Circle Center to "randomly" screen people through metal detecters

[TaurusJR]

TSA coming soon to a mall near you.....

Give a tyrant an inch and it will take a mile.

haha! Awesome!

 

[chevyguy]

Like I said after Newtown, petition Simon Malls to remove their so called gun free zones. Go to their website and look under security and petition them. And don't shop at any of them till they remove it. List of Simon Malls in Indiana that I know of that you shold boycott shopping, Eastland Mall in Evansville, Tippecanoe Mall Lafayette, Markland Mall Kokomo, obviously Circle Centre, and most of your major mall andy where else. By the way any of you ever notice that these malls always have an Dicks, MC Sport or Dunhams in them that sell guns and ammo they are hypocrits to. Do as we say not as we sell.

 

[Hotdoger]

Before I jump to any concusions, and make wrongful assumptions of your post. Are you saying that if a child is born out of wedlock, that automatically dooms them to a life of crime and abandonment?

It dooms them from the start to a split family and most likely to never seeing their father. Thus when the subject is about getting parents involved, it is a problem when the father is in jail, dead or just gone.

Are you not aware that children from single parent homes are more likely to be involved in crimes?

http://www.fatherhood.org/media/consequences-of-father-absence-statistics

 

[Kirk Freeman]

TSA for Tots?

 

[HnK]

With over 60% of the yutes born out of wedlock what makes you think there are any "parents" around for them?

Our daughter was 5 and in our wedding when my wife and I got married.

 

[femurphy77]

NEVER been to circle center, sure as hell wouldn't go unarmed.

Nuff said.

 

[Glocker 400]

It dooms them from the start to a split family and most likely to never seeing their father. Thus when the subject is about getting parents involved, it is a problem when the father is in jail, dead or just gone.

Are you not aware that children from single parent homes are more likely to be involved in crimes?

Statistics on Father Absence : National Fatherhood Initaitive

There is a vast difference between "more likely" and "doomed."

 

[Hotdoger]

It dooms them from the start to a split family and most likely to never seeing their father.

There is a vast difference between "more likely" and "doomed."

They are not doomed to a "split family" then? The percentages say they will be.

I don't get what you are disagreeing about.

 

[Hotdoger]

Our daughter was 5 and in our wedding when my wife and I got married.

My grandaughter was 5 when her mom got married.

Glad yours and mine are the exception.

 

[TTravis]

"All unsupervised youth leaving the mall who are not immediately picked up will be given the option of either boarding an IndyGo bus to return home or will be directed to a monitored, designated location to await their transportation home."

Wait just a minute.... I can understand that Circle Center Mall is a private business and can set their own policy about who they let in there, but the key word above is LEAVING. Even kids have rights and what they do, or where they go, once they leave the mall is none of the mall's business. They are making it tough for kids between 16 and 18 who legitimately want to go down town for some shopping or a movie date. I don't like gangs of punks any more than anyone else, but you can't step on people's civil rights.

Secondly, I wonder if Simon ever stopped to think about the percentage of people they would turn away if they could effectively reject people for CC, even with legitimate LTCH holders like me. If I had to guess, I would think that 15-20% of the adults walking around down town are armed, and another 20% carry a knife or some kind of pepper spray. Maybe I am wrong, but they would be turning away a significant part of their buisness.

 

[Robert Richardson]

Another good reason not to go there and spend my money.

 

[singlesix]

I serious doubt the search will be random.

 

[Vic_Mackey]

I'm going to test it. Different types of clothing, walk by/with the crowd of bangers. What's the worst that could happen, oooo I get trespassed? Whoopty freaking do, I hate the place anyways. If I actually got stopped by their joke of a security team, I would ask to see the signage declaring I must consent to whatever body search they are using. If it's IMPD, I'll ask them if they are employed by the mall or if they are on duty. Gather names and numbers and call to see if they were on or off duty.

And if I do get "busted" for exercising my natural rights leaving the mall, not entering, I will raise the biggest stink. Their PR Dept won't know what to do. Sorry, but if curbing violence is the agenda, maybe they should look at who is coming in. I'm fine with metal detectors. I don't go places with them. But this is absolutely ridiculous.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

It doesn't matter a bit if I'm on duty or off duty when it comes to trespassing someone from a privately owned venue. What matters is if I'm an agent of the property.

