Carrying Concealed in Malls

[Bikenut]

You're not rewarding anyone for just doing business with them. You reward them if you do business with them because they have a sign in the window.

Actually, it's overtly hypocritical. And, I'm ok with that.

See, as Americans we make a lot of decisions everyday. And, we have a lot of choices when we make those decisions. Some, will necessarily, run afoul of each other or seem hypocritical. That's just something we have to deal with.

In this particular case, I struggle with my decision to arm myself in the mall. Because, the operators of the mall do have their property rights and they do have the right to exclude whomever or whatever they want (or, do they?). But, they also have an obligation to protect me when I enter their facility. I balance their right to exclude vs. their ability to protect me. If I find their ability to protect me wanting, I may carry or I may decide not to shop there. My choice. I find that Amazon's Prime Membership does wonders for satisfying my instant gratification gene. But, occasionally, I go to the mall...and I do carry. Hypocritical? Yes.

Incorrect. If you spend money in a place that bans your guns you are rewarding them for banning your guns by spending money there. You are supporting their gun ban with your money. The only way not to reward them would be to NOT spend your money there.

No one has the duty to protect you other than you. It is a false idea that when someone bans your ability to carry a gun they automatically assume the responsibility to protect you when the reality is..... if you want to be able to be protect yourself then don't go where you don't have the ability to protect yourself. All that is necessary to retain your ability to protect yourself is to go to the store down the street where guns aren't banned. NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO SHOP AT ANY STORE/BUSINESS! "Open to the public" is the property owners invitation for you to come in and conduct business according to any and all rules/policies the owner has in place. "Open to the public" does NOT give you any right to be in/on the property... none at all.

But if you do go into/onto that property it is YOU who chooses to go into that store/business and by choosing to go into a store/business that bans guns it is YOU who chooses to obey any gun ban rules/policies and not be able to protect yourself... or who chooses to be a hypocrite and disobey those rules/policies and sneak the gun in anyway.. and reward the gun banner for banning guns by giving him your money.

Now... about being hypocritical... as weird as it may seem... I respect you for being honest enough to admit you are being hypocritical by sneaking a gun into/onto private property where the property owner has banned guns.. and I guess if you are comfortable with being a hypocrite then ... well .... but I personally think it is terrible that there are gun owners who frequent gun rights support forums yet are not only hypocritical enough to disrespect the private property rights of property owners but express that hypocrisy as if it is an Ok thing to do.

Aren't all rights equally deserving of respect? Especially if we want our favorite right respected.. shouldn't we respect the rights of others?

 

[Geosan1030]

Incorrect. If you spend money in a place that bans your guns you are rewarding them for banning your guns by spending money there. You are supporting their gun ban with your money. The only way not to reward them would be to NOT spend your money there.

No one has the duty to protect you other than you. It is a false idea that when someone bans your ability to carry a gun they automatically assume the responsibility to protect you when the reality is..... if you want to be able to be protect yourself then don't go where you don't have the ability to protect yourself. All that is necessary to retain your ability to protect yourself is to go to the store down the street where guns aren't banned. NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO SHOP AT ANY STORE/BUSINESS! "Open to the public" is the property owners invitation for you to come in and conduct business according to any and all rules/policies the owner has in place. "Open to the public" does NOT give you any right to be in/on the property... none at all.

But if you do go into/onto that property it is YOU who chooses to go into that store/business and by choosing to go into a store/business that bans guns it is YOU who chooses to obey any gun ban rules/policies and not be able to protect yourself... or who chooses to be a hypocrite and disobey those rules/policies and sneak the gun in anyway.. and reward the gun banner for banning guns by giving him your money.

Now... about being hypocritical... as weird as it may seem... I respect you for being honest enough to admit you are being hypocritical by sneaking a gun into/onto private property where the property owner has banned guns.. and I guess if you are comfortable with being a hypocrite then ... well .... but I personally think it is terrible that there are gun owners who frequent gun rights support forums yet are not only hypocritical enough to disrespect the private property rights of property owners but express that hypocrisy as if it is an Ok thing to do.

