Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Shooting at Independence Mall

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    St. Joseph, MO
    Posts
    100

    Shooting at Independence Mall


  2. #2
    Regular Member G30Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    St. Joseph MO
    Posts
    120
    This just kinda stood out to me.....
    Three police officers —guns drawn —ran by. “That made me feel better,” Saunders said. “People who could do something to stop it.”

    Anyhow, looks like the scumbags didn't leave their guns outside....hmmmm....
    Ever since the first time I saw a no gun sign I was thinking to myself what kind of idiots thought that dumb s*** up?
    "Ever notice once in a while you come across somebody you shouldn't have f***ed with......That's me." -Clint Eastwood "Gran Torino"

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Dandridge, TN
    Posts
    377
    Does Missouri have a liability clause in their laws about establishments prohibiting legal carry? Looks like a lawsuit if they do. If an establishment prohibits me from my own self defense then they are saying they will keep me safe. If they fail in that then I will seek redress to the maximum I can under the law. The objective is to make it so establishments respect peoples right to defend themselves and expensive to prohibit it. Go get'em. My prayers to those who were injured and a speedy recovery.

  4. #4
    Regular Member ChiangShih's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    628
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken56 View Post
    Does Missouri have a liability clause in their laws about establishments prohibiting legal carry? Looks like a lawsuit if they do. If an establishment prohibits me from my own self defense then they are saying they will keep me safe. If they fail in that then I will seek redress to the maximum I can under the law. The objective is to make it so establishments respect peoples right to defend themselves and expensive to prohibit it. Go get'em. My prayers to those who were injured and a speedy recovery.
    The only problem I see with this is that it is private property. You do not have to go there if you do not want to be disarmed. I can understand if you worked there or had to be there for some reason, but if it's something like a mall you choose to disarm and enter. (I just ccw in areas like this).
    Tiocfaidh Ar La

  5. #5
    Regular Member mobodyguard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    kansas city, mo
    Posts
    149
    Quote Originally Posted by chakragod View Post
    yes this mall is suppose to be Gun Free

  6. #6
    Regular Member G30Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    St. Joseph MO
    Posts
    120
    Quote Originally Posted by ChiangShih View Post
    The only problem I see with this is that it is private property. You do not have to go there if you do not want to be disarmed. I can understand if you worked there or had to be there for some reason, but if it's something like a mall you choose to disarm and enter. (I just ccw in areas like this).
    I figure it would fall under that good ol rule of hey I slipped on that pee pee on the floor, broke my leg, you better have insurance Mr. Place of Business.

    There has to be someone to blame because obviously the no gun signs are not fixing the problem.
    "Ever notice once in a while you come across somebody you shouldn't have f***ed with......That's me." -Clint Eastwood "Gran Torino"

  7. #7
    Regular Member NG19's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Warrensburg, Missouri
    Posts
    113
    The only no gun sign that I saw was at the jewelry store entrance, not the main entrance. Was that just me not looking hard enough or were they not there?
    If you pull it, you use it. If you pull it and you don't use it, you've done some thing wrong and you might not get another chance. Think about it before you pack it!

  8. #8
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by ChiangShih
    The only problem I see with this is that it is private property.
    You do not have to go there if you do not want to be disarmed.
    In a way I agree. Any non-monopoly privately-owned business should be allowed to turn away anyone they want, no matter what factor(s) they use to decide who they don't want.
    Maybe they dislike people with "I voted" stickers.
    Maybe they dislike people with a certain skin tone.
    Maybe they dislike people with certain religious symbols or dress.
    Maybe they dislike people who move differently.
    They're privately owned, so why should the gov't get to say they have to serve everyone?

    OTOH, why shouldn't the gov't remind people (including those who run businesses) that civil rights are universal & they may not infringe them without penalty?
    IMO one of the legitimate reasons for gov't is the protection of citizens' rights.

    If a privately-owned business would get in legal trouble (and they would) for refusing to serve someone because of their exercise of 1A rights, or their decision to vote, or any other protected reason, why shouldn't they get in trouble for refusing to serve someone because of their exercise of 2A rights (or any other right, for that matter)?

    Our new cc law here in WI includes a proviso that businesses which do NOT post "we don't like your kind - stay out" signs (and do not have a pattern of telling individuals to leave simply because they're carrying, which is also an option) are immune from liability if something bad happens which could be linked to someone having a gun, knife, electric "weapon", or billy club (those being the things controlled by the cc law).
    Lots of businesses don't like that.
    Lots of businesses initially posted "keep out", but once the law was explained to them & their insurance companies the signs came down.

    I think that no gov't (taxpayer-owned) building should be allowed to keep lawfully-armed citizens out unless they provide free secure storage AND scan everyone entering the building (other than on-duty LEO) for weapons. Ensure that everyone is helpless. Don't let employees sneak around the metal detectors.

    (I just ccw in areas like this).

