Pembroke Mall Now Posted!!!!!!

The no firearms signs have no weight Bob, except to notify the person that he is not allowed in with a firearm.

If he ignores the sign, he can be charged with trespassing because he has been told to NOT come in if he has a gun.

I have a similar problem on the farm. Virginia law allows dog hunters to enter posted property to retrieve their dogs.

They cannot take a gun or vehicle. They use that law as an excuse to hunt posted property.

I get convictions based on game camera pictures of them with a gun passing the NO TRESPASSING signs.

Click to expand...

"or after having been forbidden to do so by a sign "

There you go Bob.... "Forbidden" being the keyword.

Click to expand...

Instead of making a stand by ignoring the sign (and martyring yourself and your rights), if Pembroke Mall is such an important place to go, why not attempt toeducate the management? It could fall on deaf ears, but it could also be a spark that brings them to change their policy, or at least amend it.

Give the facts, explain some logic, and ask them to base their policy on current VA law. What many of them want is already illegal... and what they fear will not be stopped by a piece of laminated cardstock...

In the past, we have had people here who have brought about change in situations like this by having the local management educated by upper managment... WalMart is one that I know of... One of our members got an apology from a local manager after getting the higher level of management involved.

Being hard-arses just angers the antis (and those on the fence) to more extreme measures... They could go on a sign posting rampage, and try to blockSnubby,Beretta 92f, and 1911 access to every business...

This just doesn't seem the place to make the proverbial stand...

Click to expand...

The real way, IMO, to solve this personal property rights/right to self-defense issue is for someone to get shot on their property and then sue their ever living pants off for failure to protect them after disarming them. After that malls will do a cost/benefit analysis and see the light.

Click to expand...

I guess I Stired up some fun? Look I said " if I go there" when Lynnhaven post I made the decision to never go back and spend my money there. I do not just go around and break the law. It just sucks, b/c untill now Pembroke and Mac Arthur are the only malls in the area that have not posted. If I recall there was a discussion on a person in the Barnes and nobel @ Lynnhaven, who carried in there CC. It doesnt make it right but, whats more important, your life or a sticker on a door?

Click to expand...

cdunlop wrote:

I guess I Stired up some fun? Look I said " if I go there" when Lynnhaven post I made the decision to never go back and spend my money there. I do not just go around and break the law. It just sucks, b/c untill now Pembroke and Mac Arthur are the only malls in the area that have not posted. If I recall there was a discussion on a person in the Barnes and nobel @ Lynnhaven, who carried in there CC. It doesnt make it right but, whats more important, your life or a sticker on a door?

Click to expand...

Let me just say that I, as a LEO, am not exempt from those signs either while off duty.

Let me also say that... my wife and I go armed EVERYWHERE we go and nobody ever knows.

Click to expand...

While the topic is being discussed I have a question. The mall has posted no firearms, the Sears store entrance has not. I already know the signs are posted in the mall and do not want to ignore them. Can I with no fear of being accused of trespassing, shop just in the Sears as long as I don't enter into the hallways of the mall?

Click to expand...

"or after having been forbidden to do so by a sign "

There you go Bob.... "Forbidden" being the keyword.

Click to expand...

LEO 229 wrote:

"or after having been forbidden to do so by a sign "

There you go Bob.... "Forbidden" being the keyword.

Click to expand...

If you are off duty or on non official business then the sig[n]ht would apply to LEO's also correct? If not, why not?

Click to expand...

cdunlop wrote: Let me just say that I, as a LEO, am not exempt from those signs either while off duty.

Let me also say that... my wife and I go armed EVERYWHERE we go and nobody ever knows.

Click to expand...

However, I and most others who have been confronted while OCing the first question we are asked is if we are Law Enforcement. I'll bet if we answered yes the manager or whoever would just walk away.

Click to expand...

Please do not hate the LEO for being trusted on the property.

Click to expand...

LEO 229 wrote:

Please do not hate the LEO for being trusted on the property.

Click to expand...

I don't hate you, I'm jealous.

I try to be very respectful of property rights and if my gun is not wanted I stay out. I just wish people who make these policies would be consistant, if an LEOs life is important enough to allow him to carry, I should be able to as well. But I certainly wouldn't wish them to take away the exception, putting more lives in danger by disarming the LEOs doesn't help anybody.

Click to expand...

Neplusultra wrote:

The real way, IMO, to solve this personal property rights/right to self-defense issue is for someone to get shot on their property and then sue their ever living pants off for failure to protect them after disarming them. After that malls will do a cost/benefit analysis and see the light.

Click to expand...

Nice try..... but they have no obligation to protect you whether you were armed or not.

Click to expand...

You know we all went over this in some other thread a while ago. In it I, or someone, cited a SCOTUS decision that described the mall area as public space. I tried to find it but can't now. I think the argument is that they allow anyone and everyone to come into the mall, can't remember exactly.

Does anyone know this thread?

Click to expand...

• In the first case, usage costs nothing, in the second it requires a purchase to be made.
• In the first case, there is no time limitation (though loitering laws might apply), while in the second, money has to be spent at certain intervals.
• In the first case, one is allowed to consume brought-along food and drink (alcohol consumption laws may restrict this), in the second case, this is usually prohibited.
• In the first case, only general laws apply in terms of dress (such as prohibition of public nudity) and other aspects of public decency, in the second, stricter rules (such as a prohibition of being shirtless) may apply.