Mall as public place

imported post

I Been following Danbus's situation in Virginia, where he was arrested at a mall for carrying, pretty much was a set up. Because he had just won a settlement from the city. From what I gathered the judge ruled that because of the city's interest in the mall it has to be considered a public place and his arrests have been dismissed. The thread is here.

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum66/21708-1.html

So my question to those who are more versed in the law here in Washington. Does that set any sort of precedent here. And are there malls that would fit the same catagory of this mall in that particular case.

imported post

This is very interesting. I'd be willing to bet that some malls in the area DO get state funding. However, sports stadiums get significant amounts of my taxpayer dollars (even though I voted against them), yet they're considered private property and allowed to ban whatever they want.

imported post

On the same note I would like to ask about YMCA do they fall under public property? They have no weapon policy too I'll try to get exact wordings on that or maybe picture of their sign.....
Exact words are "No Weapons of any kind" that is posted all over YMCA under code of conduct

imported post

kenshin wrote:

This is very interesting. I'd be willing to bet that some malls in the area DO get state funding. However, sports stadiums get significant amounts of my taxpayer dollars (even though I voted against them), yet they're considered private property and allowed to ban whatever they want.

Click to expand...

I thought they couldn't ban concealed permit holders though? I am going to have to go reread that section. Sometimes the laws are so vague.

imported post

With the Fed's bailing out lots of Banks and Financial Institutions they will be aquiring ownership interests in lots of properties like malls, office buildings, etc., as these assetspreviously held by Banks will be part of the "TARP" plan. Will this make them "publicly owned"? Now that could be interesting.

imported post

With TARP the public becomes a non-voting stockholder (which itself is stupid, but that's for another thread). So even if we acquired enough shares to change policy we can't because our opinion doesn't matter.

As for the letter of the law defining it as a 'public place'... As posted above, the taxpayers own a large portion of the sports stadiums here and yet the city does not get to make policy.