    1) Why break the law?
    1a) Why admit it in public?
    2) Why give money to people who don't like you?
    It's your money, you can do what you want with it, but why support their discrimination?
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    It is not illegal in MO to carry concealed in a posted place. You are simply not authorized to be there. If you are detected, asked to leave, then refuse to leave, then the LEO's are called, and you wait for them, then you might get trespassed, and a ticket, and possibly lose your CCW endorsement. But you gotta really want to run afoul. The MO laws were written very cleverly.

    Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using Tapatalk

  10. #10
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    A real torn issue for me as I do not believe in telling another what they have to do. I would like to se greater responsibility for ones choices be enforced instead of coddled. Something like:

    1. If you post you MUST POST BOLDLY define the sign white with red border and black lettering.
    2. If you post you must provide a set of SECURE lock boxes for storage of firearms.
    3. You must post a $300,000 bond for the liability of your patrons.
    4. A signed statement indicating you take full responsibility for the security of the patrons as you have opted to limit their right to self defense.
    5. Agreement to cover any and all atty fees associated with civil liability associated with your choice to limit the right to self defense.

    Again, I am simply saying that you need to be responsible for the choices you make and if you choose to make choices for others, you simply must take responsibility for them when you do.

    When I put my firearm on, it is my responsibility 100%. The carry, the retention, the handling, and if discharged the lead projectile until it lands (even after that according to the anti-gunners) and if I were to do so, you could certainly sue me for my actions, it is only just that I be able to sue you should you tell me I may not have my own method of self defense.

    I have no issue at all with a person making a choice not to allow weapons on their property, I simply want them to be accountable for that choice.
    John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman University’s School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,040
    I love these "discussions".

    While I carry everywhere it's legal to do so, I fully respect property rights of individuals with regard to their homes and places of business unless I am required to go there due to a monopoly situation.

    If they don't want my business, I'll take it elsewhere.

    If I chose to not allow weapons in my business, I'd be pretty good with Rule #1 but the rest is ridiculous.

    Take your business elsewhere. My "responsibility" is telling you what is and is not permissible on my property. My "accountability" is realized everyday when I calculate the take for the day.

    Freedom of choice abounds through this process. My freedom of choice about what happens on MY property. Your freedom of choice to enter and partake of my goods and services OR your choice to leave, taking your business elsewhere.

    If you CHOOSE to enter you assume liability for an existing condition which was fully communicated to you before entry. Likewise, you're responsible for controlling the security of your firearm, not me or my employees.

    Same with my employees. Nobody forces them to work for me. Just as a customer can turn away at the door, an employee can tell me to my face that they cannot sacrifice their safety in order to get a pay check from me. I respect that and will cheerfully wave as they leave. I sincerely would hope they find what they are looking for.
    Last edited by ecocks; 01-16-2012 at 04:35 PM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Oh the Children, all the poor innocent children. I was expecting an anti call at the end of that piece of jouralistic sensationalism.

    There were maybe 3 or 4 lines on information, the rest was fluff. Turf war anyone?

  13. #13
    Regular Member ChiangShih's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    628
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post

    1) Why break the law?
    1a) Why admit it in public?
    2) Why give money to people who don't like you?
    It's your money, you can do what you want with it, but why support their discrimination?
    In MO that is not breaking the law, at most it may be a trespassing issue if someone finds out I even have the gun and I refuse to leave.
    Tiocfaidh Ar La

  14. #14
    Regular Member Richieg150's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Show Me State
    Posts
    433
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post

    If a privately-owned business would get in legal trouble (and they would) for refusing to serve someone because of their exercise of 1A rights, or their decision to vote, or any other protected reason, why shouldn't they get in trouble for refusing to serve someone because of their exercise of 2A rights (or any other right, for that matter)?
    Because BIG BROTHER doesnt want us stupid commoners to have that right, that the 2A gives, and could care less about being refused any service because of us excersizing that right. But give a call to the ACLU and tell them you were refused service because you were shall we say ... black, or a woman, or an immigrant legal or illegal, and see how fast they will come to your aid.
    Psalm 144:1 Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:
    Psalm 144:2 My goodness, and my fortress; my high tower, and my deliverer; my shield, and he in whom I trust; who subdueth my people under me. Pro 14:15 The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    613
    Private property rights, guys. No guns, no business. You don't have a right to be on someone else's private property and they have a right to refuse service and disallow weapons.

    Do business elsewhere
    __________________________________________________ __________________________

    "The problem with Internet quotes is that no one has verified the source" -- Abraham Lincoln

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by Richieg150 View Post
    Because BIG BROTHER doesnt want us stupid commoners to have that right, that the 2A gives, and could care less about being refused any service because of us excersizing that right. But give a call to the ACLU and tell them you were refused service because you were shall we say ... black, or a woman, or an immigrant legal or illegal, and see how fast they will come to your aid.
    You really believe that?

    Go try standing inside the main entrance of Bass Pro, Dillards or Penny's this weekend and singing the Star-Spangled Banner or reading from the Bible, Koran, Talmud or Mein Kampf.

    You'll find out real quick that property rights are equally assertible against those claiming to practice their first Amendment Rights and the ACLU will consider you a nutcase for calling them.

Posting Permissions

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