By Alan Gottlieb and Dave Workman
In the aftermath of the Greenwood Park Mall shooting in which a legally-armed private citizen named Elisjsha Dicken was able to quickly take down the killer, stopping the attack and preventing further bloodshed, it is time for shopping malls to abandon their “no firearms” policies, which have left other victims around the country disarmed and dead.
Firing across the mall food court, and gradually moving closer to the heavily-armed killer, the 22-year-old Dicken hit the attacker with eight out of ten rounds fired.
Reportedly shopping with his girlfriend at the mall, Dicken was carrying under the state’s newly-enacted “constitutional carry” statute, which no longer requires a permit. His quick action dramatically affirmed the benefit of having armed citizens in public places.
Downplaying the significance of armed common defense in this case, the New York Times felt compelled to report—while lauding Dicken’s “act of pluck and composure worthy of a scene in the movies”—that the action “was also a statistical unicorn.”
“An examination of 433 active shooter attacks in the United States between 2000 and 2021,” the Times reported, “showed that only 22 ended with a bystander shooting an attacker, according to data from the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center at Texas State University.”
So what? Last year, the FBI noted six incidents in which armed citizens intervened in mass shootings, including four where the perpetrator was killed. For years, gun prohibitionists have argued in support of every new proposed gun restriction, “If it saves just one life, isn’t that worth it?”
Now that shoe is on the other foot. Dicken’s armed presence inside the Greenwood Park mall—in violation of the mall’s “no weapons” policy—probably saved several lives, according to local officials.
“Many more people would have died last night if not for the responsible armed citizen,” said Greenwood Police Chief James Ison during a press conference on the day after the shooting.
It’s not the first time a mass shooting has been abruptly halted by a proverbial “good guy with a gun.” Earlier this year in Charleston, West Virginia, would-be killer Dennis Butler was quickly shot dead by a legally-armed woman after he opened fire on a crowd attending a party outside an apartment complex.
In February 2007, a murderer identified as Sulejman Talovic killed five people at the Trolley Square Mall in Salt Lake City before Kenneth Hammond, an off-duty police officer from another jurisdiction—arguably making him just another armed citizen—drew and fired. Talovic eventually was killed by Salt Lake lawmen, but Hammond’s actions may have prevented further carnage.
Almost three years ago, The Hill reported, “America’s largest retailers are rethinking their gun policies following a spate of mass shootings this summer in states including California, Texas and Ohio.”
Those retailers ignored the one gaping “loophole” in their decision-making process: Violent madmen do not abide by “no weapons” policies. Instead, wanton killers exploit such rules because they do not expect to meet any resistance in what amounts to a target-rich environment.
Elisjsha Dicken’s armed heroics changed that, and by now should have signaled retailers that it is time for a corporate change of heart.
Nobody wants to be a sitting duck in a maniac’s shooting gallery.
Alan Gottlieb is founder and Executive Vice President of the Second Amendment Foundation. Dave Workman is editor of TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press.
“Firing across the mall food court, and gradually moving closer to the heavily-armed killer, the 22-year-old Dicken hit the attacker with eight out of ten rounds fired.”
https://americanmilitarynews.com/2022/07/new-image-shows-heros-40-yard-pistol-shot-that-stopped-active-shooter/
Ok. Its just a rendering but it gives an idea
From the article:
“For years, gun prohibitionists have argued in support of every new proposed gun restriction, ‘If it saves just one life, isn’t that worth it?'”
How about we tweak that a bit to something just as relevant for protecting life:
“For years, pro-life advocates have argued in support of every new proposed abortion restriction, ‘If it saves just one life, isn’t that worth it?'”
I’m still waiting for a strong-willed reporter to pose this question to Governor Newsom on live TV.
I’m being given 100-120$ greenbacks per-hr. to finish a few copy past task on my laptop. I even have definitely now no longer imagined (ntg-12) like it might even feasible however my confidant buddy turned into receiving $30k simply in 4 weeks operating this clean opportunity & she has encouraged me to try. . Following Link For More Details:>>> <b<http://worktop24.pages.dev
No fucking way Soros is paying his TROLLS that much.
MADMAXX,
Yeah, but her side-hustle is making her BANK . . . after she pays her pimp his 20%.
The probability of a Mall removing “no firearms” sign is dependent on what city that Mall is in.
Liberal run Utopia, not likely.
Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas and like….probably don’t have a sign now.
They still do in Texas. I rarely go to a mall, but when I do, I may or may not be following their wishes.
I am with Colonel Travis. I never enter without feeling confident (read that anyway you want). Malls won’t remove the rules in the fine print that no one can read anyway because it is only there for their liability purposes anyway.
I would suspect the most of us disregard those signs and have done so for decades.
Of course. Those signs do not agree with our 2nd Amendment Rights! Those signs are not valid for any reason!
Tax Man,
I am a 2A absolutist, but . . . you’re just wrong on this one. The 2A protects our INHERENT right to keep and bear arms from GOVERNMENT infringement. If I have a PRIVATE business, I can set whatever rules I want for people who want to avail themselves of my business. PERIOD. Now, I would never patronize a business that prohibited carry, but that’s my choice . . . just like it’s the choice of the owner of the business to ban guns.
Do you have a problem with honoring the requirement of a friend/acquaintance that firearms are not allowed in their home?? I have many such friends . . . I don’t go to their homes.
Why is the whole “government vs. private” thing so hard for people to understand???
I’m not sure about the state laws where you live, but in the 3 that I spend the majority of my life in, carrying concealed into a business, even if posted, is not an offense for which one will be charged. As unlikely as it would be, if someone somehow detects my P365 under my clothing, which has never happened, a business representative must ask me to leave. Should I then decide to press the issue, they may call the gendarmes and if I’m still around when they arrive, I may be charged with trespassing.
This is a bit different if caught packing in a school or government building, however. Interestingly enough, in Iowa, we are welcome to carry concealed in our Statehouse, while many county courthouses and the like forbid firearms and require one to pass through a magnetometer.
In any event, I really feel for people who worry about carrying into a mall, theatre, etc. Either they haven’t learned to properly conceal their firearm or are putting way too much faith in that business’s ability to protect the people inside. My advice in non-government buildings where laws like IA’s are in effect?
Shut up and carry.
Lamp. 2a is a civil right. As a business open to the public can you say ‘no Jews’ or ‘no blacks’? You would be violating their civil rights.
Saying ‘no guns’ is simply more of the same.
Craig and jwm,
Wow. Just fucking WOW!!
So, MY “civil right” to keep and bear arms overrides the right of a business owner to set rules for patrons of his/her business???? Umm . . . isn’t “private property” a ‘civil right’?????
What the ACTUAL f***?????? MY rights give me the RIGHT to infringe the RIGHTS of others who . . . disagree with me?????
Whatever. Your responses illustrate why I am NOT a Republican – I am (and you’ve just reinforced WHY) a libertarian. Individual rights – I respect them. I expect others to respect mine. If mine interfere with theirs, evaluate the situation – If an anti-gun friend (and I still have a couple) came into my house and told me they can’t abide guns, so I have to get rid of all mine, or at least lock them up?? I would tell them to go fuck themselves.
If a business owner posted a “No Blacks Allowed” sign? I wouldn’t do business with them (nor would most people, I assume), but that’s their right. If I can carry anywhere in PUBLIC, I’m happy to avoid/deal with (or NOT deal with) the business owners who state that they don’t want my business by posting “No Firearms Allowed” signs.
Y’all seem to be forgetting the whole point about the Constitution being there to prevent the GOVERNMENT from infringing our rights. Ain’t nothin’ there that says another individual can’t be a racist POS, or anti-Christian, or anti-Muslim, or anti-gay, or whatever.
Shakin’ my damn head.
For one thing governments pass laws that criminally sanction carrying at places with “no gun” signs so the line between government rules and private sector rules get very blurry. Concealed means concealed
Sorry, Lamp, but you’re wrong. A private home? Yes. Set your own rules.
A business open to the public? No. You cannot violate civil rights just because you feel like it.
@ LampOfDiogenes
And your responses are why I’m not a libertarian. You people don’t care about fighting tooth and claw for anything except legalized pot.
