Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Posted Shopping MALLS

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran Right Wing Wacko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    645

    Post imported post

    I was reading on another forum.
    Malls can't legally post here in Minnesota. Only the actual tenants can. It is due to the MN constitution does not allow landlords or malls to ban anything legal.
    Washington State Law also does not allow a landlord to violate the legal rights of any of his/her tenants. If a single store inside a mall wants to allow their customers to legally carry a firearm, wouldn't that mean that only the individual stores could post their stores and not the entire mall?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    , Washington, USA
    Posts
    570

    Post imported post

    Right Wing Wacko wrote:
    I was reading on another forum.
    Malls can't legally post here in Minnesota. Only the actual tenants can. It is due to the MN constitution does not allow landlords or malls to ban anything legal.
    Washington State Law also does not allow a landlord to violate the legal rights of any of his/her tenants. If a single store inside a mall wants to allow their customers to legally carry a firearm, wouldn't that mean that only the individual stores could post their stores and not the entire mall?
    That is very interesting, do you happen to know what law forbids landlords from doing this in Washington?

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

    Post imported post

    Agent 47 wrote:
    Right Wing Wacko wrote:
    I was reading on another forum.
    Malls can't legally post here in Minnesota. Only the actual tenants can. It is due to the MN constitution does not allow landlords or malls to ban anything legal.
    Washington State Law also does not allow a landlord to violate the legal rights of any of his/her tenants. If a single store inside a mall wants to allow their customers to legally carry a firearm, wouldn't that mean that only the individual stores could post their stores and not the entire mall?
    That is very interesting, do you happen to know what law forbids landlords from doing this in Washington?
    The only RCW I know of that puts limitations on rental requirements and obligations by the tenant is http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=59.18.140

    It states that the requirements and obligations must be reasonable. I do not know how that would play into the restriction of firearms but I would assume that such a requirement would not be reasonable.

    "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

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,327

    Post imported post

    joeroket,

    Since the section of the RCW you cite is titled "Residential landlord-tenant act", I'd be very surprised if anything therein applied to commercial retail tenants.


  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Redmond, Washington, USA
    Posts
    618

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    Agent 47 wrote:
    Right Wing Wacko wrote:
    I was reading on another forum.
    Malls can't legally post here in Minnesota. Only the actual tenants can. It is due to the MN constitution does not allow landlords or malls to ban anything legal.
    Washington State Law also does not allow a landlord to violate the legal rights of any of his/her tenants. If a single store inside a mall wants to allow their customers to legally carry a firearm, wouldn't that mean that only the individual stores could post their stores and not the entire mall?
    That is very interesting, do you happen to know what law forbids landlords from doing this in Washington?
    The only RCW I know of that puts limitations on rental requirements and obligations by the tenant is http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=59.18.140

    It states that the requirements and obligations must be reasonable. I do not know how that would play into the restriction of firearms but I would assume that such a requirement would not be reasonable.
    This is a curious part of that RCW:

    which the dwelling unit is a part if such obligations and restrictions are not in violation of any of the terms of this chapter and are not otherwise contrary to law,
    This of course could be interpreted two ways.

    1. They can not put in something that is illegal.
    2. They can not forbid something that is legal.

    It can't be #2 though, because pets are legal, and yet there are *many* leases that forbid pets. Smoking is legal (at least for the time being), and yet again, many leases that forbid smoking. That "and are not otherwise contrary to law" though is a curious thing.

    Regardless customers of a shopping mall are by no stretch of the imagination "tenants". Thus even if this applied to commercial properties, it would not apply to customers. Only the actual tenant.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227

    Post imported post

    gregma wrote:
    This of course could be interpreted two ways.

    1. They can not put in something that is illegal.
    2. They can not forbid something that is legal.

    It can't be #2 though, because pets are legal, and yet there are *many* leases that forbid pets. Smoking is legal (at least for the time being), and yet again, many leases that forbid smoking. That "and are not otherwise contrary to law" though is a curious thing.

    Regardless customers of a shopping mall are by no stretch of the imagination "tenants". Thus even if this applied to commercial properties, it would not apply to customers. Only the actual tenant.




    Pets and smoking are not 'constitutionally protected.'

    Just because a landlord can ban cats and smoking does not mean that can ban anything they want.

    I'd guess that the legal argument does as follows: pets and smoking unarguably depreciate property value by causing damage (or at least increased maintenance). A property owner should have the right to prohibition objects and activities that actually damage the rental property, even though they are legal activity.

    Doing so would not necessarilyaffect constitutional rights of tenants. Doing so would protect the rights of the property owner.

    imho #2 interpretation could still stand, just because some places forbid pets and smoking don't matter in regards to something like the RKBA, or free speech, etc.

    The following is just a guess, based on having read some crack-wacky legal rulings when the courts want to make something happen.

    It could be that in a shopping mall situation the property owners can ban firearms specificallyin the lease, under some guise of 'protecting the common safety.' In a high density rental situation, there's a lot of legal precedent about giving up rights (to a degree) in the name of safety.

