankfully? Because he made a bad decision. He tried to reason with an totally unreasonable person. It was his choice and he has to deal with the consequences of his decision.

    The intention of my less that succinct statement (it had been a lot day and I was rarther tired) was that it's a damn shame that there weren't others there who were properly armed and prepared to take appropriate action.

    I purposely avoided mentiong that McKown was armed because I didn't want to hijack this thread with a discussion of all of the tactical errors he committed. My gosh, the man has already suffered more than enough. It's just a shame that the mall was full of people who either wouldn't or couldn't come to his rescue. I won't dignify the looney-toon by mentioning his name but he should have never survived long enough to take the hostages in Sam Goody.

    My indignation is that since there were always be self-centered wackjobs out there looking for attention why should they be given all of the advantages? Why should they be allowed to run amok (literally) while decent folk are forced to stand by defenslessly.

    It is my belief that John & Jane Clueless need to be informed that if they choose to patronise these target rich zones that whenever the next nutter goes berserk there will be NO one there to help them until it's all over and too late. Because all of the people who have the presence of mind to take responsibility for their own defense, and even for strangers when the need is strong, will be somewhere else. Patronizing the merchants and organizations who truely understand ALL of our inalienable rights.



  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    federal way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    58

    Post imported post

    I am 25 and havebeen raised around guns my whole life (my father is one of the "right wing gun nuts"). I never thought I would need to carry a pistol, but the day after the Tacoma mall shooting I applied for a CPL went out and bought a pistoland have hadit on me ever since. I CC but this page is turning me into one of the gun nuts and I will ignore any no firearms signs on private property anywhere.

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran Right Wing Wacko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    645

    Post imported post

    jonnyjeeps wrote:
    I am 25 and havebeen raised around guns my whole life (my father is one of the "right wing gun nuts"). I never thought I would need to carry a pistol, but the day after the Tacoma mall shooting I applied for a CPL went out and bought a pistoland have hadit on me ever since. I CC but this page is turning me into one of the gun nuts and I will ignore any no firearms signs on private property anywhere.
    I don't think you will find many here advocating ignoring the no-firearms signs. Private property right are important too!

    Our job is to educate, not piss people off

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    245

    Post imported post

    Right Wing Wacko wrote:
    I don't think you will find many here advocating ignoring the no-firearms signs. Private property right are important too!

    Our job is to educate, not piss people off
    I pretty much disagree. I will not open carry if I see a sign, that is just asking to be asked to leave/trespassed. I will, however, continue to carry to protect my safety wherever it is legal--and this includes private property. When a private property owner wants to ensure my safety, by having armed security and an x-ray machine like the airport, I will abide by whatever rules they establish.

    On the other hand, as this is an open carry board, I don't find many people here openly advocating ignoring private property rights, but I don't exactly see many people agreeing with them/abiding by the rules.

Posting Permissions

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