Where in the Constitution does it say a shopping mall gets to decide whether you can defend your life with a firearm? I see the part about keeping and bearing arms. I don’t see the part where it says “except in a shopping mall.” The Constitution protects property rights through a takings clause. That’s it. Private property is crucial to a free society. Is all private property equal in all ways? Is your house *exactly* the same as a shopping mall – purpose, traffic, prominence, etc.? No it is not. There are a lot of nuances in a complex, free, society. A one-size-fits-all, libertarian, rubber stamp doesn’t work. There is a reason why, say, the castle doctrine has centuries of precedent behind it and why there is no comparable “merchant doctrine” that bans personal defense weapons from all places of commerce. Either self-defense is permitted or it’s not.
I don’t know why you’re just fine and dandy with everyone telling everyone else to go F themselves (race, guns, sex, whatever.) Hey, it’s their private property right to trample over certain people! Yes, that’s always worked out well. You expect others to respect your rights? That cannot possibly happen in a world with libertarian rules. You will be perpetually screwed over. This is because when you give people the kind of unbounded freedom you want, it’s not a freedom backed by the same moral order. To me, we have the freedom to do what we ought. Not what we want.
I have significant disagreements with libertarians, but I am able to trust a real libertarian for being a libertarian, and I’ll vote for a libertarian over a Democrat every day of the week. But, God bless you, you guys live in a fantasy land. History proves that practically no one else can hold themselves in check like you pretend they do.
If you chose to ban firearms from your establishment that caters to the public, that is your right. Then you are responsible for any who are harmed by your prohibition. Does that sound fair to you?
Now about your home. If you don’t want friends to have the means of protection while in your home. Fine, they can chose to not visit you. Or if they do visit you, then you are responsible for their safety. you should be legally liable and be sued by anyone who is harmed while in your home from home invaders. Does that sound fair to you?
If you are a business open to the public then you shouldn’t be able to keep people from open or concealed carry. A business open to the public can’t put duct tape on my mouth keep me from having free speech. It’s only when I use my free speech to say something that the business owner doesn’t like that he can then ask me to leave. It should be the same with guns. Until I do something illegal or unsafe , what’s the big deal? Oh, for the days when Oshman’s sold guns in the malls!
LampOfDiogenes,
Private property rights are most certainly NOT unlimited. Here are two examples:
An invited guest on your property dies while on your property. Of course you have a rule that no one can remove dead bodies from your private property. Is that rule enforceable? No, because law enforcement has to investigate in order to serve justice if someone murdered your guest.
Morals and Common Law both prohibit a property owner from requiring that guests be subject to death as a condition of being on a private property. Prohibiting effective self-defense in response to an attack is requiring that guests be subject to death as a condition of being on the property. Thus, prohibiting self-defense (and prohibiting self-defense firearms is prohibiting self-defense) should not be enforceable under Common Law. (Of course our largely corrupt courts would almost universally fail to uphold said Common Law.)
The US has no private property and hasn’t since the late 1800s.
All supposed “private property” is simply leased to the individual by the government and that lease is paid through property tax.
“LampOfDiogenes July 27, 2022 At 16:12
Craig and jwm,
Wow. Just fucking WOW!! ”
Always the intelligent reaction to anything- start with vulgarities, that shows raw intelligence.
I don’t think I’m expressing Repbulican POVs. You? Not so sure. But not for me to worry, I’m not getting an invitation to your digs, so… One thing I can say, Mr 2A Absolutionist: I also believe in the rest of the Constitution and as for carrying concealed, and when there is absolutely no indication that I am, I am still “innocent” until proven guilty. And no one is going to be frisking me if I want to enter a structure ot property. If there is security and magnetometers, I’ll pass.
If a business owner posted a “No Blacks Allowed” sign? I wouldn’t do business with them
No, you wouldn’t do business with them because “THERE WOULD BE NO FUCKING BUSINESS” it would either be burned to the ground AFTER being looted of its entire contents OR sued out of existence by a number of Government agencies (probably both). Why do YOU as a “Libertarian” feel that ONLY gun owners taking advantage of their CONSTITUTIONALLY protected rights can be discriminated against by a private company that avails itself to the public. Your “my house” analogy is senseless, my home is not open to the public, my home is my personal space and is subject to my personal preferences. A mall, grocery store and other such businesses may be privately owned properties, but they are OPEN to (and DEPENDENT upon) the public to support their livelihood.
“If I have a PRIVATE business, I can set whatever rules I want for people who want to avail themselves of my business.”
And I can sue you into oblivion for inadequate security since you took away my right to provide my own.
Yes and no. Those signs do not have any weight of law other than if they discover you are armed where they prohibit you to be armed there on their property, they can then ask you to leave.
If you do not then leave once asked, that is now trespassing.
That’s technically a law being broken then.
However, if those merchants put up these signs we should not honor them with our $$$$ and avoid going there. Plus use social media to report them so others will not use their services! They appear to be far left wing radical socialists and anti-Americans.
EXACTLY!!! And that’s what I do.
I carry, 24/7. If a business has a “No guns allowed” sign? I don’t give them my business, and I tell my pro-2A friends about it – how they choose to deal with it is up to them.
Government is another issue. I don’t think government has the right to ban firearms in public buildings, end of story. I haven’t chosen to make an issue of it, but I DID avoid public buildings. Would have been a problem if I were a litigator, but I’m not.
“If a business owner posted a “No Blacks Allowed” sign? I wouldn’t do business with them (nor would most people, I assume), but that’s their right.”
No, that is incorrect. There are specific federal laws that forbid discrimination on the basis of race, religion, gender, previous condition of servitude, citizenship, disability , Veteran status, among others.
However, a private property owner, including public businesses, can deny goods or services to people who wear white shirts or people who wear sleeveless shirts or dresses.
MajorStupidity,
“There are specific federal laws . . .”
I am FAR more aware of those federal laws than are you, you mouth-breathing idiot. Because a bunch of morons, like yourself, passed a “law” that is FAR beyond their Consitutional powers? Impresses me not at all.
So, by your definition and analysis, I can exclude from by business all left-handed people (being left-handed is NOT a ‘protected categoary’. Look it up, you retard.), but I can’t exclude . . . gay child molesters??? (Being gay IS, supposedly, a ‘protected category’.)
MajorStupidity, the more you post, the stupider your “comments” get. You are not only literally too stupid to insult, you are too f***ing stupid to breathe. Go expire in an excavation.
“I am FAR more aware of those federal laws than are you, you mouth-breathing idiot“
If that’s the case why did you state a business could post a “No Blacks Allowed” sign and that would be within their rights?
“but I can’t exclude . . . gay child molesters??? (Being gay IS, supposedly, a ‘protected category’.)“
You are intentionally conflating “gay” and “child molesters”.
They are two different things, and there are many more straight, heterosexual pedophiles then there are gay pedophiles.
Whether or not you can restrict a registered pedophile from entry into your public accommodation is an interesting question, technically speaking they are not a protected class so the answer should be yes.
MINOR Miner49er That “No Black Allowed” has been OUTlawed since the 60’s.
Get a frickin’Grip!
A friend of mine was carrying concealed in Costco, but apparently, some Karen happened to see a bit of my friends firearm when she was reaching up for something on a shelf. Karen promptly turned my friend in, who was told she was not allowed to carry in their store. This, after they changed their policy a few years ago. No problem, she left her groceries right then and there in the cart, returned her paid membership for a refund, and promptly walked out. These businesses want to go “anti-gun”? That is fine. I refuse to waste one red penny on them. Nor will I be a sitting duck, because said business thinks it is cute and funny (in the name of whatever) to disarm the law abiding.
And, IMNSHO, exactly the right way to handle that situation.
IF they have a prominent “No Guns Allowed” sign, I honor their wishes, and deny them my business. If they have a “No Guns Allowed” policy, someone complains about me carrying, I leave. Simple.
I have a right to keep and bear arms . . . in public, in my home, and anywhere PRIVATE that doesn’t prohibit it. But I have no obligation to do business with anti-gun idiots – and I choose not to. As many here have suggested, I have no problem with the concept that businesses that are open to the publicv, and prohibit guns, are financially responsible for damage incurred by patrons because they were denied their RKBA on the primises. Totally cool with that. Saying, “I have a RIGHT to carry, so I can IGNORE your sign!”?? Nope. No you don’t. You have the right, when you see the sign, to walk the f*** away, you DO NOT have a right to make your own rules on someone else’s property/in someone else’s business.
