Pembroke Mall Now Posted!!!!!!

[xd.40]

imported post

Never mind...

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

xd.40 wrote:

LEO 229 wrote: (snip)

...Pitch a tent and stay overnight maybe?

Hey LEO, lets keep this family oriented! :lol:

A Classic Beavis and Butt-Head Moment
Van Driessen: OK, Stew, let's pitch a tent
(B&B laugh)
Van Driessen: Grab this pole, Stewart.
(B&B laugh)
Van Driessen: Stick it in the hole, Stewart.
(B&B) laugh)
Van Driessen: OK, boys, let's erect this thing.

 

[Neplusultra]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Neplusultra wrote:

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?

Howis public space being defined?

Here's one link to a NJ SC decision placing free speech over private property rights. Again the limiting factor is that they let anyone and everyone into the mall, in fact they spend money to invite them all in. Other private properties do not do this.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/29728.html

But there was on this foum a mention of a decenting opinon of TSCOTUS that said malls were not completely private, or something to that effect.

 

[Decoligny]

imported post

Neplusultra wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

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.

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

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?

I don't know which thread it was, however I do remember the context. It was ruled by the California Supreme Courtthat the mall could not prohibit protesters protesters from picketing a store in the mall.It was determined that "the mall" had become the modern day equivalent of the town square, and as such was a public space in regards to being a venue for public speech and excercise of the 1st Amendment.


http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/12/26/ca-supremes-give-free-speech-rights-on-private-property/

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Neplusultra wrote:

Here's one link to a NJ SC decision placing free speech over private property rights. Again the limiting factor is that they let anyone and everyone into the mall, in fact they spend money to invite them all in. Other private properties do not do this.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/29728.html

But there was on this foum a mention of a decenting opinon of TSCOTUS that said malls were not completely private, or something to that effect.

This was on free speech.

And when this was allowed in the mall it opened the door for "anything goes"

And what happened???

"A riot ensued that was only quelled when SWAT teams from two surrounding counties were called in to seal off the mall's entrances. In the following months, sales at the mall declined by 35 percent."

I do not thing thegovernment had any right to saywhat could happen in the mall.

They talked about it beinga replacement to the "town square" to make it justified. So I say... if I can set up a cart and sell itemsin the town square then why not at the mall too?? I doso and not pay any fees to the mall as I would be in the public area.

If you cannot ban or kick people out of atown square then the mall cannot kick anyone out either.

But that is only if you go beyond free speech.

 

[Neplusultra]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Neplusultra wrote:

Here's one link to a NJ SC decision placing free speech over private property rights. Again the limiting factor is that they let anyone and everyone into the mall, in fact they spend money to invite them all in. Other private properties do not do this.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/29728.html

But there was on this foum a mention of a decenting opinon of TSCOTUS that said malls were not completely private, or something to that effect.

This was on free speech.

And when this was allowed in the mall it opened the door for "anything goes"

And what happened???

"A riot ensued that was only quelled when SWAT teams from two surrounding counties were called in to seal off the mall's entrances. In the following months, sales at the mall declined by 35 percent."

I do not thing thegovernment had any right to saywhat could happen in the mall.

They talked about it beinga replacement to the "town square" to make it justified. So I say... if I can set up a cart and sell itemsin the town square then why not at the mall too?? I doso and not pay any fees to the mall as I would be in the public area.

If you cannot ban or kick people out of atown square then the mall cannot kick anyone out either.

But that is only if you go beyond free speech.

You don't have a constitutional right to set up a cart on the town square. Plus the right of free speech is not the right to say or do whatever you want, nor is it the right to accost people with your views when they don't want to hear it. The mall, the state have the right to prevent you from doing so.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Neplusultra wrote:

You don't have a constitutional right to set up a cart on the town square. Plus the right of free speech is not the right to say or do whatever you want, nor is it the right to accost people with your views when they don't want to hear it. The mall, the state have the right to prevent you from doing so.

I did say... "But that is only if you go beyond free speech."

 

[cdunlop]

imported post

Just thought I wouls post the sign. This sign is not on the main doors, but on a window adjacent to the main doors. There is still an argument out that if I were to walk into a door and it was not in plain sight or posted on that door, would it be against the law?

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

cdunlop wrote:

Just thought I wouls post the sign. This sign is not on the main doors, but on a window adjacent to the main doors. There is still an argument out that if I were to walk into a door and it was not in plain sight or posted on that door, would it be against the law?

Nothing in and trespassing code that says a sign has to beon the door or in your face.

It just says "displayed."

If it is visible while approaching the doors.... I think it is.

 

[asforme]

imported post

From the sign:

Guests who do not act responsibly may be asked to leave. Those who fail to comply, or refuse to leave the property, may be arrested and prosecuted for criminal " trespass.

Does this mean that they are affirming that they will ask someone to leave before the cops are called? Can this part of the sign be used as a defense if someone is not asked to leave first?

 

[Citizen]

imported post

Deleted. Thought better of it.

 

[BobCav]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

Deleted. Thought better of it.

awww geez... not you too!

 

[hsmith]

imported post

By the "rules" they have posted even LEO's would be trespassing!

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

hsmith wrote:

By the "rules" they have posted even LEO's would be trespassing!

It could... but I doubt the mall would make them leave.

I thought I saw something where a LEO was exempt while working....

I cannot find anything.

 

[Thundar]

imported post

This is silly. Breaking a mall rule by carrying a firearm is no more trespassing than breaking a do not chew bubble gum rule would be trespassing.

 

[Mike]

imported post

xd.40 wrote:

If I were you, I wouldn't be posting this in a public forum. You should remove it incase you are stopped and you say you didn't know guns weren't allowed. Now if they found this after you told them that, you could be charged with criminal trespass. Just an FYI...