Aren't all rights equally deserving of respect? Especially if we want our favorite right respected.. shouldn't we respect the rights of others?

Do you go to the movies? If so, you support one of the biggest anti-Second Amendment movements. How about TV? Same thing. Do you frequent any of the arts? Schools? Are your kids in school? Then chances are those teachers and administrators, at a minimum, don't share your views...at the other extreme, they actively work to subvert your views.

And, you are correct, my safety is my responsibility which is why I choose to carry in those establishments.

As for being hypocritical and all rights deserving respect:

I'll assume that you, as most gun owners, are a law-abiding citizen and have the utmost respect for the law. Do you speed? When you speed you are disrespecting the rights of others on that roadway.

There's an old saying that my rights end where your rights begin. But, that's not really true, us it? Sometimes our rights overlap. Like I said, I struggle with the decision, and I revisit it, occasionally. I may be wrong. I may be right. But, I'm making the decision and take full responsibility for it.

 

[Bikenut]

Do you go to the movies? If so, you support one of the biggest anti-Second Amendment movements. How about TV? Same thing. Do you frequent any of the arts? Schools? Are your kids in school? Then chances are those teachers and administrators, at a minimum, don't share your views...at the other extreme, they actively work to subvert your views.

And, you are correct, my safety is my responsibility which is why I choose to carry in those establishments.

As for being hypocritical and all rights deserving respect:

I'll assume that you, as most gun owners, are a law-abiding citizen and have the utmost respect for the law. Do you speed? When you speed you are disrespecting the rights of others on that roadway.

There's an old saying that my rights end where your rights begin. But, that's not really true, us it? Sometimes our rights overlap. Like I said, I struggle with the decision, and I revisit it, occasionally. I may be wrong. I may be right. But, I'm making the decision and take full responsibility for it.

Are you taking full responsibility? Or are you trying to justify your actions with rationalizations? The thing is... do you respect the private property rights of others or not?

 

[Geosan1030]

I do take full responsibility and I do respect property rights. That's why I struggle with the decision that I made. I assure you, the decision did not come easily.

We are all imperfect; some more than others.

 

[crankyyankee]

Most places I go, I just keep my weapon concealed. Have to leave it in my car at work, but carry almost everywhere else. When I go to the post office, I park across the street and walk in unarmed. They consider even their parking lot federal--gun-free zone--property. Any retailer who won't let my gun in, doesn't want my business.

 

[bikerbill]

In Texas, we shop at a mall with very similar signage .. I always ignore it, since the state requires specific wording and size of letters, aptly named the 30.06 section of the law. If the mall is posted with one of those signs, it's a serious violation ... but with the mall's signs, it's basically trespassing if a mall official or security guard spots your gun, asks you to leave and you refuse. Since I carry my firearm concealed, I don't worry about somebody seeing it ... no harm, no foul ... but every state is different ... check your laws ...

 

[Bikenut]

In Texas, we shop at a mall with very similar signage .. I always ignore it, since the state requires specific wording and size of letters, aptly named the 30.06 section of the law. If the mall is posted with one of those signs, it's a serious violation ... but with the mall's signs, it's basically trespassing if a mall official or security guard spots your gun, asks you to leave and you refuse. Since I carry my firearm concealed, I don't worry about somebody seeing it ... no harm, no foul ... but every state is different ... check your laws ...

Just curious.... how would you answer the following questions?

-Why would anyone support a business that bans guns by spending money there? Why not spend your money at a business that doesn't ban guns instead of helping the gun banner make enough money to open yet another business and ban guns there too?

-Why would anyone expect their right to bear arms be respected when they are willing to disrespect the property owner's equally as valid right to ban the bearing of arms by sneaking in a concealed gun? Wouldn't that be a bit hypocritical?

 

[Geosan1030]

I would answer with a similar question: why would you spend any of your money with any establishment that doesn't hold the same views as you on any strongly held belief?