    If included in the lease, the no firearms clause would be legally binding to the lease signers, but not to the shoppers. The worst they could do with the shoppers is a no trespass order if they were discovered carrying.

    Or another possibility is that since it is a 'commercial' lease (by definition, since it's in a shoping mall)then maybe the property owner couldban firearms just like how an employeer can ban them on company property. That would of course only affect employees (lease holders). Commercial leases just aren't the same as a residential rental agreement. I don't pretend to know the nuances ofcommercial leases, just pointing out that differences could be give the landlord the right to prohibit tenants from carrying firearms,

    In other words, there are situations I can imagine that wouldbe something that only works in a shopping center type of situation, but not legally applicable in a 'private rental' situations. So shopping malls in WA might be able to ban tenants and their direct employees from carrying firearms without it being unconstitutional.




    "I'm just a no-account screed-peddler" Dave Workman http://goo.gl/CNf6pB

    "We ought to extend the [1994] assault weapons ban" George W Bush

    "The Bush Administration declared a permanent ban today on almost all foreign-made semiautomatic assault rifles." George Bush Sr, New York Times on July 8, 1989

    "I support the Brady bill and I urge the Congress to enact it without delay." Ronald Regan.

    "Guns are an abomination." Richard Nixon

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post

    Well, shopping malls CAN prohibit the carrying of firearms on their premises in Washington.

    Malls are private property. It's not just the tenants inside who can post bans, the entire mall can do that, and they do. Southcenter, Tacoma and elsewhere have bans posted.

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

    Post imported post

    kparker wrote:
    joeroket,

    Since the section of the RCW you cite is titled "Residential landlord-tenant act", I'd be very surprised if anything therein applied to commercial retail tenants.
    You are correct. Thats whay I stated that this was the only RCW I knew of that put a restriction on rental agreements. I have not found anything in the commercial side of things that would indicate that a property owner has the same limitations.
    "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 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,487

    Post imported post

    I don't think we should be looking for ways to deny someone their property rights. If the mall doesn't want me carrying a gun, I will respect their wishes and shop elsewhere. It's not the law, but it is their property, and they have a right to set certain guidelines of conduct.

    I thought we were pro-rights here? But rather, we are trying to find some "loophole" in the law to deny the mall their property rights.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,769

    Post imported post

    People in general have a tendency to forget that their rights end when they begin to trample on the rights of another. Find a common ground.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    Dave Workman wrote:
    Well, shopping malls CAN prohibit the carrying of firearms on their premises in Washington.

    Malls are private property. It's not just the tenants inside who can post bans, the entire mall can do that, and they do. Southcenter, Tacoma and elsewhere have bans posted.
    What is your legal basis for this claim? This whole thread is a discussion of whether or not there are legal grounds for them doing this. You are just jumping on this thread and claiming, without any legal reference, that because they do, therefore they can. It is not productive to the discussion at all.

    As far as "denying them their legal rights" argument made later in the thread (not by you Dave) how far does this go? What if in fact they do NOT have the legal right to ban Constitutionally protected actions? Are we not allowed to research and discuss this? If the law allows us to carry in a public place and doesn't permit the mall to prohibit us then do we not also have a right there and the mall owner does NOT have that right? We are then no longer denying the mall owner anything, we are just following state law which protects one particular right of ours over a different right of a mall owner.

    We don't know the answer to this question. That is the purpose of this discussion.

    By the way, I would be careful of saying that doing what is legal is the same as finding a "loophole" in the law. There is no such thing as a loophole. Either something is legal or it isn't. If it is legal then it isn't a "loophole". We get this crap all the time with the helmet law for motorcyclists. They pass a law saying we have to wear a helmet that meets certain standards. We go out and buy the most comfortable and lightest helmet that meets those standards and they accuse us of taking advantage of a "loophole" even though we are complying with the law that they wrote.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,487

    Post imported post

    heresolong wrote:
    By the way, I would be careful of saying that doing what is legal is the same as finding a "loophole" in the law. There is no such thing as a loophole. Either something is legal or it isn't. If it is legal then it isn't a "loophole". We get this crap all the time with the helmet law for motorcyclists. They pass a law saying we have to wear a helmet that meets certain standards. We go out and buy the most comfortable and lightest helmet that meets those standards and they accuse us of taking advantage of a "loophole" even though we are complying with the law that they wrote.
    I agree. That's why I said ""loophole"" instead of "loophole". The quotes indicate that I was using the word with some level of contept for the saying in the first place, kind of like saying "so-called loophole", indicating that some would call it a loophole and that I disagree with the term. I was stressing my disapproval with the members of this forum trying to exploit the way a law is written and misinterpret it to the point that they could use it to suppress someone else's rights. Property rights are rights. You can choose to not patronize their business, and they can choose to set their own rules of conduct. Trying to suppress their right to do so, and them trying to suppress your right to carry, are the same beast.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    expvideo wrote:
    Property rights are rights. You can choose to not patronize their business, and they can choose to set their own rules of conduct. Trying to suppress their right to do so, and them trying to suppress your right to carry, are the same beast.
    Actually property rights are not rights in every case. You can't discriminate based on race when you rent out your apartment building. You are prohibited from all sorts of things the second you make your property open to the general public. What if the mall posted a sign saying "No blacks allowed". Do they have the right to do this? You could argue that they should but the law does not allow them to do this. Same thing here. Are mall landlords legally allowed to dictate to their tenants on this issue? We don't know. We have already had an example from another state of how state law could prohibit this, the question is does Washington law prohibit this also. This is not looking for "loopholes", this is not intentionally misinterpreting the law to our own advantage, this is a question of law. It either does and is not enforced or it doesn't and we don't go to malls.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    161