Yes, law abiding US Citizens should be allowed to have their weapons concealed on their person 24/7 wherever in the USA they go! No exceptions. We need this support to get rid of the criminals by all lawful means, including killing those who attack innocent people in malls, schools, parks, state and federal government offices, graveyards, parking lots, movie theaters, restaurants/fast food stores, any public area! No one is safe, but if we allow ALL law abiding US Citizens to carry their weapons everywhere and protect us that makes good sense. God Bless!
So, you have the right to carry a firearm into the home of a person who forbids firearms in their home??? Dude, you are seriously f***ed up. I let my friends know that I carry. Some of them oppose firearms. If I get an invite to their homes, I always say, “Hey, you know I carry, right?” If they say, “Well, you can’t carry at my house.”? I don’t go. Pretty f***in’ simple, Chief. The same is true for a private business.
I remember, when conservatives USED TO BE intellectually consistent, when conservatives railed against treating private businesses as “public accomodations”. And they were right. When did y’all become such result-driven hypocrites??????????
I think the term ‘right’ is being used wrongly here. When you enter private property or use a privately owned place/business that is open to public, the entry is not a ‘right’ but rather the allowed entry its self is a ‘privilege’.
The interaction of the law with that ‘privilege’ may require certain conditions to be met (e.g. handicap parking and access) if its a business open to the general public but for a private home the same law interaction as for the business may not exist. So far there is no law that says a private property owner (e.g. a home or other private property) or privately owned place/business (e.g. a mall or supermarket) MUST ALWAYS allow firearms and the reason for that is it infringes directly upon the rights of property owners to control the privilege of entry.
Constitutional rights can be treated and regarded differently when it comes to private property (e.g. a home or other private property) or privately owned place/business (e.g. a mall or supermarket). Although you might still be able to exercise the right there it does not mean the right followed you through the door and you MUST ALWAYS be allowed to exercise the right there.
Within the past couple of weeks, I’ve already noticed the appearance of “No Firearms Allowed” decals on the entry glass of certain stores and businesses. Looks like the Bruen ruling and the subsequent change in our CA permitting scheme are being taken seriously.
Of course, I also noted that all those businesses were satellite locations of major chains, meaning a local manager or proprietor didn’t make that (foolish) decision, but some corporate legal counsel seeking a CYA for any potential shooting on their property. If they post a decal, they can then argue and distance themselves from legal culpability from any disgruntled persons.
But as the saying goes: Only those who survive get to tell their side of the story in court.
THANK YOU!!!!
My EXACT point!!! I have the right to set the rules in my home – and I expect everyone to abide by them. If I were so stupid as to forbid firearms in my home, and a friend knew of this and carried anyway, I would be pissed, and they would not get invited back. My friends know that I carry. If they come to my home, they know that not only am I carrying, but I have guns readily available. If they don’t like it, they are welcome to leave or not come in the first place.
The same rule should apply to private businesses – they can set whatever rules they want. Can a business decide it will ONLY serve white, left-handed, redheaded Zoroastrians?? Absolutely (not a great business model, but that’s THEIR problem)!!
I have the right to bring my custom to a business, but NOT in violation of their rules. Government? They can go fuck themselves. The only “rules” they get to set are defined by the Constitution. If they don’t like it?? They are free to osculate my anal sphincter.
“Can a business decide it will ONLY serve white, left-handed, redheaded Zoroastrians?? Absolutely (not a great business model, but that’s THEIR problem)!!”
Absolutely incorrect.
A business that offers public accommodations may not discriminate on the basis of race/color or religion.
However, they may discriminate based on which hand is dominant and what an individual’s hair color may be.
“No gingers need apply… “
“If I get an invite to their homes, I always say, “Hey, you know I carry, right?” ”
I guess it works for you. I just don’t get it, however. If one is carrying properly concealed, why would anyone else know it, UNLESS they do as you seem to and let them know? Keeping “the secret” just isn’t all that damned hard. Maybe people who swap partners might find out, but for casual visits?
Of course I’m probably wrong, in the most technical sense, but jeez- why tell anyone anything unless they first ask you? And even then, it’s simple for me to hold my hands out to my sides and just answer “what do you think?” Not going to see it… If I’m going to be frisked when entering, that certainly is no friend of mine.
So, taking your train of thought, if you got an invitation from a friend who you KNEW was a rabid anti-gunner, and prohibited firearms in their home, you would be totes cool with carrying in their home, because it was “concealed, and they didn’t know”????? What if they had a “no guns allowed” sign on their front door. Again, that is f***ed up.
My friends know I carry because (among my friends) I make no secret about it – concealed carry, to me, is NOT to conceal from my family and friends, it is to conceal from perps. Have your own rules, that is your right, but the fact that you CONCEAL it does not give you license to violate rules you KNOW ABOUT.
Is it OK to steal their silverware, if you don’t get caught?
Seriously, rethink your philosophy and priorities. If “not getting caught” is your standard, then at least be up front about it. But pretending that the business owner/home owner’s rights don’t matter because YOU have the RKBA, which supersedes THEIR rights? A little intellectual consistency would be appreciated.
@Craig
“Knowing” if someone is carrying or not is not the issue. Its if the answer is “yes” or “no”.
If the sign says “no guns” it means that “no” means “no”. Then it becomes a question as to if that “no” is back by law or not and that determines if the law was violated or not for a firearms violation.
So its not a question of if someone knows or not, but rather if the law was violated or not for a firearms violation.
As sad as it is, if you get detected some way or another and the “no” has the force of law behind it, you comitted a violation of law for a firearms violation. That violation can be a felony (if the place wants to push it) and out the window goes your legal exercise of the second amendment and you become a convicted felons simply for trying to exercise your second amendment rights without recognizing a privately owned business can deny you your right exercise.
The reason they can deny you your second amendment rights exercise on their property is they are not government and they have constitutional and legal property rights. The second amendment, like the first, is only not to be infringed by government.
In other words a private property owner is under no obligation to not infringe your second amendment right and may do so even if the place is a business open to the general public.
But by the same principal a private property owner may allow the exercise of the second amendment right on the property. And if they choose to do so it is no longer a right per ‘se but rather a ‘privilege’ to do so granted by them as they can also remove or limit that exercise permission as they see fit, for example, places that allow concealed carry but not open carry.
“.40 cal Booger July 27, 2022 At 19:08
@Craig
“…if you get detected some way or another and the “no” has the force of law behind it, you comitted a violation of law for a firearms violation. That violation can be a felony”
No, not where I live and am 99% of the time. I covered it in my first post. Trespassing, and only if someone tells me to leave and I won’t.
“LampOfDiogenes July 27, 2022 At 16:33
So, taking your train of thought, if you got an invitation from a friend who you KNEW was a rabid anti-gunner…” (etc., ec.)
I’d not be accepting an invitation from a rabid anti-gunner. Why would you associate with such people.
I get it, Lamp, and I deal with people like you a lot. People who want to look like real operators- go around preaching to everyone about the purity of their rights and liberties, to the point of explaining crap to make their point to people that have no reason to be preached to, about things which they really have no reason for knowing.
But, your the real operator, the gatekeeper of the rights. Unfortunately, many of these same people place themselves in the position of trying to represent firearms owners as that “gatekeeper and it rarely ends with those rights being both represented properly, or to maintain them. For example, letting someone you know hates firearms and concealed carry know that you’re carrying does nothing to either change their mind, nor to sustain the ability to continue exercising your right in the future. To the antigun person, it affirms their argument.
Better, overall, in a country where the right to keep and bear arms is accessible to all but felons, crazy people and the like, to just go about understanding that at any time, in any place, everyone is armed and able to defend themselves, from me, you, their government, and everyone else.
“A little intellectual consistency would be appreciated.”
What we have here is an apples to oranges, strawman argument.
Stealing the friend’s silverware is a legal issue in almost every circumstance and jurisdiction. However, sneaking a pistol into his house is not a legal issue in almost every jurisdiction unless there are specific circumstances also in play, such as the trespass scenario, or the no legal carry scenario. It will not nearly always be illegal to be armed while visiting your friend, but it will nearly always be illegal to steal his silver.