Also, remember, a mall is made up of many retailers. Some of those retailers are ok with firearms, others aren't. Will you punish a pro-Second Amendment (or some other cause) retailer because their landlord does not support that cause?

There's a locally owned coffee shop that put up a sign that basically said 'proudly gun free' soon after open-carry activists adopted Starbucks. Him, I won't do business with and he knows the reason why. My closest Ford dealer has a no firearms sign, I have my car serviced at another one when the need arises. But, a mall? Made up of dozens, maybe hundreds, retailers?

Again, I agree, there us a level of hypocrisy. Do you have kids? There is a strong possibility that you practice hypocrisy on some level.

We all make our decisions out of self-interest. Decisions made are a balance between beliefs (morals?), wants, needs and perceived needs. My belief in Second Amendment rights and private property rights are strongly held beliefs that are in conflict with each other.

I suspect that the vast majority of folks on the forum respect the law, yet the statistics say that an even larger majority speed (break the law). A strong majority here have a healthy respect for the environment, but I bet everybody of age here gets into a car, almost everyday, and pollutes.

Again, it's all a balance. Sometimes, the decision we make leaves a bad taste in the mouth, usually it doesn't.

Justification through rationalization? Maybe. But, we all do it everyday. It's just that some decisions are easier to justify than others.

 

[Bikenut]

Edited to add:

Conversing via the internet can easily lead to misunderstandings. So to Geosan... nothing I have posted below has any personal intent. We are discussing the principle.. not any personalities.

I would answer with a similar question: why would you spend any of your money with any establishment that doesn't hold the same views as you on any strongly held belief?Yes indeed... why would you? Is this argument yet another attempt at rationalizing that it is Ok to sneak in a gun against the property owner's wishes?

Also, remember, a mall is made up of many retailers. Some of those retailers are ok with firearms, others aren't. Will you punish a pro-Second Amendment (or some other cause) retailer because their landlord does not support that cause?

The retailer chose to open his business in a mall he knew the landlord banned guns so any retailer who did that wouldn't really be pro-second Amendment... would he? Is this argument yet another attempt at rationalizing that it is Ok to sneak in a gun against the property owner's wishes?

There's a locally owned coffee shop that put up a sign that basically said 'proudly gun free' soon after open-carry activists adopted Starbucks. Him, I won't do business with and he knows the reason why. My closest Ford dealer has a no firearms sign, I have my car serviced at another one when the need arises. But, a mall? Made up of dozens, maybe hundreds, retailers?

Yes, a mall. Made up of dozens or hundreds of retailers who made the choice to do business where the the right to bear arms has been banned. Is this argument yet another attempt at rationalizing that it is Ok to sneak in a gun against the property owner's wishes?

Again, I agree, there us a level of hypocrisy. Do you have kids? There is a strong possibility that you practice hypocrisy on some level.

Bit of an attempt at misdirection there huh? What has whether or not I practice any hypocrisy got to do with the decisions of others? Is this argument yet another attempt at rationalizing that it is Ok to sneak in a gun against the property owner's wishes?

We all make our decisions out of self-interest.

Do we ALL make our decisions out of self interest? Is this argument yet another attempt at rationalizing that it is Ok to sneak in a gun against the property owner's wishes?

Decisions made are a balance between beliefs (morals?), wants, needs and perceived needs. My belief in Second Amendment rights and private property rights are strongly held beliefs that are in conflict with each other.

Interesting. My very strongly held beliefs in the right to keep and bear arms and private property rights are not in conflict with each other since I respect both. And I don't shop where guns are banned no matter how many retailers there are or how convenient it might be... so both of my beliefs are respected. Is this argument yet another attempt at rationalizing that it is Ok to sneak in a gun against the property owner's wishes?

I suspect that the vast majority of folks on the forum respect the law, yet the statistics say that an even larger majority speed (break the law). A strong majority here have a healthy respect for the environment, but I bet everybody of age here gets into a car, almost everyday, and pollutes.

And this has what to do with respecting private property rights? Is this argument yet another attempt at rationalizing that it is Ok to sneak in a gun against the property owner's wishes?

