Got a call from Consumer Affairs...

[GW]

Tim was past his breaking point.

Wow. Thats like saying Hannibal Lector was just hungry.

[masameet]

Blah blah blah ....

I take it you did not see this quote by our intrepid OP?

... The only place where I could find that says "no firearms" is at the concierge desk, at the other side of the mall on the first floor underneath scratched up plastic in size 10 font on the 3-4th item down out of a list of 10 ....

He was in the wrong. He admits it. I know it's kinda hard to take, but it's true.

[pullnshoot25]

I take it you did not see this quote by our intrepid OP?



He was in the wrong. He admits it. I know it's kinda hard to take, but it's true.

Did you not see the part where I was given the OK on a prior occasion via phone call AND that I only knew that the regulation was listed at the mall AFTER said incident occurred?

If the mall doesn't want people carrying certain objects then there should be clearly posted signs at all the entrances, not in small print at a single location at the far end of the mall.

[Arkalius]

I don't think that's an admission of guilt. Remember he also said he called the mall and asked if it was OK and he was given the green light. He had been there multiple times before this incident without trouble. There was no such regulation posted outside of the mall or anywhere clear enough to indicate to a patron arriving that it was prohibited. I think he did his due dilligence in finding out if this activity was acceptable at this location. If a representative of the mall had politely asked him to remove the firearm from the premises, he would have complied.

Instead, security guards at the mall assumed he was violating the law in some way (why else call the police?). If he had actually been violating the law, then the guards might be within their rights to detain him under citizen's arrest, but that's a very thin line to walk. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse for violating it. As such, they violated the rights of this man by detaining him. And, I don't blame him for staying put. He wasn't there to cause trouble or stir up a commotion, and at the time he believed the guards within their authority to detain him, so he complied.

At any rate masameet, you speak as if you believe pullnshoot got what he deserved. I do not think he deserved to be acosted by security guards ignorant of the law who chose to overstep their authority out of irrational fear. If the guards receive no backlash from this event, then the guards will have learned nothing and will continue to believe they have the right to detain people inappropriately and may harrass other law abiding citizens. The worst part about it is that their ignorance will persist and I cannot think that any of us could say that this is a good thing.

[45DAVID1]

Did you not see the part where I was given the OK on a prior occasion via phone call AND that I only knew that the regulation was listed at the mall AFTER said incident occurred?

If the mall doesn't want people carrying certain objects then there should be clearly posted signs at all the entrances, not in small print at a single location at the far end of the mall.

I understand your reasoning but to post ALL rules would be absurd and the list would be never ending. I'm sure the mall has never had any issues with people wanting to OC in the mall so you might suggest that they post more signs in visible locations. Send the mall reps an offcial letter requesting that they do so in order to prevent incidents like the one you had.

Could you actually see the mall posting up rules such as "no masterbation allowed in any area of the mall, sex is prohibitted at this mall, no taking off your pants in any location other than dressing rooms"? Such rules are common sense.

[sorensen440]

I understand your reasoning but to post ALL rules would be absurd and the list would be never ending. I'm sure the mall has never had any issues with people wanting to OC in the mall so you might suggest that they post more signs in visible locations. Send the mall reps an offcial letter requesting that they do so in order to prevent incidents like the one you had.

Could you actually see the mall posting up rules such as "no masterbation allowed in any area of the mall, sex is prohibitted at this mall, no taking off your pants in any location other than dressing rooms"? Such rules are common sense.

Those things are actually Illegal and dont need to be posted
what he was doing is something that is completley legal and as such they need to post that its not allowed

[CitaDeL]

I doubt that open carry, in the climate we have in California and especially in liberal San Diego, is the right path to follow for such a cause and UOC will never help reform CCW in this state.

That's right- UOC is a constitutionally cannonized right and CCW is a state regulated privilege. The two will never merge.

However- UOC is a tool of political leverage. The more pro-gunners that UOC the more police interaction will occur. Given the climate you have illustrated, the the exposed weaponry will cause the weak-kneed populace to call the authorities and the authorities will tire from repeated interactions with lawful armed citizens. So, the authorities are compelled to make a choice- either tolerate open carriers or issue licenses to conceal. In either event, the 2nd is advanced by either dispelling the mystery of gun ownership for those who dont know the law... or authorities embrace shall-issue licensing.

[Decoligny]

I take it you did not see this quote by our intrepid OP?



He was in the wrong. He admits it. I know it's kinda hard to take, but it's true.

Since you are so good at quoting, I take it you missed the following, whereas I actually read it.

You qouted from OP’s post #57 “I called beforehand and was given the clear. I have carried in there 4-5 times before without issue. Also, there are no signs posted saying no firearms. The only place where I could find that says "no firearms" is at the concierge desk, at the other side of the mall on the first floor underneath scratched up plastic in size 10 font on the 3-4th item down out of a list of 10.”