Now if you want something that would a closer comparison, maybe light up a cigarette in his living room or make googly eyes at his wife during dinner.
“However, sneaking a pistol into his house is not a legal issue in almost every jurisdiction unless there are specific circumstances also in play“
Also incorrect.
If, as a property owner, I make it known that firearms are not permitted on my property and an individual brings one on my property, there will be significant repercussions.
I would view ”Sneaking” a weapon onto my property, against my direct instructions, as an overt assault.
No one but me has any rights on my private property.
“…there will be significant repercussions.”
But does that constitute legal jeopardy, minus specific circumstances? You considering my concealed carry onto your property to be an assault against you is a specific circumstance, and a questionable one at that from a legal standpoint.
My statement stands.
“No one but me has any rights on my private property.”
I often confuse myself. I am not very bright,
As a card carrying Marxist/Socialist isn’t our position that “no one owns anything” and you will like it?
Why yes, yes it is. So I guess I will need to fix that statement in accordance with my leftist philosophy;
No one ̶b̶u̶t̶ ̶m̶e̶ has any rights (of) o̶n̶ ̶m̶y̶ ̶ private property.
FIXED!
DUDE !!! Someones house is just a little different than a large public place such as a mall. You are comparing apples to oranges to justify a moronic argument. Get a life.
He’s a lolbertarian. He doesn’t have a life or a brain. Too much pot.
Socialist
Another option could be to not talk about carrying with people. Problem solved.
BINGO! I always assume everyone I meet, anywhere, is carrying. Isn’t that, perhaps, a tacet implication of the intent of the Second Amendment? I doubt the Founders would’ve insisted that those rising in opposition to tyranny would have to wear uniforms and inform the government officials murdering and terrorizing citizens that they are armed and ask if they could “come in”…
A private home is different from a biz that conducts biz in public.
A business is different from a home. A business cannot discriminate based on race or sex. Is doesn’t matter that technically they should be allowed to. The reality is they can’t. So if businesses can’t discriminate based on race then they can’t discriminate based on carrying a gun either, as carrying a gun is as much of a God given right that skin color is.
@Ron
you are confusing protected classes with non-protected classes.
carrying a gun is not a protected class, being a concealed carrier is not a protected class, being an open carrier is not a protected class, being a gun owner is not a protected class. You are assuming that because there is a constitutional right that all must allow it thus the gun carrier/owner is a protected class, that’s not how it works.
The only entity that is legally and constitutionally not suppose to infringe upon the second amendment is the government (including states/city/county) and by extension the law. A private property owner, even if its a business open to the general public, has no obligation to not infringe upon your second amendment right.
Basically; skin color is not a ‘right’, a racial ethnicity is not a ‘right’, a gender is not a ‘right’… these are all states of being and not actually rights even though one may refer to them as ‘rights’ in some fashion and in some cases may be implied or stated to be a ‘right’. How the law and constitution (and to some extent society preference/acceptance) is applied to them determines if they have a right not that their states of being are a right. When that ‘state of being’ is of a part of society that is being denied for something the law determines they should have and it gets enough attention from the law and becomes a society (sector or whole) choice then a legal mandate is created in law called a ‘protected class’ and its determined they have a ‘right’ to also ‘participate’ and be treated as fairly as others under law. There is no ‘protected class’ of ‘gun owners/carriers/pro-second-amendment/pro-gun’ as exercise of the right is a personal choice and not legally mandated or society choice, but because it is a constitutional right the government has an obligation to not, and actually is forbidden from acting to, infringe it (e.g. ‘shall not be infringed’).
You are trying to make a distinction based upon it being a business or not.
In reality, private property is private property – it doesn’t matter if its a home or a business. Entry to and presence in/on private property is a ‘privilege’ not a ‘right’, that privilege is controlled by the property owner even if the property is open to the general public.
That’s what, for example, handicap access laws and anti-discrimination laws in businesses are really about – access to the ‘privilege’ of entry and use of what is being offered to others (the general public usually), not that there is a ‘right’ of entry and use but rather a ‘right’ of access to the ‘privilege’ of entry and use. This is referred to as a ‘right’ of a protected class if it is a protected class.
What you are referencing in terms of “discriminate based on race or sex” is where the law intersects with access to the ‘privilege’, if the business is open to the general public in any fashion (from employment to shopping to what ever the business is offering to the general public. Its a little different when it comes to, for example, a private home because those laws don’t apply there because its not considered open to the general public. Thus on your personal own private land or home as an individual you are free to ‘discriminate’ against all as much as you want unless you are an ’employer’ of employees of your own and they work specifically on/in the private land/home then you can not discriminate against them but still can to others who are not your employees.
In other words a private property owner is under no obligation to not infringe your second amendment right and may do so even if the place is a business open to the general public.
But by the same principal a private property owner may allow the exercise of the second amendment right on the property. And if they choose to do so it is no longer a right per se’ but rather a ‘privilege’ to do so granted by them as they can also remove or limit that exercise permission as they see fit, for example, places that allow concealed carry but not open carry.
This is not to say that a law can not be created that says a business must allow firearms carry. But to date there is no law that says a private property owner (e.g. a home or other private property) or privately owned place/business (e.g. a mall or supermarket) MUST ALWAYS allow firearms and the reason for that is it infringes directly upon the rights of property owners to control the privilege of entry. However, as demonstrated in New York, the law can ‘presume’ to have that authority, in the case of New York, to dictate to property owners they ‘must’ choose (the new york law is probably unconstitutional in this aspect and its clearly unconstitutionally agenda driven, but that’s another court case some other time).
I would concur with the above statement from 40oz.
But does anyone care I concur?
Wait, you guys are listening to no guns signs?
NO!
Not until Sept 1st when it becomes a felony then I will at least listen.
?
When what becomes a felony?
Carrying concealed with a permit in NY for any private business that does not explicitly have a guns welcome sign in the window as well as a host of “sensitive locations” basically the governor having an unconstitutional tantrum at the supreme court decision NY lost last month.
Some do and some don’t.
Vhyrus,
Yes, I do. What I do is not patronize a business that prohibits guns. It’s their loos, of my business, not my “right” to ignore their rules for conducting that business. Sorry, not sorry.
Thats one way to look at it, but Im not going to inconvenience myself over a stupid sign.
Downplaying the significance of armed common defense in this case, the New York Times felt compelled to report—while lauding Dicken’s “act of pluck and composure worthy of a scene in the movies”—that the action “was also a statistical unicorn.”
“An examination of 433 active shooter attacks in the United States between 2000 and 2021,” the Times reported, “showed that only 22 ended with a bystander shooting an attacker, according to data from the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center at Texas State University.”
Here’s the problem with the New York Times study… its trying to frame active shooter in terms of mass shootings and the two are not necessarily the same. If you look at that study in terms of ‘active shooter’ only them we find a lot more were stopped >
https://dev.thetruthaboutguns.com/who-really-stops-the-bad-guy-with-the-gun/#comment-6026534
https://dev.thetruthaboutguns.com/who-really-stops-the-bad-guy-with-the-gun/#comment-6026655
A correction for my first link math > https://dev.thetruthaboutguns.com/who-really-stops-the-bad-guy-with-the-gun/#comment-6026822
It’s actually worse than that, for a *VERY* obvious reason, once you see it: a large majority of mass shootings (and a majority of active shooters in general) happen in “gun free zones”, so *OF COURSE* those aren’t stopped by the law-abiding with guns!
Once you eliminate those, you find that citizens stop active shooters more than 1/3 of the time!
The mall prohibition was their own probation. It had no weight or backing of law in regards to firearm carry. Dicken did not violate any law by carrying his fire arm contrary to the mall prohibition.tbe most the mall could have done was ask him to leave, and if he refused then it would have been a misdemeanor trespass but not a firearms charge.
correction:
“probation” should have been ‘prohibition’
^^This^^
I agree.
Gun Free Zones in general need to stop.
Ely Dicken Fail Drill….40 yards compact pistol 8 out of 10…try it. LOL
It is relatively easy to pull off on the flat range not so easy when the suspect you are shooting at is significantly better armed than you.
imo
Too many LEO concern themselves with how well armed the bad guy is while being less focused on their own skills, arms, and righteous motivations.
