Escorted out of the Glenbrook Mall

[actaeon277]

and this is why i conceal carry

But, it is not Invisible Carry.
You should know the law and be prepared anyway.
A lot of people that pay attention can pick out CCers.

 

[Smokepole]

Originally Posted by gjclark
. Also I will tell you that the constitutional right for guns only applies to the home. Away from home is a privilege and the state issues you a permit allowing you to do that." Again I disagreed.

He's actually correct about this, according to the supreme court anyway.

I don't recall the SCOTUS deciding on Constitutional carry outside the home. I could easily be wrong, but I don't believe that they have ruled specifically on the "Right to Bear Arms" in public.

The 9th Circus Court of Appeals (the most liberal and most overturned Court of Appeals in the country) has just last week struck down the San Diego's restrictive policy for granting California carry permits (Cali is a May Issue state) calling it an infringement on 2A Rights and is discussed in I think, 2 other threads.

The Court ruled that a government may specify what mode of carrying to allow (open or concealed), but a government may not make it impossible for the vast majority of Californians to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Ninth Circuit strikes California?s restrictive rule against licensed carry of handguns

I NEVER would have expected to see this out of the 9th Circuit. I was gobsmacked when I read about this. Go figure.

 

[Smokepole]

It's only posted at that ONE door... AND it's a double negative! So actually it means you should have one!!

The firearms line IS the only one with NO at the beginning. "No firearms or illegal weapons". So by JetGirl's reasoning one should also have ILLEGAL firearms with them too. Man do they have people proof read their stuff? They should.

 

[JetGirl]

So by JetGirl's grasp of the English language and grammar

Fixed

 

[Kutnupe14]

The criminal trespass statute does not give give special weight to a plaque screwed to the wall on the periphery of a gigantic ingress/egress area. The notice has to be posted, "at the main entrance in a manner that is either prescribed by law or likely to come to the attention of the public". Off to the side isn't likely to come to the attention of the public, hence, the only way to engage the criminal trespass statute is through the judgement of a court, or oral or written direct communication, and that is for personal banishment from the property, not inanimate object banishment.

I hold with what ATM said. Not the first thing the mall cop said, as related in the OP, was accurate or true.

This exactly. The OP couldn't be charged, because the sign didn't meet that criteria.... but if it had.

 

[halfmileharry]

Lots of people shouldn't have been charged in this type of incident but it happens for no other reason than "cause I can". It's not right but it does happen and not just for this type of action.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Do police officers have the authority to enforce a store's no firearms sign absent a request from store management?

No

 

[Sarge470]

I just checked with one of our guys who works out at Glenbrook, and he advises me that there are no police officers scheduled there on Thursdays. They do employ about 4 officers from multiple departments on a part-time basis on other days of the week, but none on Thursdays. If the officer in question was wearing a white uniform shirt, he is one of the mall's private security guards, since none of the police personnel there wear white in any capacity. For the OP, PM me and I'll try to get the situation clarified.

 

[Smokepole]

Originally Posted by CathyInBlue
The criminal trespass statute does not give give special weight to a plaque screwed to the wall on the periphery of a gigantic ingress/egress area. The notice has to be posted, "at the main entrance in a manner that is either prescribed by law or likely to come to the attention of the public". Off to the side isn't likely to come to the attention of the public, hence, the only way to engage the criminal trespass statute is through the judgement of a court, or oral or written direct communication, and that is for personal banishment from the property, not inanimate object banishment.

I hold with what ATM said. Not the first thing the mall cop said, as related in the OP, was accurate or true.

This exactly. The OP couldn't be charged, because the sign didn't meet that criteria.... but if it had.

There is a movie theater that the kids and I go to fairly often that I usually CC in and have never noticed a no guns sign posted. One day though after reading a thread here about out of the way signs, I decided to look harder and lo and behold there was @ 6x6 red circle and slash with a gun in the middle on a clear background IN THE BOTTOM LEFT HAND CORNER of one door of a multiple door entrance. The no smoking sign however was placed at just about eye level (I'm only 5'9") in the center most door. Would this placement fit the criteria that is given above? To my way of thinking it wouldn't.

 

[CathyInBlue]

No

Yes, but only if asked by the owner of the establishment or their agent.

So, just like a cop feels justified in walking up to anyone he sees with a firearm and accosting them with demands to see their LTCH to prove that they aren't a felon in possession, would it not be just as prudent for someone accosted in a public place by a police officer with demands that they leave or be arrested for criminal trespass to demand of the cop proof that the owner or the owner's agent legitimately requested the gun carrier's removal? After all, it's explicit in the criminal trespass statute that the LEO has absolutely no such authority to make such a demand absent such a request. There's no duty under law that a person obey an unlawful request. It's entirely within the carrier's rights to insure against obedience to unlawful requests. I believe demanding proof of owner/agent request falls squarely within the reasonable force statute in resisting unlawful force from public servants.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I was looking at a really good deal on button downs in JC Penney

Amen! As bad as Penny is doing they should be having OC days to drive up business.

