Got a call from Consumer Affairs...

[pullnshoot25]

Timothy McVeigh (sp) was a blonde homegrown terrorist if I recall correctly. Hair color also has nothing to do with someones intentions. I know your intentions in your eyes have nothing to do with anything illegal but other peoples perception of you in and outside your community may be different.

I think the terrorist he was referring to was of the Arabic Consititution.

This could prove an interesting case if I OC with either my Lebanese or Chaldean friend...

[N6ATF]

DCA/BSIS is notorious for not inspecting its licensees, from the PPOs (private patrol operators, owners of the security companies), down to the security guards. They take your money for licensing and do practically nothing to regulate your industry, from uniforms, to vehicles being made up to look like police cars, to all-around whackerism, to not making sure you requal on time, to letting baton permits get issued with no physical training requirement, etc...

I would almost bet $1,000 that a state agent will NOT come down from Sacto UOC without an exposed badge or giving their credentials to catch these guys in the act.

[Captain Evilstomper]

I sent these guys my blog post as evidence/story fodder and they refuse to check it out since it is a state computer and there is a scare of viruses.

i call total bullsh*t on this, the guy didn't check it out and then made up some excuse as to why he wasn't 'allowed' to do it. what the hell ever man.

[Steve O]

So originally what happened?

...from the complaint filed about my illegal detainment at NCF in Escondido. The guy was pulling the usual "why would you carry a gun?" and then trying to quote CCW law (incorrectly) and telling me that the guards acted upon reasonable doubt or some crap like that. I told him that they can be doubtful however much they want, they still don't have the power to detain unless it is under the Merchant Law and that is only about shoplifting. I said they didn't ask me to leave and instead held me against my will.

He seems to be murky on firearms law so I am sending the Sacramento PD memo and the CA Open Carry Flier to him to clarify a few things with his technical supervisors.

Freaking people, man...

[rue]

DCA is notorious for not inspecting its licensees, from the PPOs (private patrol operators, owners of the security companies), down to the security guards. They take your money for licensing and do practically nothing to regulate your industry, from uniforms, to vehicles being made up to look like police cars, to all-around whackerism, to not making sure you requal on time, to letting baton permits get issued with no physical training requirement, etc...

I would almost bet $1,000 that a state agent will NOT come down from Sacto UOC without an exposed badge or giving their credentials to catch these guys in the act.

Maybe security guards but they are notorious for inspecting auto techs with smog licenses. Maybe the money is better...

[pullnshoot25]

So originally what happened?

http://caopencarry.blogspot.com/2008/11/mall-alert-mall-alert.html

[pullnshoot25]

Got a call back from Consumer Affairs and the rep said that this case was beyond his jurisdiction since it is apparently MALL policy, not the security guard company's policy, to allow detainment. How this makes sense I have no freaking clue but he said that the security guards acted within reason and were just trying to keep their jobs. He said to go after the mall if I want results.

Am I missing anything here? Seriously, this is lame.

[sorensen440]

Got a call back from Consumer Affairs and the rep said that this case was beyond his jurisdiction since it is apparently MALL policy, not the security guard company's policy, to allow detainment. How this makes sense I have no freaking clue but he said that the security guards acted within reason and were just trying to keep their jobs. He said to go after the mall if I want results.

Am I missing anything here? Seriously, this is lame.

there just giving you the runaround

[Beelzy]

I believe they are going to try the private property ploy. Which BTW is very
effective. Not to ruin your day, but I'll bet nothing happens at all. Private
property is after all private.

You should ask to see this supposed Mall guideline paperwork. That may help.

[pullnshoot25]

I believe they are going to try the private property ploy. Which BTW is very
effective. Not to ruin your day, but I'll bet nothing happens at all. Private
property is after all private.

You should ask to see this supposed Mall guideline paperwork. That may help.

The only problem I see is this... the mall can say "detain him" but does that mean they are allowed to detain me? Kind of like if mall policy states "if you see a man with a gun, shoot him on sight"... does that make it legal for the security guards to do so? Every time I ask that question everyone says it is beyond their scope of knowledge but say that they can detain me, even if law dictates otherwise.

I highly doubt the mall will let me see their policies. Short of a lawsuit, I don't know what else can happen.

[Shane916]

Kind of like if mall policy states "if you see a man with a gun, shoot him on sight"... does that make it legal for the security guards to do so?

Not sure how you can compare detainment to shooting someone

[sorensen440]

Not sure how you can compare detainment to shooting someone

both are a violation of someones rights

[Theseus]

I am pretty positive that the detainment is extra legal.

And the private property argument can not hold up if you consider that if you entered my house I could not prevent you from leaving and claim private property. It is called kidnapping, unlawful detainer. . .

[bwiese]

You do not have RKBA on someone else's property if he doesn't want you to possess/bear weapons there.

The mall has a right to eject people for various reasons (other than race, color, age).

However, "eject" does not mean "detain". The suitable action for that situation is, "Mr. Pullnshoot, your gun makes us uncomfortable, we have to ask you to leave our premises immediately." If you don't comply, then issues arise - but the primary initial action should have been simple ejection (or tolerance).

[pullnshoot25]

You do not have RKBA on someone else's property if he doesn't want you to possess/bear weapons there.

The mall has a right to eject people for various reasons (other than race, color, age).

However, "eject" does not mean "detain". The suitable action for that situation is, "Mr. Pullnshoot, your gun makes us uncomfortable, we have to ask you to leave our premises immediately." If you don't comply, then issues arise - but the primary initial action should have been simple ejection (or tolerance).

That is what I told the representative over the phone! I don't understand what the problem is, there should AT LEAST be a fine on their license. I really don't know where all this "reasonable" stuff comes in since SGs are still not cops.

Any other courses of action that I could take?