First off, there is no such thing as a “gun free zone”. What it actually is, is a Free Kill Zone set up for the nutjob shooter to have free access to as many unarmed citizens as he can kill before the police get there & either take him out or he kills himself.
I’ve concealed & open carried for 55 years now & I’ve had CC permits in two different resident states for a total of over twenty years but now am able to constitutional carry concealed & do so everywhere. Those cutesy little signs are nothing but a joke. Don’t allow the fools to put your life & the life of your loved ones in jeopardy because of their stupidity. Be safe out there.
There’s no free guns there anyway so it’s false advertising ! They should change the signs to the actual meaning ” This is a Free Fire Zone “.
IF AND IF GUN FREE ZONES ARE TO WORK HAS TO BE LIKE AIR PORT SECURITY CHECK POINTS , ARMED SECURITY GUARDS NEEDED . SCHOOLS ALSO ..
WOUULD CREATE JOBS ? CHECK IN PLACE TO PUT YOUR LTC GUN IN LOCK LOCKER ?
THAT LITTLE WORD IF …
That check point would be where the shooter begins before walking into the mall to get the sheep..
The last mall I set foot in in America was the Galleria in Dallas in 2012. After that experience, armed or not, I’m not going to the mall here in Los Estados Unidos. If you’re heading to the mall, good luck.
I am shocked at the number of alleged “conservatives” on this forum who are all about “I don’t give a s*** what such-and-such business owner says, I’ll do whatever the f*** I want!!” Would you treat a person that way? The business owner is a person. If a person prohibits firearms in their home, and invites me to their home, I don’t go. I would never CONSIDER ignoring their rules regarding THEIR OWN GUESTS – I have a simple choice, and I choose. Don’t go.
I don’t patronize businesses that prohibit guns. I don’t go to private homes that prohibit guns. If I find a person who “won’t be around someone who carries a gun” (used to be a lot of those in KKKalifornia), I politely tell them that I carry, and let them make their decision about what they do. IDGAF. I made the choice to carry, for my reasons; they can make THEIR choice about how they deal with it.
I’m even more impressed that all you 2A warriors ignore the fact that guns are prohibited in almost ALL “public buildings”, and that is ABSOLUTELY against the 2A, and y’all say . . . (*crickets*). Bunch of keyboard warriors.
Personally my rule is if there is armed agents and metal detectors I won’t be going in armed (I have in the past in another country in a professional capacity even though technically it wasn’t lawful, airports, federal building, courthouse) outside of that I am always tooled up.
Just to be clear, you apparently feel totally justified carrying a firearm into a private business/residence, DESPITE a conspicuous “no firearms allowed” sign, because “it’s your right”???
Have I got this right? Because that is one FUCKED UP attitude. Rights are rights. I have mine, and the BUSINESS/HOME OWNER has theirs. They have the right to set the rules for their business/home; I have the right to do business elsewhere.
Didn’t realize what a bunch of entitled ASSHOLES frequented this forum. You insist on YOUR rights, but feel perfectly justified shitting all over someone else’s rights, because you don’t agree with their position. Nice. Don’t EVER make an argument about the intellectual inconsistency of the anti-gunners; I’ll laugh in your fucking face.
It’s not about “it’s my right”, it is much more about it is my responsibility.
“Didn’t realize what a bunch of entitled ASSHOLES frequented this forum. You insist on YOUR rights, but feel perfectly justified shitting all over someone else’s rights, because you don’t agree with their position“
Hell, that was apparent the first time I ever read a post on TTAG.
thanks ross.
i don’t carry where i carry thinking my rights outweigh the property owners’. i do it out of a complete disrespect for anyone trying to disarm me. i want to be able to defend myself even if the property owner is an idiot.
ross and tsbhoa.p.jr,
So, your preferences and beliefs override actual acknowledged rights (private property, to name just one) of others because . . . you disagree???? “Rights” are only rights if you agree with them?
We are attaining clarity. Y’all’s professed “belief” in “rights” is entirely transactional and based on YOUR mood and beliefs at the time. Cool. Your intellectual consistency impresses the hell out of me.
as if.
i govern myself as a free man. nothing to do with mood. more consistant than not.
changing “outweigh” to “override” conveys your self frustration.
i’m not concerned with what you do.
I use a cell phone , it’s got a key pad, so hah on you.
It’s OK; I don’t allow possums in my home. Nasty little buggers tend to take a dump on the carpet whenever the mood strikes them, and they scatter garbage when they raid my trash can.
I might make an exception for you.
Personally, I never even see those signs. When Texas was being stupid, prohibiting firearms in various places such as Luby’s, the signage was pretty prominent, and I actually saw some of them. If the sign isn’t conspicuous, I don’t see it. Flashing neon signs, maybe I’ll see it, but I have a mental block against flashing neon anyway.
As others have clearly pointed out, the signage seldom has the force of law. You can safely ignore it in most states. And, if your weapon is well concealed, you can get away with ignoring the signs even if they have the force of law behind them.
Is that rude? Maybe. But it is just as rude for a store owner to require me to forego my constitutional rights if I enter his establishment. Tit for tat, rude for rude.
I guess what I’m saying is, I don’t give a flip about the store owner, nor do I care that you are shocked. This is America, after all, and you have the right to be offended. In fact, some Americans make a living at being offended over petty nonsense. Good luck with that!
concealed means concealed
“Signage seldom has the force of law.”
Nor did I claim it did. My POINT was that, if I know a homeowner/business owner has a rule against firearms, I don’t go there. If I don’t know, and I carry, and they discover I am carrying (I am pretty careful to avoid ‘printing’, but no one is perfect), and they ask me to leave, I leave.
It’s all about being consistent – you can’t demand others “respect your rights” if you won’t respect theirs.
WHY IS THIS A DIFFICULT CONCEPT?????????????
i didn’t notice anyone “demanding” respect or anything else. you threw that in there.
some of us just do what we do because (seven letters, rude) and the rest, you overthink.
Well not all public buildings. Here you can conceal carry in public school buildings and on school grounds if you have the state shall issue’ concealed carry permit even though we (now) have ‘permitless carry’ constitutional carry.
And here also you can carry in other public buildings (e.g. court house but not court room) also if you have the state permit. We’ve had armed teachers and school staff for a long time as well. Sometimes not all public buildings, for example, the police department and library are no guns for citizens.
We’ve been able to do this here since around 2013-2014 time frame. Never been one accident or criminal shooting by an ordinary citizen concealed carry person.. there have been some incidents stopped by orfinary citizen concealed carriers though in public buildings, for example one criminal upset with his trial and out on bond tried to shoot the judge in the court house and was taken down by a fast acting ordinary citizen concealed carrier in the courthouse.
remaining consistent, you always could.
Take yer meds dude….. And please post a pic of yourself as you will be the last one I defend.
Didn’t realize they made meds to enable people to ignore blatant hypocrisy, but if so, I’ll take a hard pass.
As for you defending me?? Never asked you to, don’t expect you to, and given your morals, don’t think I want you to.
But you do you.
Lamp, I respect your decision to “not go” and I do the same thing with one exception, which is, I simply don’t go. However, I do not tell anyone I am carrying because I don’t see the need to tell them if I carry or if I don’t carry. Moreover they don’t have a need to know about my carry habits. There are many reasons/excuses for not going place.
Hush,
I agree in part. If I were on the street, and someone approached my and said, “Are you carrying a firearm?”, my response would be “None of your f***ing business!” But my example was of a residence/business where you KNEW firearms weren’t permitted. You don’t go there – the whole “if they don’t know, it’s OK” is bullshit. Again, you can’t ask others to respect YOUR rights (RKBA, in this case) if you aren’t willing to respect theirs – like their right to ban firearms from their home/business.
I’m totally bomfozzled by how this is even a question.
“the whole “if they don’t know, it’s OK” is bullshit“
Lamprey, I completely agree with you on this point.
it’s a colostomy bag.
next.
bomfozzled pretty cool, um, adjective. how this jives with you do you is puzzling.
So “Socialist” is now a banned word?
Miner is not very happy about this!
