Posted: 2/6/2012 4:28:07 PM EDT
| So maybe this has been covered before but I haven't seen it so I'll ask. While entering Mayfair mall the other day through the Macy's, I noticed they did not have any signs posted informing their ban on concealed weapons. I figured maybe the mall allows individual stores to set their own policy. I made sure to check the entrance to the mall from the Macy's and there was nothing posted there either. So what gives? I've found news articles from November stating that the mall has a no weapons policy but I was under the impression that every entrance has to have a sign. Any input would be appreciated, thanks. |
|
i agree if anyone has any info on this it would be helpful i was just talking to a friend about how the fox river mall is the same way. i almost think you could get any charges on you dropped because they didn't post notice at all of the entrances. I think that because Macy's rents space from the mall owner that means for that space they are allowed to have pro gun policy's even if the mall itself dose not.
please note im no lawyer my advice is not legal advice and should not be taken as such. |
|
postings MUST be on all general entrances to the business.
this means front door, side doors, back doors that customers can gain entry through. loading docks, and other areas need not be posted. if one of the general entrances is not posted, one can not be expected to know that the building is weapons free. |
|
Quoted:
postings MUST be on all general entrances to the business. this means front door, side doors, back doors that customers can gain entry through. loading docks, and other areas need not be posted. if one of the general entrances is not posted, one can not be expected to know that the building is weapons free. What isn't clear though, and I think will take case-law to settle out would be a "partially posted" business or venue, when the person is caught carrying, claims they entered through a non-posted entrance, but it can in some way be proved they knew it was the "intent" of the owners or landlord the property be posted because they were aware of the other posted entrances. Does the existence of any non posted entrances invalidate the posted ones? Does the knowledge of posted entrances invalidate using a non posted one? I would like to think that a clear reading of the law indicates that having non-posted public entrances, like the mall anchor stores would invalidate the posted ones, but I'm far from certain it would stand up as a legal defense. |
|
i would think that non posted entrances wouldn't cancel out the the posted entrances but in my logic. I think it would be hard to make the charges stick. a non resident like one of you Milwaukee guys coming up here to the fox river mall could walk into the Target store shop there then go into the mall and if there was no posting at the mall entrance from target you would have no idea the mall was posted.
but i guess ignorance might not stand up in court because it could be argued that being a CHL holder you might be the one expected to know your surroundings no matter what? I guess it would come down to who has the responsibility the carrier to know where guns shouldn't be or dose the property owner have the bulk of the responsibility to inform potential customers. any thoughts? anther question i thought of while typing this who do you think pays more attention to no weapons signs pro 2A people or anti 2A people? |
|
My gut feeling is that it's going to come down as well to if the property owner will want to press for the tresspassing charges as well, since it's up to them to press that charge correct? As with the recent Aldi's case, the bigger show stopper will be the DA and if they believe the CC holder was in their right to defend themselves it seems. Much as I'm not sure how I feel on it, typing this out makes me think more along the lines of 'concealed is concealed'. |
|
Quoted:
My gut feeling is that it's going to come down as well to if the property owner will want to press for the tresspassing charges as well, since it's up to them to press that charge correct? As with the recent Aldi's case, the bigger show stopper will be the DA and if they believe the CC holder was in their right to defend themselves it seems. Much as I'm not sure how I feel on it, typing this out makes me think more along the lines of 'concealed is concealed'. sorry about the hijack. but is attitude a real one? i read this a lot on the site here when people start a topic like this. I always thought that it was more or less a joke kinda like the famous boating accidents that i thought were jokes but maybe they actually happen. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: My gut feeling is that it's going to come down as well to if the property owner will want to press for the tresspassing charges as well, since it's up to them to press that charge correct? As with the recent Aldi's case, the bigger show stopper will be the DA and if they believe the CC holder was in their right to defend themselves it seems. Much as I'm not sure how I feel on it, typing this out makes me think more along the lines of 'concealed is concealed'. sorry about the hijack. but is attitude a real one? i read this a lot on the site here when people start a topic like this. I always thought that it was more or less a joke kinda like the famous boating accidents that i thought were jokes but maybe they actually happen. Not sure about Arfcommers, but I've met it in real life. Not that I would say it's a majority, but I've had the debate. I'm still of the plan to if I know it's posted, I'll follow the law. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
