Contacted a Mall about CCW policy

[nalioth]

But I do disagree with your idea that it is my duty to disobey unjust laws.

Rosa Parks did her duty.

 

[bogie]

Well, the main problem is that gun folks just aren't able to work together. My girlfriend's nine-year-old has a longer attention span, and plays better with others...

Gun people aren't able to pick a strategy for action, much less follow it through without trying to endlessly modify it. You can't have anyone in charge, because then a dozen other people start disagreeing with 'em... Before you know it, you've got a half-dozen coalitions all wanting the same basic thing, but not talking to each other, and at times working in direct opposition.

 

[The Annoyed Man]

Originally Posted by The Annoyed Man
But I do disagree with your idea that it is my duty to disobey unjust laws.

Rosa Parks did her duty.

Yes, she did; but nobody but her defined for her what that duty was. Did other black Americans who chose other means of protest do wrong, while only Rosa Parks did right? Of course not. They each defined their own duty according to their individual consciences, and did not allow some unknown person on a discussion board to decide for them what their duty was.

I reserve for myself the right to decide where my duty lays. In the case of CCW, I believe it is a poor strategy to break the laws. All it does is give antis more ammunition. Bogie said in his post directly above this one:

Well, the main problem is that gun folks just aren't able to work together. My girlfriend's nine-year-old has a longer attention span, and plays better with others...

He's right. The fact is that many of us are independent thinkers and iconoclasts, and we don't play well with others. nalioth writes as if Rosa Parks acted in a vacuum. She didn't. Rosa Parks was an active member of the NAACP, Montgomery chapter, and she was already actively involved in the fight for civil rights when she made her famous move on that bus. The point is that she was a member of a larger organization that was accruing political power and momentum, and she was not only a member, she was its secretary and participated in its leadership. It is also worth pointing out that, other than the one incident on that bus, she always behaved within the law. There was a civil rights groundswell across the nation at that time, AND civil rights actions, whether legal or not, largely had the support of America's print and broadcast media. Those two salient facts are what made Rosa Parks' stand on the bus successful and gave it national meaning.

Without a national groundswell of public support, and without a sympathetic national broadcast and print media, Rosa Parks would have been just one more nameless, faceless, black woman, in jail for having broken a law - even an unjust law. Again, she did not perform her action in a socio/political vacuum, and whether she realized it at the time or not, she had a nationally favorable climate in which she did what she did, even if it wasn't locally favorable.

Now, let's translate that to CCW acts of protest - carrying where the law forbids it. Do you have the press on your side? I doubt it. Is there a national groundswell of support for CCW? Almost, but not quite. A majority of states have passed CCW laws, but those laws are fairly restrictive. If we equate the RKBA to voting rights, then the hoops that a licensed carrier has to jump through in order to carry legally could easily be equated to those literacy tests and polling taxes that were used in the old south to keep uneducated blacks from voting, and which were eventually illegalized by section 4 for the Voting Rights Act of 1965. However, it took the following for that to happen: A) a national majority sympathetic to civil rights for blacks; B) a national press that was sympathetic to civil rights for blacks; C) a bipartisan Congress whose majority was overwhelmingly in favor of passage; and D) a Supreme Court willing to uphold it against challenges.

What you have today with CCW is individual states where CCW laws have been cobbled together, and which often (as here in Texas) require someone to jump through some significant hoops in order to carry legally, and which do not have unanimous support of their state populations. AND, you have the remaining states where CCW is either completely illegal, or legal but licenses are almost never issued. Unfortunately, some of those states have huge populations, very liberal elected representation, and significant clout in Congress - California, for example.

I submit that the way CCW laws are being gradually loosened in Texas is the right way to do it. If the movement goes forward that way, we will continue to incrementally regain our liberty, just as we incrementally lost it. The forces in opposition are sufficiently large, sufficiently well organized, and sufficiently well enough funded to defeat any outright attempt to simply strike down all laws against CCW in one fell swoop. It has to be done incrementally in order to accomplish it at all, and it has to be done partly through the application of coordinated and organized pressures through such agencies as the Texas State Rifle Association and the NRA, as well as through the informed voting of the citizenry.

That being said, in today's news climate in which the press glories in the details of mall shootings, school shootings, post office shootings, courthouse shootings, eeeeeevil guns, crazy people, etc., etc., ad nauseum, all while editorializing that we need more gun laws, etc., etc., etc., also ad nauseum, what do you think they will report if you get busted illegally carrying your weapon into a mall?

Trust me. You'll be just another crazy guy with a gun. They will not be kind to you. They will not lionize you. They will not make you into a hero for the cause. Nope. You will be dissected like a bug. You will be taken apart, and when they put you back together for their readers - who also vote, by the way - you will be an unrecognizable monster of a whacky gun owner who threatens the safety of the mall by bringing guns in there. It won't be the truth, but when has the media EVER cared about the truth?