    Post imported post

    Dave Workman wrote:
    Well, shopping malls CAN prohibit the carrying of firearms on their premises in Washington.

    Malls are private property. It's not just the tenants inside who can post bans, the entire mall can do that, and they do. Southcenter, Tacoma and elsewhere have bans posted.
    The one in the Tacoma Mall was sure effective on that guy who was intent on shooting the place up.


  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Arlington, Washington, USA
    Posts
    10

    Post imported post

    Kind of on this topic than (but more CC than OC):

    by Doug Patton Mall Sign Might As Well Read 'Shoot Me.' December 10, 2007 02:00 PM EST
    Omaha, Nebraska — The day after my hometown was rocked by the senseless murder of eight innocent people and the wounding of five others in a local shopping mall, 'Today Show' co-host Meredith Vieira asked this obtuse question of two of the shooter's friends: "Do you think your friend was a victim?"
    Therein lies the problem with our society's view of guns and gun violence. The rights of victims are forgotten while murderers are called victims.
    Poor Robbie Hawkins. Apparently 265,000 of our hard-earned tax dollars spent on this "victim" over the last several years by our Health and Human Services system was an insufficient amount.
    Possibly his various foster parents victimized him by not recognizing the signs of depression evident in the lad.
    Perhaps it was our education system that simply failed to teach him how to read. How else do we explain the fact that he did not obey the clearly posted signs at the entrances to the mall that state, "No concealed weapons allowed"? He must not have been able to read those signs. Otherwise, surely he would have obeyed the law.
    Or perchance he was simply an overgrown narcissistic brat whose evil mind hatched a plan to become famous by taking out as many Christmas shoppers as possible before blowing his own brains out.
    And maybe, just maybe, those signs are not the deterrent the PC crowd thinks they are. In much the same way that a salesman looks at a "no soliciting" sign on the front door of a business and translates it into, "We have no sales resistance here," young Robbie looked at the "no concealed weapons" sign and read, "Murderers welcome here. Please come in and shoot as many people as you like. No one here is capable of stopping you. Even our mall security officers are not armed."
    As Dr. John Lott, one of the nation's foremost authorities on gun violence and the author of 'More Guns, Less Crime,' wrote less than 24 hours after this shooting: "A Google search using the phrase 'Omaha Mall Shooting' finds an incredible 2,794 news stories worldwide for the last day. From India and Taiwan to Britain and Austria, there are probably few people in the world who haven't heard about this tragedy. But despite the massive news coverage, none of the media coverage, at least by 10 a.m. Thursday, mentioned this central fact: Yet another attack occurred in a gun-free zone."
    Think about it. The three most thoroughly "gun-free" zones in America are schools, shopping malls and U.S. Post Offices. When was the last time you heard about a gunman shooting up a police station, an Army base or even a casino? Why do you think that is?
    At Virginia Tech last spring, 32 people were murdered because the campus banned firearms by law-abiding students and faculty. At Columbine High School in 1999, 13 innocent people were killed. In a Killeen, Texas, café in 1991, 23 died at the hands of a gunman run amuck. And in a Southern California McDonalds restaurant in 1984, 21 lost their lives when a shooter went berserk. These are just a few of the shooting incidents around the world, all enabled by the same failure: there was no way to stop those responsible for perpetrating the killings.
    After years of debate, the Nebraska Legislature passed a concealed-carry law last spring. It permits law-abiding citizens to carry a concealed firearm after paying a fee, completing a training course and submitting to a background check. However, as is so often the case with contested legislation, compromise was necessary for passage. In this case, the compromise consisted of allowing communities and businesses to opt out. Of course, this was a victory for liberals, who seem to believe that guns somehow can kill on their own. Unfortunately, for those of us who understand that inanimate objects do not kill people, this left a gaping hole in an otherwise useful law.
    The upscale Von Maur store at the Westroads shopping center remained closed following the shootings. If I were the CEO of that corporation, before I authorized the reopening of that store, I would change the signs on the doors to read, "Law-abiding Nebraskans carrying concealed weapons welcome here."

    © Copyright 2007 by Doug Patton

Posting Permissions

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