It might be worth a letter to the JCP store manager. Let him/her know what happened, what that policy cost the store that day, and what it will continue to cost them in your business.

May not help but you never know.

 

[printcraft]

This exactly. The OP couldn't be charged, because the sign didn't meet that criteria.... but if it had.

But if it had what????

Charged with what? Violation of mall policy? Signs are not law, you know that.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Yes, but only if asked by the owner of the establishment or their agent.

So, just like a cop feels justified in walking up to anyone he sees with a firearm and accosting them with demands to see their LTCH to prove that they aren't a felon in possession, would it not be just as prudent for someone accosted in a public place by a police officer with demands that they leave or be arrested for criminal trespass to demand of the cop proof that the owner or the owner's agent legitimately requested the gun carrier's removal? After all, it's explicit in the criminal trespass statute that the LEO has absolutely no such authority to make such a demand absent such a request. There's no duty under law that a person obey an unlawful request. It's entirely within the carrier's rights to insure against obedience to unlawful requests. I believe demanding proof of owner/agent request falls squarely within the reasonable force statute in resisting unlawful force from public servants.

No, it would not. After you're arrested, and in trial, you have the right to confront your accuser, but other than that don't press your luck.
I'll explain, people (like girlfriend/boyfriend situations) routinely ask that their other half be expelled. Often the party expelled wants to "hear" the other person tell them to leave. Yeah, I've done that before, and it didn't go as smoothly as I would like. Lesson learned. If someone wants another person removed from their property, and I know it's their property, I'm going to remove them, NOT run messages back and forth. If you refuse, demanding to actually "hear" the person say that, you're going to be arrested.

 

[Kutnupe14]

But if it had what????

Charged with what? Violation of mall policy? Signs are not law, you know that.

No, I apparently don't. Disregarding a sign, alone, can be grounds for a lawful arrest; there just aren't many that actually meet the requirements listed in IC.

 

[KG1]

No, it would not. After you're arrested, and in trial, you have the right to confront your accuser, but other than that don't press your luck.
I'll explain, people (like girlfriend/boyfriend situations) routinely ask that their other half be expelled. Often the party expelled wants to "hear" the other person tell them to leave. Yeah, I've done that before, and it didn't go as smoothly as I would like. Lesson learned. If someone wants another person removed from their property, and I know it's their property, I'm going to remove them, NOT run messages back and forth. If you refuse, demanding to actually "hear" the person say that, you're going to be arrested.

What's to say that anybody, LEO or not walks up to someone carrying and demands that they leave the premises without any proof that they are acting as an agent of the establishment?

 

[printcraft]

No, I apparently don't. Disregarding a sign, alone, can be grounds for a lawful arrest; there just aren't many that actually meet the requirements listed in IC.

Again, I must have missed where having a firearm at a mall is illegal as written into law.

You gonna arrest someone who has a cell phone at a hospital? Humm?

Lets see no firearms in, government buildings.. check, schools.. check, commercial aircraft.. check, malls.... malls.... ****........ I could have sworn it was there.

 

[KG1]

Again, I must have missed where having a firearm at a mall is illegal as written into law.

You gonna arrest someone who has a cell phone at a hospital? Humm?

Lets see no firearms in, government buildings.. check, schools.. check, commercial aircraft.. check, malls.... malls.... ****........ I could have sworn it was there.

Further more I don't believe a "No Firearms" sign alone carries any weight in regards to trespassing. You can only be asked to leave by an agent of the establishment and upon refusal to leave immediately you could then be subject to trespassing.

 

[Trigger Time]

Op I think you did good considering you were looking at a stupid person. I hope the officer goes through reprogramming and learns what the law really says. He'd probably go all SWAT on someone he saw carrying a long gun outside of their home. No state permission slip needed officer dumb ass.
Id Obey the request to leave but on the "escort" out I'd be letting him know he doesn't know jack. I especially love the John Wayne comment. I would have told him to keep his stupid opinion to himself.

 

[printcraft]

And another thing..... What the hell makes "no firearms" signs so special where you think they have the weight of law?

What if the mall put up a sign that said "NO FUNNY WALKS PERMITTED ON THIS PREMISES!"

And I walked in "funnily" Do I get arrested? These two signs have PRECISELY the same legal standing.

None. FUNNY WALKS ARE NOT ILLEGAL. If it is not spelled out in a ratified law IT IS NOT LAW.

 

[public servant]