Huh? For violating a rule of conduct?

 

[bayboy42]

imported post

cdunlop wrote:

Just thought I wouls post the sign. This sign is not on the main doors, but on a window adjacent to the main doors. There is still an argument out that if I were to walk into a door and it was not in plain sight or posted on that door, would it be against the law?

Hmmmmm....funny thing is.....if this worked like LEO229 et. al. says it does (immediate charge of criminal trespass for intentionally or unintentionally entering an establishment with a no guns allowed sign) then why does the sign include this text at the bottom:

"Guests who do not act responsibily may be asked to leave. Those who fail to comply, or refuse to leave the property, may be arrested and prosecuted for criminal trespass"

Wait...I know why it includes that text....because the sign prohibiting the carrying of firearms alone carries no weight under Virginia law.:what:

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Thundar wrote:

This is silly. Breaking a mall rule by carrying a firearm is no more trespassing than breaking a do not chew bubble gum rule would be trespassing.

Wrong!!

The mall has no sign banning gum. Somehave one for banning guns.

You are working the straw man argument here to make your point appear valid by comparing gum to guns.

The mall would probably NEVER have you arrested for chewing gum but having a gun would be much more serious in that it can hurt others.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

bayboy42 wrote:

Hmmmmm....funny thing is.....if this worked like LEO229 et. al. says it does (immediate charge of criminal trespass for intentionally or unintentionally entering an establishment with a no guns allowed sign) then why does the sign include this text at the bottom:

"Guests who do not act responsibily may be asked to leave. Those who fail to comply, or refuse to leave the property, may be arrested and prosecuted for criminal trespass"

Wait...I know why it includes that text....because the sign prohibiting the carrying of firearms alone carries no weight under Virginia law.:what:

No..... it just makes even more clear for people who believe nothing will happen.

So tell me this.... If you go to the park and the field has two signs posted, one ateach end,that say "Fields Closed, Keep Off"

Does this mean you can play on the field until someone from the park finds you there and tells you to go?

Do these signs also carry no weight?


Let me help you decide....



§ 18.2-119. Trespass after having been forbidden to do so; penalties.

If any person without authority of law goes upon or remains upon the lands, buildings or premises of another, or any portion or area thereof, after having been forbidden to do so, either orally or in writing, by the owner, lessee, custodian or other person lawfully in charge thereof, or after having been forbidden to do so by a sign or signs posted by such persons or by the holder of any easement or other right-of-way authorized by the instrument creating such interest to post such signs on such lands, structures, premises or portion or area thereof at a place or places where it or they may be reasonably seen, or if any person, whether he is the owner, tenant or otherwise entitled to the use of such land, building or premises, goes upon, or remains upon such land, building or premises after having been prohibited from doing so by a court of competent jurisdiction by an order issued pursuant to §§ 16.1-253, 16.1-253.1, 16.1-253.4, 16.1-278.2 through 16.1-278.6, 16.1-278.8, 16.1-278.14, 16.1-278.15, 16.1-279.1, 19.2-152.8, 19.2-152.9 or § 19.2-152.10 or an ex parte order issued pursuant to § 20-103, and after having been served with such order, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. This section shall not be construed to affect in any way the provisions of §§ 18.2-132 through 18.2-136.

(Code 1950, § 18.1-173; 1960, c. 358; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1982, c. 169; 1987, cc. 625, 705; 1991, c. 534; 1998, cc. 569, 684.)

 

[ccunning]

imported post

First:

§ 18.2-119. Trespass after having been forbidden to do so; penalties.

If any person without authority of law goes upon or remains upon the lands, buildings or premises of another, or any portion or area thereof, after having been forbidden to do so, either orally or in writing, by the owner, lessee, custodian or other person lawfully in charge thereof, or after having been forbidden to do so by a sign or signs posted by such persons or by the holder of any easement or other right-of-way authorized by the instrument creating such interest to post such signs on such lands, structures, premises or portion or area thereof at a place or places where it or they may be reasonably seen, or if any person, whether he is the owner, tenant or otherwise entitled to the use of such land, building or premises, goes upon, or remains upon such land, building or premises after having been prohibited from doing so by a court of competent jurisdiction by an order issued pursuant to §§ 16.1-253, 16.1-253.1, 16.1-253.4, 16.1-278.2 through 16.1-278.6, 16.1-278.8, 16.1-278.14, 16.1-278.15, 16.1-279.1, 19.2-152.8, 19.2-152.9 or § 19.2-152.10 or an ex parte order issued pursuant to § 20-103, and after having been served with such order, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. This section shall not be construed to affect in any way the provisions of §§ 18.2-132 through 18.2-136.

(Code 1950, § 18.1-173; 1960, c. 358; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1982, c. 169; 1987, cc. 625, 705; 1991, c. 534; 1998, cc. 569, 684.)

Why is the clause about being reasonably seen being ignored?


LEO 229 wrote:

asforme wrote:

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.

That could happen.

It is up to the property owner to decide if he wants to make an exception.

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

So there should be no reason not to reply that you are a proud member of the Virginia Militia to avoid lying and see if that puts them at ease right?

LEO 229 wrote:

Thundar wrote:

This is silly. Breaking a mall rule by carrying a firearm is no more trespassing than breaking a do not chew bubble gum rule would be trespassing.

Wrong!!

The mall has no sign banning gum. Some have one for banning guns.

You are working the straw man argument here to make your point appear valid by comparing gum to guns.

The mall would probably NEVER have you arrested for chewing gum but having a gun would be much more serious in that it can hurt others.

I believe the point was phrased as a hypothetical. Wouldn't conditional request not to trespass carry the same weight regardless of the condition, whether it be "No guns", "No hunting", "No chewing bubblegum", or "No southpaws"?