Again, it's all a balance. Sometimes, the decision we make leaves a bad taste in the mouth, usually it doesn't.

Perhaps the decisions some folks make leave a bad taste in the mouth because perhaps they are willing to compromise their beliefs in the name of convenience of shopping? Is this argument yet another attempt at rationalizing that it is Ok to sneak in a gun against the property owner's wishes?

Justification through rationalization? Maybe. But, we all do it everyday. It's just that some decisions are easier to justify than others.

Part of my reply is contained within the body of your quoted post in blue

So if "we all do it" that makes it somehow justifiable? Is this argument yet another attempt at rationalizing that it is Ok to sneak in a gun against the property owner's wishes?

It is difficult to live a life actually living beliefs. Yet it is quite another thing to try to fool one's self by using rationalizations that because (pick any reasons that seem justifiable) it's Ok to not live up to the beliefs held.

Bottom line is quite simple... either private property rights are respected... or they are not. If they are not because some reason can be found to justify not respecting them then.... the belief in respecting private property rights really isn't a very strong belief.

Again edited to add:

Perhaps I've been missing the crux of your argument? Are you saying that "everyone" being a hypocrite in some way at some time concerning some thing justifies the decision to be a hypocrite about private property rights?

 

[telpinaro]

Bikenut: Business being what it is today, pro-gun business owners may have no choice but to open where they can afford to, which might be in an anti-gun mall. In that case, maybe we can find a branch in a different location? Otherwise maybe go in conjunction with a post office visit or a trip on a military base...

I'm with you, though... I respect private property rights. I actually haven't run in to any posted "no gun" signs yet, but then, even before I carried I avoided places that were liberal and likely to have those signs. Big cities have always made me nervous... I feel claustrophobic with all that cement and buildings and walls!

 

[watchnut]

I'm from Michigan and a new CPL holder. I noticed that Laurel Park mall in Livonia, MI has a tiny code of conduct sign posted just inside the doors of the mall. Rule #20 is: Carrying or displaying weapons of any kind except those carried by certified law enforcement officers in the performance of their duties.

I actually found the list on their site: Link Removed

My question is can I still carry concealed at this mall? I think I should be able to. I'm not displaying my pistol, although I am "carrying" it. There's this thing called the 2nd amendment that should supersede the mall's code of conduct, plus I have a CPL. Any thoughts on this?

AC

I also live in SE Michigan. Have you considered joining the Michigan Coalition of Responsible Gun Owners? Here is there website. MCRGO - Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners Membership is free but you can get a lot of good info such as places that do not allow guns ("places to avoid" in the left hand column). It is updated frequently.

 

[ezkl2230]

I'm from Michigan and a new CPL holder. I noticed that Laurel Park mall in Livonia, MI has a tiny code of conduct sign posted just inside the doors of the mall. Rule #20 is: Carrying or displaying weapons of any kind except those carried by certified law enforcement officers in the performance of their duties.

I actually found the list on their site: Link Removed

My question is can I still carry concealed at this mall? I think I should be able to. I'm not displaying my pistol, although I am "carrying" it. There's this thing called the 2nd amendment that should supersede the mall's code of conduct, plus I have a CPL. Any thoughts on this?

AC

Under MI law, the owner of the private property has the right to enforce their own firearms property. Malls are considered to be private property in Michigan, therefore, they can dictate if they want you to carry on their property. If you choose to do so regardless of the signage and they find out, they can ask you to leave and secure your firearm in your vehicle in the parking lot. If you refuse, or if you return to the mall still carrying your firearm, you can be charged with misdemeanor trespassing.

I have had some rather heated discussions with a couple of people on the forum about this, but until we can get Michigan law to recognize that businesses are not private property in the same way as one's home, that is the law. Private property rights supersede carry rights.

Woodland Mall in Grand Rapids has a sign prohibiting weapons of all sorts, but Rivertown Crossing in Grandville allows CC.

