What is Best Buy's company policy on open carry?

[LkWd_Don]

Almost all of these large companies Lease their buildings. Makes their Balance Sheet's look better for Wall Street. Even if they buy the land, build the building themselves, they will almost always sell it with a "Lease Back" agreement.

Rent is 100% deductible each year. Depreciation of non-residential property is spread over 39 years.

It's almost always a given that these Mall Complex Buildings are owned by someone other than the occupant but the occupant still has the right to make their own rules for use.

I knew that already. Having dealt with Malls like the Lakewood Mall (Now the Lakewood Towne Center owned by Inland Properties), Tacoma Mall (Simon Property Group), and South Center Mall (Westfield) before.
Maybe I should have said tbegin with that it was a rhetorical question.

 

[rapgood]

<assumption> we have the gloriously vague 9.41.270 here,

It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.

at least one person has been convicted under it for doing nothing but arguing with the police that it is legal to OC in Washington, I have not seen the transcripts of the case, but six folks on the jury bought the prosecutions arguments that they had violated this law.

It's not always the jury who is to blame for improper convictions of alleged violations of .270.

RCW 9.41.270(3) provides for statutory exemptions from culpability when the display is an "act committed by a person while in his or her place of abode or fixed place of business" or the defendant is a "person acting for the purpose of protecting himself or herself against the use of presently threatened unlawful force by another, or for the purpose of protecting another against the use of such unlawful force by a third person," or is a "person making or assisting in making a lawful arrest for the commission of a felony," or is a "person engaged in military activities sponsored by the federal or state governments."

But, if the judge won't allow the exemptions to be argued or prohibits the appropriate instructions to the jury, they wont know if the acts of the defendant were wholly lawful and they may very well convict as a result. This is but one reason why there are some very strong proponents of jury nullification out there.

 

[Vitaeus]

not just blaming the jury, I could have framed my thoughts better, thank you Rapgood for pointing out the other areas of concern.

 

[tombrewster421]

I knew that already. Having dealt with Malls like the Lakewood Mall (Now the Lakewood Towne Center owned by Inland Properties), Tacoma Mall (Simon Property Group), and South Center Mall (Westfield) before.
Maybe I should have said tbegin with that it was a rhetorical question.

To answer the original question of leasing or whatever a little better. The best buy in Puyallup is not even in the same parking lot, let alone attached to the mall. It's not even remotely associated with the mall.

 

[amlevin]

But, if the judge won't allow the exemptions to be argued or prohibits the appropriate instructions to the jury, they wont know if the acts of the defendant were wholly lawful and they may very well convict as a result.

Couldn't that be considered a reversible error and grounds for appeal?

 

[rapgood]

Couldn't that be considered a reversible error and grounds for appeal?

Absolutely! And I have successfully appealed the issue of a judge not allowing in those statutory defenses as being an abuse of discretion. The good news is that one particular judge who disallowed the defenses got voted off the bench by a 3-1 mandate of the voters (the denial of the statutory defenses was merely a symptom of a greater problem of being out-of-touch with the law).

 

[LkWd_Don]

To answer the original question of leasing or whatever a little better. The best buy in Puyallup is not even in the same parking lot, let alone attached to the mall. It's not even remotely associated with the mall.

Where Best Buy sits may not be in the South Hill Mall itself, so you are correct that they are not on the same parcel, that does not always mean that they would not be leasing from the same property owner. There are times that a single owner might own as much as a section of land (a square mile) and have developed it into a major shopping community surrounding a central covered mall.

This presently is not the case with Best Buy, as the parcel that Best Buy sits on at 4102 S. Meridian is owned by a different company then the New Jersey Company that owns the Mall Property. The owner of Best Buy's property is located in Texas and also leases to Ross, Mattress Depot, Oreck Floorcare, and Mens Wearhouse, possibly more.

 

[Grim_Night]

Interesting.....you must have better eyes than I do....

RCW 9.41.290
State preemption.
The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, including the registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge, and transportation of firearms, or any other element relating to firearms or parts thereof, including ammunition and reloader components. Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law, as in RCW 9.41.300, and are consistent with this chapter. Such local ordinances shall have the same penalty as provided for by state law. Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed, regardless of the nature of the code, charter, or home rule status of such city, town, county, or municipality.

I don't see the word legislature anywhere in that statute. The Department of Licensing already bans firearms in all state licensed daycare centers in the Washington Administrative Code. So, if the DOL can ban firearms in state licensed daycare centers, what prevents them from banning firearms in all DOL facilities such as Driver's License offices? Is not the Washington State Department of Licensing part of "The State of Washington" mentioned in RCW 9.41.290? What would prevent other state agencies from banning firearms in their offices, so long as they were part of "The State of Washington"?

Because those are considered "school zones" if I'm not mistaken. I've already been to the Tacoma DSHS building with my legally carried and concealed weapon and was told flat out by the head of security there that even though they have a sign at the entrance prohibiting weapons, it has no force of law behind it. There is nothing in washington state laws that prohibits legally carried firearms in state buildings other then those specifically outlined in the federal "no guns" rules, such as courts, post offices and social security offices. If somebody can quote and link something that says otherwise, feel free.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Interesting.....you must have better eyes than I do....

RCW 9.41.290
State preemption.
The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, including the registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge, and transportation of firearms, or any other element relating to firearms or parts thereof, including ammunition and reloader components. Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law, as in RCW 9.41.300, and are consistent with this chapter. Such local ordinances shall have the same penalty as provided for by state law. Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed, regardless of the nature of the code, charter, or home rule status of such city, town, county, or municipality.

I don't see the word legislature anywhere in that statute. The Department of Licensing already bans firearms in all state licensed daycare centers in the Washington Administrative Code. So, if the DOL can ban firearms in state licensed daycare centers, what prevents them from banning firearms in all DOL facilities such as Driver's License offices? Is not the Washington State Department of Licensing part of "The State of Washington" mentioned in RCW 9.41.290? What would prevent other state agencies from banning firearms in their offices, so long as they were part of "The State of Washington"?

The WAC in question only places a duty on the operator of the day care facility, not any visitors or customers. What is the penalty for violating a WAC? Anyway?

 

[Difdi]

The WAC in question only places a duty on the operator of the day care facility, not any visitors or customers. What is the penalty for violating a WAC? Anyway?

Loss of license to operate the day care facility.

 

[MSG Laigaie]

I no longer look for signs. If the sign is not big and obvious, it will go unnoticed by me. If someone inside gets upset, they will let me know.

Signs, I don see no steenkin signs!!