If you had taken the time to read a little further you would have found OP’s post #67 referencing post #57 “I forgot to mention that that is only AFTER I was detained and was told where it was.”

So he did everything any reasonable person could be expected to do, and got answers saying it was OK. Then AFTER HE WAS DETAINED they showed him a typed list, under plexiglass on a desk where no one would ever think to look.

Reminds me of "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" where they posted the notice about Arthur Dent's house being scheduled for demolition in the courthouse basement behind a locked door marked "Do Not Open" and "Danger - Tiger".

[CSDGuy]

That's actually true. A security guard simply is a person with the right to make a private person's arrest based on whatever.

I was a "loss prevention agent" back when I was 19 - dressed like everyone else and caught shoplifters, but even we were allowed to arrest for other offenses in the store.

The security guards do have the right to stop you on private property, but they were should have called local law enforcement.

I'm fine with what you did to show open carry, but from the guards point of view - they never know what nut comes in. They should have either been armed or had the local PD come in.

Private persons only have the "right" to make an arrest based upon either witnessing a public offense or knowing that a Felony has in fact occurred and they have PC to believe that person arrested has in fact committed that crime. If it turns out that no crime was committed, then the PC 837 arrest was not lawful. Private persons and Security guards (in this particular situation) do not have the authority to detain.

Those Security Guards should have either observed/reported to Law Enforcement or since they chose to talk to him, they should have asked him to leave or let him go. If he refused to leave, they might have then had ground to arrest him for 602 and turn him over to LE for the appropriate Cite. The fact that they surrounded him probably means that they didn't let him leave and kept him there under some color of authority that doesn't exist for Private Persons/Security Guards.

They way overstepped their authority and probably didn't realize they were doing so.

[Theseus]

He attacked a Government Building that contained a DAYCARE CENTER with 19 CHILDREN in it.

He killed 168 innocent people, 99 of them happened to be Government Employees.

Not to hijack the thread...just make a point. . .

The federal government, military, communications, and supply chains are all legitimate strategical targets. The Federal Government and security analysts know this.

This being known, the Federal Government should not be occupying buildings with civilians being likely collateral damage of a said military or rebelluous attack against the government.

Disguising your strategic targets amongst civilian targets is a tried and true method for drumming up support when the attacks do yield such collateral damage.

We cry when the enemy use it and there is collateral damage but claim there was no other choice...but when someone attacks us causing the same collateral damage we cry "terrorist".

I don't believe for a second that he was a terrorist. He was an enemy combatant that had exercised an act of War against the United States. He deserved a military trial and military execution.

And I also am put off by the negative reactions to the people on this board about OC. I agree that Pullnshoot might be young, but to many of you I am as well. Many older people I know would never dare this kind of thing for fear that they have too much to loose. . . If you are too scared to stand up that is fine. We will stand for you and carry this cause for which you will benefit when it is over but stop getting in our way!

[Vin496]

That's right- UOC is a constitutionally cannonized right and CCW is a state regulated privilege. The two will never merge.

However- UOC is a tool of political leverage. The more pro-gunners that UOC the more police interaction will occur. Given the climate you have illustrated, the the exposed weaponry will cause the weak-kneed populace to call the authorities and the authorities will tire from repeated interactions with lawful armed citizens. So, the authorities are compelled to make a choice- either tolerate open carriers or issue licenses to conceal. In either event, the 2nd is advanced by either dispelling the mystery of gun ownership for those who dont know the law... or authorities embrace shall-issue licensing.

Or they get tired of dealing with all the hysteria/headache of OC and just flat outlaw it, and tighten the grip on CCW. In this state I can see that happening way before tolerating it.

[gotgunz]

Or they get tired of dealing with all the hysteria/headache of OC and just flat outlaw it, and tighten the grip on CCW. In this state I can see that happening way before tolerating it.

Amen!

I can see this exact thing happening!

[CSDGuy]

Or they get tired of dealing with all the hysteria/headache of OC and just flat outlaw it, and tighten the grip on CCW. In this state I can see that happening way before tolerating it.

The problem is that UOC (and in certain areas LOC) is generally perfectly legal and will likely be protected under the 2nd, once it's incorporated here. Once that happens, things will get really interesting...

[JDay]

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.

If its open to the public doesn't that make it a public place?

[JDay]

Now why would you call mall security "idiot mall ninjas"? They're providing security for a private place of business. They're doing their job. No firearm openly carried belongs there, unless it's on the belt of a LEO. Wouldn't you agree?

The only job security guards have is to observe and report, nothing more and nothing less.