 

[mojoman]

I guess I don't understand the perspective of sneaking a concealed gun into a business where the property owner has exercised his valid right to ban guns.

I asked these questions before but I'll ask them again.........

-Why would anyone support a business that bans guns by spending money there? Why not spend your money at a business that doesn't ban guns instead of helping the gun banner make enough money to open yet another business and ban guns there too?

-Why would anyone expect their right to bear arms be respected when they are willing to disrespect the property owner's equally as valid right to ban the bearing of arms by sneaking in a concealed gun? Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

Well, because I haven't seen any of those sign at the mall I go to nowhere.

 

[Geosan1030]

I agree, it's hard to get the inflection and tone while conversing in an Internet forum. I'm at an additional disadvantage in that I'm using Tapatalk on an iPad.

Bikenut: I take no personal affront to anything you've written. I find this a very interesting and enlightening discussion. It's also provided some insight into my thought process and others'.

I find it interesting that you use the word 'sneak' all the time. As CCDW holders and people who exercise our rights using aren't we 'sneaking' a gun whenever we conceal one?

I'm not going to respond to each of your points because it is cumbersome on the Tapatalk iPad platform.

Decisions are made from self-interest. So yes, I've decided that I will do business with a retailer who has a store in a mall that bans firearms. That retailer made a business decision from self-interest to do business there. If you choose to punish him for making, what to him, is a rational business decision, that's up to you.

I choose to bring a concealed firearm into the mall (or movie theatre) because, through my decision making process, I've decided that it is in my best self-interest to do so.

You also use the word 'rationalize' a lot, like it's some kind of pejorative. It's not. Everyone rationalizes every decision they make. The rationale used or the decision making process may be flawed, but that us largely a subjective observation.

Good conversation and debate. I don't think we'll meet up in the middle somewhere, but understand that I respect your position and opinion.

 

[Bikenut]

I agree, it's hard to get the inflection and tone while conversing in an Internet forum. I'm at an additional disadvantage in that I'm using Tapatalk on an iPad.

Bikenut: I take no personal affront to anything you've written. I find this a very interesting and enlightening discussion. It's also provided some insight into my thought process and others'.

Thanks Geosan... and respecting your position and opinion is why I wanted to make sure there was an understanding that we are discussing principles.. not personalities. We don't have to agree on our positions or opinions... but we can discuss them without getting into "dis" ing or "cuss" ing.

About my using the word "sneak"... I use that in reference to "sneaking" the concealed gun in where it is known to be banned because the person doing the "sneaking" knows he is disrespecting the property owner's right to ban guns. The normal carrying of a concealed gun in places where guns are not banned isn't "sneaking"....

And I'd like to mention one very important thing..... extremely important.

I know folks refer to carrying a concealed gun with a carry permit as "the right to bear arms". But actually carrying a concealed gun with a concealed carry "permit" is NOT the right to bear arms. It really is having a "privilege" granted by the State to carry a concealed gun without suffering legal penalties. If it were the right to bear arms then no "permit" (a permit is "permission") would be needed nor would there be any penalties assessed for doing so. And if it were the actual right the State could not deny anyone the ability to carry a concealed gun. After all... when the State is in control of who is "allowed" to have permission... the State is also in control of who IS NOT "allowed" to have permission.

"Shall not be infringed" could also be written as "Shall not be controlled by the government being in charge of handing out permission slips."

Edited to add:

About the word "rationalize"... sometimes folks spell "rationalize" as..... "excuse".