What word is next? “Grooming”??
You worry about pretty stupid things.
I’m sure I do. What I DON’T worry about is being an intellectually inconsistent asshole – but feel free to do so yourself.
“do i contradict myself? very well then i contradict myself. i am large, i contain multitudes.”
I’ll take “how many different ways can you say the SAME thing” for $100…
you win. perfect.
You sir are a certified jackass and the reason libertarians have a bad rep. If you cannot understand the difference between a public facing business someone’s home then I suggest you go back to school. What if a private business put up a sign that said women have to walk around naked in their store? Would that be okay with you? Should they have the right to do that? How about if they said you had to wear a buttplug while doing business with them? No, owning a business doesn’t automatically strip the rights of every person walking through the door. It doesn’t make you a king or a dictator simply because you paid for 1000 square feet of floor space in a strip mall. Grown a brain.
Those signs and policies don’t mean anything without the force of law to back them up.
Worst case is somebody asks you to leave. Just leave. Otherwise it becomes trespassing.
Now what do you think the chances are some mall security armed with Walmart brand capsaicin is going to ask the person he think is carrying a gun to leave?
Concealed is concealed. Carry everywhere.
I don’t go to shopping holes er malls. My local mall is on open sewer. Murder,mayhem & BlackLootersMurder had fun there in 2020. Coincidentally Dick’s was quite prominently displayed in the recent heroism of young Dicken…
@Shire-man..
You can conceal carry in Walmart, just not open carry.
It should be noted though that some walmart stores do post ‘no guns’ signs. The most they can ask you to do is leave. But if you conceal carry ‘correctly’ (some don’t and its kinda obvious they are armed) its unlikely they will know anyway.
Also. Something a lot of people don’t know is what their states definition of ‘concealed’ is. Here it means basically that ‘most’ of the gun is hidden from view so a person could for exampke be carrying concealed legally if most of the gun is in, for example, a pocket holster but the grip is hanging outside the pocket and can be seen. I think it’s stupid to do that but sometimes i’ve see it done by people in say cargo shorts and a t shirt for a quick run to Walmart and they dont say anything about it even though I guess they could.
And actually in a way I would not blame walmart for saying something about that person. Heck, I even want to say something to that ‘partial concealment’ person along the lines of how stupid and incompetent looking it is to do that.
I think Shire-man’s point was that a mall security guard is likely to be poorly equipped with cheapy Wal-Mart grade gear, not that he would be a security guard in a Wal-Mart store.
When is it o k for an individual to restrict or remove an inalienable right of another ?
When the person is the property owner of private property. Might not be OK to those affected but private property owners have their rights as property owners too and they can infringe yours legally and constitutionally (they are not ‘government’) while you are on their property.
Malls will roll back their “no guns” policies in the reign of Queen D1ck.
Mall operators and store owners have an investment in stupidity. They will never abandon it. Do you really think that Simon Property Group or Macy’s really cares whether we live or die? I don’t.
awkward phraseology. do you care or not?
I never paid much attention to anything that isn’t prohibited that isn’t prohibited in the Ten Commandments. Regardless of your religion, or lack thereof, it’s a pretty good guide to live by.
“I never paid much attention to anything that isn’t prohibited that isn’t prohibited in the Ten Commandments“
Interesting, so you never paid much attention to child sex abuse, slavery, incest, spousal abuse, genocide?
At best, the 10 Commandments are incomplete.
The Code of Hammurabi is a much more comprehensive guide for society there is hundreds of years older than the 10 Commandments.
the hammer of bob. helluva salesman.
” All Weapons Including Concealed Firearms Are Prohibited ”
I like that sign, sadly it prohibits me from entering those premises.
Has the human dropped so far down the evolutionary ladder that it has no weapons of its own?
. Beans, beans is the future.
No Possum, we’ve spoken of this before. Beans, bullets and bullion. In that order. Although, depending on the circumstances, any of the three could weigh equally on the scale.
Beans, bullets, bullion, ball bearings.
You need the ball bearings for the slingshot after you run out of ammo.
and is that chicken or beef?
Apparently his attorney released a statement clarifying that he did actually have a permit.
https://twitter.com/guyrelford/status/1550157731998441476
Mr Dicken saved lives and many are concerned about a LTCH. This just does not make sense, certainly not good sense.
Permit or not.. him being in the right place at the right time armed doung the same thing would have had the same effect as it did.
Exactly! I could care less how many laws Eli broke to achieve the result that he achieved. But I know he didn’t break any laws.
Since I never go to Malls and neither do my family members. I could care less about them being Helpless Victim Zones. The more the Merrier. That way the Shooters will leave the rest of the businesses that allow customers to carry alone.
I have a interesting problem which isn’t a problem, sort of. Depending on which door of the local mall you walk into, you don’t always pass a ‘non gun’ sign. In fact, the doors leading directly into stores are not posted and the last time I was there, only the doors leading into the food court were posted. To compound this issue, the State has a law which states the size of the sign and that it must be in plain view. The sign is easy to see but is not of the correct size. Add one more issue, this is an Open Carry state and a Constitutional Carry state. However, the mall’s restrooms do have a sign posted nearby that states no firearms. So, I still carry concealed and don’t use the restrooms or food court doors.
I ran into similar situations at a popular Burger shop and a high-class burger/sports restaurant. The burger-shop has the signage on the door, but not of the legal size and the high-class place had a sign on the wall of the incorrect size and not anywhere near an entrance. The Burger shop said they knew the sign was not as required by law, but they hoped it would be honored anyway (and they were providing no extra security except the sign). The high-class place said the sign was there in case customers complained about someone wearing a firearm so they could point it out and ask them to take the firearm out to their car. It is like these places are trying to straddle the fence on the issue. Open to the pro-gun people unless someone complains.
I don’t know if anyone else has seen these issues.
I have seen the same thing at a local mall I used to go in through one of the businesses that wasn’t posted now I just don’t care.
“…you don’t always pass a ‘non gun’ sign.”
I’ve seen this also, and I think you are correct. These merchants are more interested in making a sale than making a statement, which is something I generally approve of. However, wanting to please everybody can be problematic–riding the fence can give a man a mighty sore crotch.
What was he carrying?
Are you referring to Elisjsha Dicken? If so Glock 19
Is that fact or is that what you read in the news?
Usually that is two very different things.
Especially if its a gun that fits in your hand the press will call it a Glock.
It was in the news, said by police.
In Nebraska, No Guns signs have legal force. Carrying past one is equivalent to carrying without the permit required by state law. There is an outlet mall between Omaha and Lincoln. After rebuilding the place, management announced that it would be posting No Guns signs. Many holders of concealed carry permits contacted them to remind them that they were making unwelcome the potential customers who were least likely to create problems. The signs never went up.
I ran into the local small town hardware store a couple days ago to get a few supplies. Since I was in a bit of a hurry, I didn’t switch out from the gunbelt and revolver I wear around the homestead for my CC weapon. The store has a sign prohibiting weapons on the door.
I walked in, greeted the store owner and asked him about what I needed. I know full well he had to have seen my revolver and he didn’t say a word. Of course, I have been doing business with him for years and he knows me well enough.
On the rare occasion I do business down in what passes for a shopping mall in the area, while weapons are prohibited, likely for insurance reasons, I do whatever business I need to while still carrying my CC weapon. Sort of the reason for carrying concealed. Out of sight, out of mind.
I’ve been known to walk into the local bank armed, as well as the local post office.
Yes, if asked to remove myself, or weapon, I will honor the request. But, until directly asked, I will basically ignore the signs. Been doing so for decades and have yet to be asked to leave. Never been issued a trespass warning, or ticket either.
What others don’t know does not hurt them, but when people like Mr Dickens are nearby it could save your life.
I occasionally make the trek to the local mall with my daughter. Yes it is one of those huge Simon ones with the no firearms sign, no I don’t disarm myself before we go in. Fortunately those signs mean exactly squat here in Georgia.
Any state that allows a commercial entity to forbid carry should specify that by doing so the business accepts full financial responsibility for anyone injured by any third party. Stick that in your 30.06…
Rusty,
Now THAT, I agree with – having legislation to that effect seems entirely reasonable. But just blatantly IGNORING the rules, because you don’t like them, and violating them isn’t a crime???