Ecclesiastes says that there is a season for everything. I don't think that this is the right season for me to risk all of it so that I can have a small part of it - particularly when the passage of not to much more time (in Texas, anyway) may eliminate the risk entirely. In this particular case, it seems to me that precipitous action would be foolish.

But if you want to break an unjust law in today's climate, by all means, have at it.

Sorry for ranting on so long. It's just that I actually DO think these things through, and sometimes, simplistic answers are just that - too simplistic.

 

[Dimensio]

Is it common for malls to be posted? I live in Louisville, KY and I've not seen any postings at either of the two malls (Oxmoor and Mall St. Matthews, both owned by the same company) that I visit with any regularty. I've even open carried in both malls without incident (though not recently). I've also not found any policies on the respective webpages.

Jefferson Mall (across town from where I live) "asks visitors" not to carry weapons (except for LEOs) on their website, but I've not been there to see if there are postings on the entrances.

 

[Mousegun]

As a LEO I can carry in post offices and county federal buildings.

And as a licensed permit holder I can't, along with that goes any business that has been polluted by media hype and smacks a sign up with no facts or reason behind it other than it is easier to put up a NO than to think out the situation and not post anything at all.

I feel that if every business here in Tennessee was aware that all it took was a sign to keep legal gun carriers out, there would be a lot more signs posted. That is MHO but I wouldn't like the statement to have to stand up to the test. Maybe, just maybe ignorance is bliss in this case?

This past weekend I went to a liquor store near the mall and saw, "the sign". This one stated that it is unlawful for a person to possess a firearm on premises by Tennessee state statutes. Totally incorrect. You can't posses in a place that SERVES but it O.K. in a place that sells. I asked the manager for his attention outside and showed him the proper law from the a book with the proper law written in it.

His reply was that the sign was given to him by the liquor authority a while back and he didn't know the law was changed. I requested he review his policy and cited a few facts about firearm carry to him. Now I have to go back to see if my effort were effective.

 

[ShunZu]

Malls present a target rich environment of (generally) unarmed victims, especially during the Christmas season.

I wonder if the terrorists have an inkling that the entire states of Wisconsin and Illinois are "gun-free-zones"? No CCW in ANY form in these last two states that guarantee to the bad guys that their prospective victims are unarmed and virtually helpless.

 

[The Gunman]

Where I live in Colorado you're more likely to be considered an outcast if you don't carry a gun everywhere you go.-Bailey Guns

Oh, to not live in down state Chicago!(er uh Illiinois)
______________________________________________________________
They have a choice, I respect that. If someone doesn't want me to carry a gun in their house, I don't. But, if they want to see me, they will need to come and sit in my house

 

[Oohrah]

Have not seen a whole bunch on how the mall shooting ended,but an
off duty security gal with a CHL put the bad guy in won't do that again
mode. No way to have a negative news media to point out hand gun carry
is a good thing to end the crazys career as soon as possible. I'm certain
the toll would have been higher if allowed to continue. I recall at a younger
age of a crazy who went through a nurses dorm in Chicago, killing nine with
a knife. You suppose that even crazy that he knew the girls had no defense?
Yeah I do. A polite society is an armed one!

 

[Blackbeard]

You could try this letter:

Dear Management:

I'm writing to inquire about your facility's policy on weapons. Do you allow legal gun owners to carry there? Do you have armed security guards and/or metal detectors? How close is the nearest police station? I'm planning to go out with a bang and become famous next month and I don't want it cut short by some gun-toting shopper.

Sincerely,

Lou Natik

 

[Tom Servo]

The way I see it, a private property owner has the right to ban guns from his property. Private property rights are also one of the foundations of our system.

Does the right to bear arms trounce that? I'm really not sure. It's an odd brain-twister when you're weighing one against the other. Still, if I'm forced to decide between my right to life and a corporation's right to property, life wins.

Fortunately, my local mall doesn't have signs or metal detectors. Yet.

The subject came up on another forum about someone who went ahead and wrote letters to the malls that weren't posted, asking what their policies were. I cannot stress what a bad idea that could end up being. If they're not posted, don't plant the idea in their heads.

Fortunately, "no guns" signs carry no legal weight in Georgia, so even if it were posted, there are no real legal consequences. That said, in the sheep pen, discretion is the order of the day. If someone sees a gun, they'll panic, and panic in crowds has a nasty ripple effect.

If a mall were already posted (or if my local mall does), I'd make a stink then, but c'mon...they've all drunk the Kool-Aid. I've been in corporate politics, and they're willing to lose a few customers here and there if it saves them from some (fictional) liability.

It goes like this:

"Gee Herm...what if someone shoots up our mall? Maybe we should let licensed gun owners carry here."