 

[dogshawred]

I have been following this thread and felt the need to comment.
~
First off the malls in my area put their generic list of rules on the wall in the entry ways as guidelines for conduct on their property. Since Ohio is very specific about Gun Buster signage they do not qualify as legal notification of restriction.
Secondly only mall concourse entries are even posted with those types of signage, the anchor stores who have outside entrances to their floor space have absolutely no code of conduct signage posted..........so if they are claiming personal property rights why then is not all entrances marked accordingly even if those posted are posted incorrectly?
~
Those anchor store that I can enter without going through the mall concourse to me is eligible to receive my money everyone else be damned. I carry cards that explain my point regarding GFZs and will disarm to deliver a card to make my point.
~
Taking a stand on principle to me means doing it regularly not just as a convenience. I have stood by my principles all my life and have paid the consequences for doing so and have always been willing to accept the consequences of my actions. Doing so can be expensive emotionally as well as financially, doing so has cost me a marriage, jobs, arrests, at times my dignity. It all depends on just how deep your convictions run and what taking stand means to YOU.
~
Rationalize - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
~
ra·tio·nal·ize: to think about or describe something (such as bad behavior) in a way that explains it and makes it seem proper, more attractive, etc.
~
We can make excuses for what we do to make ourselves feel better, but if what we are doing is unlawful/illegal not matter what we say or think it is still unlawful/illegal. If you persist and get caught you will need to accept the consequences for your rationalized conduct. I hope you can feel good when that occurs.

 

[Geosan1030]

The point, dogshawred, is that it is not illegal. At least not here. A sign does not have the force of law.

I will not carry into a place where I am prohibited to carry by federal or state law.

 

[Bikenut]

Perhaps there is some confusion about signs "having the force of law". Some States have specific signs that carry the full weight of gun law while in other States a sign may not have any connection to any gun law but may still have the weight of trespass law behind it. Either way taking a gun into/onto that property would be illegal.

Please... let us make sure we understand the laws in our respective States and not confuse a sign that doesn't have any connection to a gun law as not having any weight of law behind it because it might still have the weight of the trespass laws.

Which basically could mean that the sign still has the "weight of law" behind it..... it just might be a different law that what is being thought.

And I worded that carefully because I am not up on all the laws of all the States... and although in Michigan a gun buster sign doesn't have any connection to any gun laws it could be upheld as sufficient notification for trespass in court. But it might not too if the sign is located in a less than conspicuous place. Like on the wall off to the side at only one entrance and it can be proven that entrance wasn't used. Thing is... it still could end up in court as a trespass charge. A bit of a gray area there.....

Edited to add:
I am NOT an attorney! The above is merely my understanding of how things work.

 

[Geosan1030]

Correct, it could end up as a trespass charge if I refuse to leave if asked to.

Further, I understand the charge may get bumped to a 'D' felony if a firearm is involved.

I guess the case can be made that I'm trespassing whether they ask me to leave or not, but I guess it would have to be proved that I knew the prohibition was in place. I'm not sure the local prosecutor would go after that on a law-abiding citizen.

Now, let me be clear...I will not perjure myself to get out of a problem. I take responsibility for my actions.

I think I'm going to ask a couple of my LEO buddies the question. Because, truth be known, it would definitely change the equation if I'm considered to be trespassing as soon as I go through the door.

And, for the record, there is no 'gun buster' sign posted (that I've seen). The prohibition is the last line of a small (10x15?) sign that lists acceptable behavior. It's a general 'no weapons' line and is only posted at the food court entrance. I've looked.

 

[Bikenut]

Correct, it could end up as a trespass charge if I refuse to leave if asked to.

Further, I understand the charge may get bumped to a 'D' felony if a firearm is involved.

I guess the case can be made that I'm trespassing whether they ask me to leave or not, but I guess it would have to be proved that I knew the prohibition was in place. I'm not sure the local prosecutor would go after that on a law-abiding citizen.

Now, let me be clear...I will not perjure myself to get out of a problem. I take responsibility for my actions.

I think I'm going to ask a couple of my LEO buddies the question. Because, truth be known, it would definitely change the equation if I'm considered to be trespassing as soon as I go through the door.

And, for the record, there is no 'gun buster' sign posted (that I've seen). The prohibition is the last line of a small (10x15?) sign that lists acceptable behavior. It's a general 'no weapons' line and is only posted at the food court entrance. I've looked.

Ok... again... I am NOT an attorney..

It would seem to me that if a person has prior knowledge of any "no guns" rule then going onto/into the property anyway would be intentionally trespassing..... because the person already KNEW guns were not allowed.