OK, whatever.
The signs are because of lawyers, if someone is shot and no sign, the family will sue. Even though it was a mass shooting, some snake son of a bitch lawyer will say they are liable because there’s no sign.
Ordinary citizen concealed carry holders are cheaper than paying armed security which so far has only been 3% (police are 7% effective) effective at stopping active shooters. Ordinary citizen concealed carriers have been 94% effective.
Overall when police and security do it, they are more primarily concerned about them…overall when ordinary citizens concealed carriers do it their concern is primarily the lives they are trying to save.
Ordinary armed citizens are more likely to be in a position, being among the targets zone, to engage an active shooter first and more definitively when the shooter exposed their self. Whereas armed security is usually elsewhere and not in the ‘crowd of targets’ the active shooter chooses. Police are usually not on scene until after the shooting starts.
Thus so far, overall, the least amount of injury and death happens when the shooter is engaged by an ordinary armed citizen as soon as the shooter exposes their self which stops the shooter from establishing the kill zone dominance they gain in situations where only armed security and police respond.
Thus tbe reason why ordinary armed citizens are 94% effective at stopping active shooters and armed security is 3% effective and police are 7% effective.
Wouldn’t it be easier to put turnstiles at the entrances that monitored this, so that no armed bastard could enter and make a riot? Or is this initiative better? I don’t understand, please explain to me.
What in the name of all things fair and just are you blathering about?
That means armed security at every entrance, checking every single person. Malls would have to cut down on the number of entrances pretty dramatically, as long as it meets fire code. I imagine the vast majority of malls wouldn’t be willing to do it. It isn’t just the expense. They would worry about losing customers over the inconvenience as well as frightening some away.
The only mall that I seldom visit (wifey goes to Victory Secret 😉) has a Field & Stream store. The mall doors are all posted ‘no guns’ but the F&S is not so I always enter at the F&S and carry while in the rest of the mall. That is the only reason why you’ll see me in a Field & Stream and I sure don’t purchase or even look at anything there.
Smart move on both counts. Or maybe all three…
Our nearby mall recently died a slow and agonizing death and was buried in a pile of rubble. I rarely shopped there so I’m not sad. At least they left the beloved Costco alone. Do stores have weapon detection devices at the entrance? I get paranoid thinking they’re watching me as I shop while cc. I would be devastated to be banned from Costco if they confronted me.
@motomike
“I would be devastated to be banned from Costco if they confronted me.”
Well, if they confront you? what do you mean by ‘confront’? You mean they walk up and lift up your shirt to discover the gun? (which by the way is a type of assault or at a minimum an invasion of privacy and also may be construed as a type of sexual assault if you are of the opposite gender – which is why its not a recommend practice). Its doubtful they will know if you don’t do anything to advertise it and are concealed properly. Do they have metal detectors at the doors?
The thing about Costco is you basically ‘contractually’ agreed to follow their ‘no firearms’ policy when you signed up for membership. According to Costco policy…
“By obtaining a Costco membership card, our members agree to comply with the Membership Rules and the Privileges and Conditions of membership.”
and part of “the Membership Rules and the Privileges and Conditions of membership” is…
“Costco does not believe that it is necessary for firearms to be brought into its warehouse stores, except in the case of authorized law enforcement officers. For the protection of all our members and employees, we feel this is a reasonable and prudent precaution to ensure a pleasant shopping experience and safe workplace. Our policy is meant to protect our members and employees in all warehouses around the world. This is not a new policy and we do not customize the policy for each individual city/county/state/country where we do business.”
Then start going to Sams Club. Its owned by Wal Mart and the Wal Mart corporate policy is that you can’t open carry but they do not forbid concealed carry. Sure, some of the wal mart or sams club stores in some areas may put up a ‘no guns’ sign but the most they can do is ask you to leave if you conceal carry and get ‘caught’ but generally they do not call the cops if you just leave, but if you go in open carry they may ask you to leave and call the cops even though you left.
But there are some caveats – for example in New York it means ‘no’ period and its a felony charge if the store calls the cops. In some states the signs may or may not have the force of law behind them.
“…of the opposite gender…”
Real question. Is that even a possibility any more? Yeah, I know, we already have a big can of worms here, why open another?
One lucky, extremely lucky striike is no excuse for anything What about all those misses and NON-INTERVENTIONS that are NOT reported. What would have happened if this guy had bloody well missed and killed twom or three innocent bystanders? I saw somewhere that he hit the perp EIGHT TIMES out of TEN SHOTS at 40 yards. What a load of bloody nonsense and what happened to the two shots that missed> Nobody not even THE best pros out there would hit 8 out bof 10 at 40 yards and I’ve seen the best of the best the SAS at work because I use to run 25 and 50 metre ranges for them at ROYAL AIR FORCE CREDENHILL for them.
Use a bit of logic and critical thinking. If the perp had been hit by TWO shots he’d be down or taking cover and the cover he’d take is those persons around him. Have you any idea as to,how difficult it is to take down this kind of perp without causing collateral -even by well prepared professionals let alone the LUCKY amateur The guy has been made National Hero but what about all those incidents where there must have been statistically at least one or two armed individuals within 40 bloody yards of most Mass shootings ? Why are you not labelling THEM as cowards?
The fact it that the vast majority of American Gun owners would not have the slightest clue as to what action to take in ANY real life situation. And even with pros it’s not a given After all it takes anything upp to SIX months to train a recruit member in the Armed Service to achieve the nessessary reflex action to kill.
As an ex Sergeant smallarms Instructor in the UK Royal Air Force of, though I say it myself, some distinction and as a member of the UK Army Infantry Reserves, to takes a life is no easy matter and is a world away from anything you can practice.
Nobody believes your bs, dacian.
Albert, I find your post a little hard to follow so forgive me if I get this wrong, but are you saying that you have seen HM22nd SAS fail to go 8/10 or 10/10 rounds on target at 40 yards with a handgun from concealment?
huh?
@Albert
You are delusional again, no making a lick of sense by ignoring reality … take your med’s, drink more water, and add a little more fiber to your diet.
Any thinking person would know that the bad guys don’t follow the rules and the good guys do. So having Drug and Gun Free zones has always been a joke. You can make all the rules you want and the people who are not going to obey them will not. So, you reduce the number of good guys who might want to carry a firearm into a mall for both self-protection and the protection of others. Despite what people claim there are incidents every day where a good guy with a gun takes down a bad guy with a gun. The Left doesn’t give a hoot about safety as their main issues are control and power and taking your rights away from you, so you become a robot simply there to listen to their commands and do what they tell you. It’s just that simple folks.
Yup. bad guys with guns prefer gun free zones. Maybe if they had metal detectors at every door and people did not prop emergency exits (like Uvalde) then maybe we would be safe in these areas. In the meantime, good guys with guns are needed because the police is not everywhere.
One of the things I find odd about Colorado, for how blue it is, is how we don’t have GFZs for the most part.
In Colorado the only way to have a GFZ requires security with magnetometers at each entrance. No one pays for it. Some people put up signs but you’re free to ignore it. If you get caught the worst they can do is ask you to leave. Now, if you refuse you can be charged with trespassing but if you manage to detect my gun and ask me to leave over it I’m not real hot to give you any currency anyway, so WGAF?
Actually, what you describe in Colorado, is the reality in most states. Only the most rabidly anti-gun states back up private “No Guns” signs with any legal penalties. In nearly all cases (including Indiana where at least two ordinary citizens were carrying concealed inside the Greenwood Mall when the shooter started firing) state laws allow property owners to post No Guns signs, but those signs do not have the force of law. Instead all the property owner or manager can do is tell you to leave if they realize you are carrying against their policy; if you leave when asked, that is all that happens (a very few properties may go to the bother of telling you that you are permanently banned from the property). The only legal issue comes if you refuse to leave, in which case the police will be called and will charge you with criminal trespass (which will usually also result in the property giving you legal permanent ban).
Of course, if you are carrying concealed there is no reason why anyone should know you are carrying at all unless a defensive situation happens to arise. The usual problem comes with either idiots open carrying or fools who think they are carrying concealed but aren’t really concealed. If you are carrying in a mall or other public place and your gun is visible, there will usually be some Karen to see it and either call the police about a “man with a gun” or go running to find a manager, or occasionally do something really stupid.
