Shooting at Independence Mall

http://www.kansascity.com/2012/01/14/3370884/two-shot-at-independence-center.html

Is this mall a Gun Free Zone?!

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.”

Click to expand...

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?

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.

Ken56 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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).

chakragod said:

http://www.kansascity.com/2012/01/14/3370884/two-shot-at-independence-center.html

Is this mall a Gun Free Zone?!

Click to expand...

yes this mall is suppose to be Gun Free

ChiangShih said:

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).

Click to expand...

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.

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?

ChiangShih said:

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.

Click to expand...

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).

Click to expand...

:banghead: :banghead:
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?

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

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.

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.

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?

MKEgal said:

:banghead: :banghead:
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?

Click to expand...

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.

MKEgal said:

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)?

Click to expand...

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.

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

Richieg150 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.