When I was in uniform I had letters from the management of a few local apartment complexes that made me an agent of the property for the purposes of issuing and enforcing trespass orders. Nowhere in the IC code does it make any distinction of if the agent of the property is an LEO or not, on or off duty. My authority is the same if I'm getting paid by the city, paid by a business, or not getting paid at all. I'm either an agent of the property or I'm not.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I call BS on whoever said that on WIBC.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I made this argument the other day. Circle Center is owned by the City of Indianapolis, and co-owned and developed by Simon Properties. The no firearms rules are a farce and a poor attempt at skirting the state preemption laws, even if they don't realize it.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and legal carry at Circle Center cannot be stopped.

IANAL.

Lol, no way that would ever happen, nor should it. Even if it is govt land, once it's been rented/leased by a private party, their private rules should apply.

 

[MikeDVB]

I'll need to re-read the laws and such, it's been a while... It's my understanding that if they're scanning *everybody* that enters the door you have two options:
1. Get scanned and enter.
2. Don't get scanned and leave.

Being that they are selectively scanning people - you have every right to refuse and still enter, but that won't stop them from asking you to leave due to refusing the scan due to it being private property.

I.e. if they really don't want your business - they won't get it.

I'm not really sure of other legalities that may affect the situation. That being said, I do my best to avoid Simon properties and haven't been to Circle Center in years upon years.

Edit: Has Circle Center had issues with a history of gun violence, or is this just something they 'feel' is appropriate?

 

[Hammerhead]

Lol, no way that would ever happen, nor should it. Even if it is govt land, once it's been rented/leased by a private party, their private rules should apply.

Tell me, kind sir, where the public (city owned) and private (Simon owned) property are split, so I may walk with impunity and the protection of law within that building?

If you cannot, then private rules on public property do NOT trump the preemption laws.

35-47-11.1-4(10) makes it very clear that the property must be leased for an event for the rest of 11.1 to not apply. The building is not leased by Simon Properties.

Each individual store would have to decide to allow or not allow firearms, and even then, it's a suggestion and not a law just as if it were any other private or leased property.

Simon cannot enforce their blanket "rule" as they have in the past. I do remember one example here of a person who had left the mall and had already walked through the doors onto the public sidewalk when they were harassed (by IMPD or mall rent-a-cops, I don't remember which) for carrying in the mall.

But please, let's keep the Victim Disarmament Zone in place (even if it violates the law) because apparently it's worked so well that there aren't hoodlums and ignorant gang members running rampant through the property randomly shooting off rounds for some perceived tough-guy macho BS affront to their "manhood". The law abiding citizens carrying their legal firearms in their holsters for their self defense from those same peckerwoods is the problem.

 

[TTravis]

Maybe we should spread rumours of a big CC event at mall the tonight. The news will come on and say that there are armed people, with hidden weapons walking abound Indianapolis and nobody knows for sure who they are!

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Tell me, kind sir, where the public (city owned) and private (Simon owned) property are split, so I may walk with impunity and the protection of law within that building?

If you cannot, then private rules on public property do NOT trump the preemption laws.

35-47-11.1-4(10) makes it very clear that the property must be leased for an event for the rest of 11.1 to not apply. The building is not leased by Simon Properties.

Each individual store would have to decide to allow or not allow firearms, and even then, it's a suggestion and not a law just as if it were any other private or leased property.

Simon cannot enforce their blanket "rule" as they have in the past. I do remember one example here of a person who had left the mall and had already walked through the doors onto the public sidewalk when they were harassed (by IMPD or mall rent-a-cops, I don't remember which) for carrying in the mall.

But please, let's keep the Victim Disarmament Zone in place (even if it violates the law) because apparently it's worked so well that there aren't hoodlums and ignorant gang members running rampant through the property randomly shooting off rounds for some perceived tough-guy macho BS affront to their "manhood". The law abiding citizens carrying their legal firearms in their holsters for their self defense from those same peckerwoods is the problem.

Preemption deals with establishing laws related to firearms. They are not trying to pass a law saying you can't carry at CC. Preemption law is irrelevant when there is no law to preempt.