I’m speaking specifically about the fact that Colorado is so blue at this point.
It’s just interesting the gun laws that the antis want to push but what they then still ignore. You’d think that Boulder, for example, would want enforceable GFZs but the topic never comes up even in that city.
There is ONE thing that will start Mall owner companies moving away from pretending their malls are gun free zones. They have to find that the potential liability cost of posting a No Weapons sign exceeds the potential liability cost of not posting their property.
I hate to say that we need to be ready to take advantage of the next tragedy, but that is exactly the strategy that has worked so well for the other side and we need to start thinking about our strategy.
How many remember the story of Luby’s Cafeteria back in 1991? How many remember Suzanna Hupp? If you have a CCW permit in your wallet there is a very good chance that you owe thanks to Suzanna Hupp!
Now that ‘Shall Issue’ is the national standard, and ‘constitutional carry’ has been adopted in 26 states, it is time for the next Suzanna Hupp to go after those so-called Gun Free Zones that we all know are really just designated shooting galleries.
Elisjsha Dicken may change a few minds, but the truth is that he won’t have the impact we need. Mall owners aren’t interested in politics — there is only one thing the mall owners care about and that is m-o-n-e-y. Right now mall owners don’t post No Guns signs because they believe in civilian disarmament — they post those signs because the Loss Prevention “experts” and their insurance companies, tell them that it is too much of a liability risk if someone carrying a gun has an negligent discharge (incorrectly called an accident) or tries the Dicken Drill but hits a bystander.
I am very sorry to say it, but what we need is some poor schmuck who is carrying legally but leaves his gun in the car because the mall has a “No Guns” sign, then he or someone with him gets shot by the next crazy mall shooter. And, yes, it needs to happen in a pro-Gun state, where our poor dumb schmuck will then sue the mall for failing to protect the people it disarmed.
A few states have considered laws that would specifically make property owners responsible for protecting people if the property owner prevents them from protecting themselves. Tennessee tried to pass such a law in 2016, but the final version that actually did pass did not specifically make property owners responsible if they prohibit guns, but instead granted them immunity against any claim that the property should have posted the useless No Gun signs. That was a small step in the right direction, but at VERY small step.
I suspect that more and more people are just simply going to start carrying firearms in general period. Regardless of signage.
As for mall owners:
These people (like many other large company owners) might be more concerned with money (as you suggest) but there IS a movement within this segment of society to align with government. Just as we see with companies like Dick’s, we will see anti-American mall owners who are more motivated by banks, credit card companies, and international interests. When you look at ANY average shopping mall anywhere in this country, what percentage of ALL that merchandise within the various shops and stores got shipped in from some other country (like China)?
You raise a good point. Victims need to start suing for property owners failing to guarantee their safety. Kind of the reverse of victims suing gun manufacturers.
Gun free zones will always exist. The Left wants them, it furthers their agenda. Criminals are welcome, law abiding citizens are not. Just look at the negative reaction the hero received for stopping the shooter. I’m truly surprised the hero hasn’t been charged.
NY’s new gun laws restrict weapons in businesses, but some owners welcome them. Here’s why
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ny-s-new-gun-laws-restrict-weapons-in-businesses-but-some-owners-welcome-them-here-s-why/ar-AA103DL1
“Waldman, the head of the New York State Jewish Gun Club, has been handing out posters to businesses in the lower Hudson Valley, which alert customers that it’s OK to bring a concealed weapon into the store.
They read: ‘Concealed Carry is Welcome Here. Thank you for keeping our children safe. May Hashem continue to watch over us.’
…
The way Waldman sees it, armed self-defense is how all cultures – not just Jews − who flee oppression can take a stand to prevent the sort of tyranny they encountered in their homeland. And it’s an essential right amid a wave of mass shootings at synagogues, schools, a shopping mall and a Buffalo supermarket that have highlighted the vulnerabilities of private citizens.
…
‘Better than an ADT sticker’
Lucas McLaughlin, who owns a diner in Cobleskill, Schoharie County, was in Ace Hardware a few weeks back when he spotted a sticker that welcomes customers with concealed carry permits.
He put it on the door to the diner and was stunned by the response. People have been sending him messages saying they were going to travel a long distance to show their support.
‘In all honesty it had nothing to do with or against the governor,’ McLaughlin said. ‘The timing just happened to be perfect.’
He worried that families would hesitate to bring their children in because they’d fear everyone inside had a handgun.
But that hasn’t happened. The diner west of Albany has been in his family for three generations and is some 45 minutes from Conklin, the hometown of the man accused of killing 10 people in a racially-motivated attack at a Buffalo supermarket in May.
‘I slapped it on there and people were saying ‘Hey I’m really glad you put that there because of all the craziness,’ McLaughlin said.
…
The diner has been broken into three times in the middle of the night.
I feel like if customers are allowed to carry their own protection, if God forbid someone were to walk in here and try doing something, we wouldn’t just have a bunch of hands up in the air,” he said. I feel like (the sign) is better than an ADT sticker.’
…
Waldman’s group arranges training for those who want to protect themselves in their home or business, as well as those who want to work as security guard in synagogues.
‘The minute (attackers) know somebody’s gonna shoot back at them and hurt them, they’re not going to do it,’ Waldman said. ‘The only reason that they’re running rampant is because no one stands up to them. The minute they know they will be met with equal force they won’t do it and it’s simple as that. Most of these criminals that shoot up these schools they are cowards, they are weak-minded individuals. The minute they see a gun they drop it and run out.’
…
Store owner who shot thief not a fan
Not all private business owners are on board with the ability to opt-out of the new law’s restrictions.
‘I’m pro gun, don’t get me wrong,’ said Barry Fixler, the owner of Barry’s Estate Jewelry in Bardonia, Rockland County. ‘But if every person carried a gun and somebody lost their temper, they’re gonna shoot each other.’
In 2005, Fixler shot one of two men who came into his Route 304 store on Valentine’s Day pretending to be buying an engagement ring. ‘Don’t Move,” one of the men said. ‘I’ll ….. kill you!’
Fixler, who served as a Marine during Vietnam, slapped away the gun that was in his face and grabbed for a .38-caliber handgun he kept behind the counter. The 18-year-old he shot was paralyzed when the bullet struck his spinal cord.”
“But if every person carried a gun and somebody lost their temper, they’re gonna shoot each other.” >>>> well, overall statistically and in reality that’s not really true but sometimes there are those individuals just like there are road rage drivers or ‘mass shooters’ or rapists or ‘domestic relationship violent abusers’ etc… people who carry guns are not some type of super being from a galaxy far far away with powers beyond that of others. Human nature is what it is, but overall law abiding gun owners/carriers are better disciplined, more responsible, and more law abiding than the vast majority of non-gun owning/carrying law abiding and not law abiding humans.
OK, some clarification on Dicken and the permit:
Dicken did have a permit, and Indiana law required a concealed carry permit holder to carry the permit if they are carrying concealed. But, that law was enacted before ‘permitless carry’ constitutional carry was enacted in the state. The day Eli stopped the active shooter he was not carrying his permit even though he had one, but was able to legally carry under the states ‘permitless carry’ constitutional carry so thank goodness for ‘constitutional carry’ for without it Eli would not have been able to be legally carrying at the time and possibly been inclined to leave his weapon home or in the car for the trip to the mall but if even not so inclined then at least he was acting legally and thus not going to be arrested on a firearms charge.
The mall prohibition was their prohibition, it does not have the force of law behind it in Indianna.
Eli Dicken did not break any laws and he did not act illegally.
It would be a travesty of justice for the law to persecute a person for saving lives, for doing the very thing anti-gun claims to want yet they still try to persecute Eli in social media and in the news.
Let’s see, hurt the mall owners feeelz by ignoring their “No Guns Allowed” sign and save numerous lives including your own OR cave to the unreasonable whims of some corporation and let people die needlessly? Kid in Indiana made the right choice.
Any policy changes of this nature will be dictated by insurance companies, unless overruled by legislation.
They’re too busy going out of business to do this.
The retail business that denies me the ability to defend myself should become responsible for defending me, with liability for failing.
Comments are closed.