"Whaddaya, $%&*in' crazy?!? Insurance won't cover us if one of those guys snaps and goes Rambo!"

"Um, Herm, statistically, that never happens. Besides, are you SURE our insurance doesn't cover it?"

"Not a clue, but I'm guessing it doesn't. Besides it spooks the sheep that we spend so much time bilking for money! Look at the time and money we've spent making them docile."

"By 'sheep,' you mean our customers, sir?"

"Duh, Smitty. Now let's get lunch. It's almost noon, and I'm still sober!"

"But what about their safety, Herm?"

"We're not responsible! Put up some 'no guns' signs or something. That way, we can't be sued when the wrong folks bring in guns. It makes it look like we DID SOMETHING, and that's what's important. And put something up about gang signs at the arcade."

 

[Green Lantern]

The way I see it, a private property owner has the right to ban guns from his property. Private property rights are also one of the foundations of our system.

Does the right to bear arms trounce that? I'm really not sure. It's an odd brain-twister when you're weighing one against the other. Still, if I'm forced to decide between my right to life and a corporation's right to property, life wins.

I don't really think that businesses ought to be FORCED to allow carry on the property, but we should sure be able to voice our displeasure and vote with our $$$ to let them know our preference.

 

[Mousegun]

The way I see it, a private property owner has the right to ban guns from his property. Private property rights are also one of the foundations of our system.

You may change your tune if you lived in a state like Tennessee where a posted sign carries a $500 fine and possible jail time.

Picture walking with your family and being a good distance from your car and encountering "the sign" on the door of a place where you all wanted to enter. Now it is either leave the family and go back to the car to stash the piece, make them all go back with you to the tune of complaining wife and kids (you know that is the way it would be) or the do the last and unspoken alternative.

Your home is a private residence and you have the absolute right to prevent anyone from entering for just about any reason you want.

A business is a public place and it appears there are states, like yours, who recognize an individuals right of protection above that public places' ability to prevent you from your personal protection. If asked to leave and you don't, then and only then should you get prosecuted for trespass or disturbing the peace. This is the one area of Tennessee law that drives me nuts and I will write legislators and protest it forever unless it changes. The states that don't recognize "the sign" as being a law breaking event got it right.

 

[mekender]

A business is a public place and it appears there are states, like yours, who recognize an individuals right of protection above that public places' ability to prevent you from your personal protection.

isnt that the same logic that lawmakers use to justify smoking bans?

let me get this straight... property owners have the right to not allow guns... but they dont have the right to allow smokers?

 

[Mannlicher]

Security

Quote:
frankly. other than looking for publicity, grandstanding or something, I can't for a moment understand why you would write that letter in the first place.

Mannlicher,

Try re-reading or reading post #47 on this thread. I think you may then better understand what these sort of letters hope to accomplish

try re-reading? Trust me, I am not dysfunctional with reading. I fully understand what that was intended to get across.

My point, arcane as it may be to some, is that I would not contact the mall at all. I feel no reason to tip them off as to my thoughts on their posted sign. I continue to carry concealed, where and when I feel its appropriate. I am not going to let Simon Malls, or some PC forum member dictate how and under what circumstances I am able to provide for my safety.

 

[Mousegun]

What I am saying is that a business does have the right to require you to leave if they find you have a firearm but I dislike the State law that makes it an immediate crime. If the business owner sees you are carrying and asks you to leave, I would much rather it NOT be a State crime unless you refuse to leave. Then you can be charged with trespass or disturbing the peace. Wouldn't that be the best of both worlds?

This way you could go in fully concealed and still be protected with your constitutional rights. If discovered, the owner can exercise his rights by asking you to go and at that point, if you refuse, you will be legally charged for your crime.

There are many states that see it that way too (Alabama being one) by not prosecuting a licensed owner if he or she enters past a sign unless he escalates the situation by refusing to leave if the owner requests it.

 

[Henry Bowman]

isnt that the same logic that lawmakers use to justify smoking bans?

let me get this straight... property owners have the right to not allow guns... but they dont have the right to allow smokers?

Right. Or so the argument goes. However, there is a significant distinction between a "No tobacco" zone and a "No smoking" zone. Kind of like the difference between a "No guns" zone and a "No shooting" zone. No amount of smoking will save you life, though.

My point, arcane as it may be to some, is that I would not contact the mall at all. I feel no reason to tip them off as to my thoughts on their posted sign. I continue to carry concealed, where and when I feel its appropriate. I am not going to let Simon Malls, or some PC forum member dictate how and under what circumstances I am able to provide for my safety.

Spoken like a man living in a state where the silly signs do not carry the force of [criminal] law. It also ignore the "attractive nuisance" aspect of the "criminal protection zone" signs.