My gut feeling is that it's going to come down as well to if the property owner will want to press for the tresspassing charges as well, since it's up to them to press that charge correct? As with the recent Aldi's case, the bigger show stopper will be the DA and if they believe the CC holder was in their right to defend themselves it seems. Much as I'm not sure how I feel on it, typing this out makes me think more along the lines of 'concealed is concealed'. sorry about the hijack. but is attitude a real one? i read this a lot on the site here when people start a topic like this. I always thought that it was more or less a joke kinda like the famous boating accidents that i thought were jokes but maybe they actually happen. I'll answer this honestly, without incriminating myself hopefully...as i haven't done this yet nor do i plan on doing it. I make a judgement call. Like this one, lets just say i have a relative in a hospital and I want to go see them. Lets say that hospital is posted. Lets also say that hospital is located in a not so great part of town. Now, i'm going to be there through the end of visiting hours, which makes it dark outside and the parking lot fairly unoccupied. AFAIC, at that point, concealed is concealed. EDIT: This is mainly because it's a family member, i need to go see them if they are in the hospital. It's probably not their choice to be there, so i can't just find another place to see them. If i go up to a business that's posted because i need to buy something there, I typically will find another place...otherwise if i absolutely need it from that place due to time/money/etc constraints, I will obey their sign. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
postings MUST be on all general entrances to the business. this means front door, side doors, back doors that customers can gain entry through. loading docks, and other areas need not be posted. if one of the general entrances is not posted, one can not be expected to know that the building is weapons free. What isn't clear though, and I think will take case-law to settle out would be a "partially posted" business or venue, when the person is caught carrying, claims they entered through a non-posted entrance, but it can in some way be proved they knew it was the "intent" of the owners or landlord the property be posted because they were aware of the other posted entrances. Does the existence of any non posted entrances invalidate the posted ones? Does the knowledge of posted entrances invalidate using a non posted one? I would like to think that a clear reading of the law indicates that having non-posted public entrances, like the mall anchor stores would invalidate the posted ones, but I'm far from certain it would stand up as a legal defense. if you walk through a posted door even though another door is not posted, then yes. you are in violation. we are not mind readers, we can not sense if all doors are posted. if i walk through a door and it is not posted i believe the building is CCW friendly. if i know the other door is not posted and i go through anyways, then yes you are breaking the law. if they can prove you wewnt through a posted door with video footage, or that you saw the posted door, then you will be charged. if you go through a door that is not posted and have no idea about the other doors being posted, then you have broken no laws. I am not a lawyer, but this shit is very much common sense. a business cant expect its patrons to check every entrance in case there is a posting only at one of them... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
My gut feeling is that it's going to come down as well to if the property owner will want to press for the tresspassing charges as well, since it's up to them to press that charge correct? As with the recent Aldi's case, the bigger show stopper will be the DA and if they believe the CC holder was in their right to defend themselves it seems. Much as I'm not sure how I feel on it, typing this out makes me think more along the lines of 'concealed is concealed'. sorry about the hijack. but is attitude a real one? i read this a lot on the site here when people start a topic like this. I always thought that it was more or less a joke kinda like the famous boating accidents that i thought were jokes but maybe they actually happen. Not sure about Arfcommers, but I've met it in real life. Not that I would say it's a majority, but I've had the debate. I'm still of the plan to if I know it's posted, I'll follow the law. this. i will not spend a dime in posted businesses. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: My gut feeling is that it's going to come down as well to if the property owner will want to press for the tresspassing charges as well, since it's up to them to press that charge correct? As with the recent Aldi's case, the bigger show stopper will be the DA and if they believe the CC holder was in their right to defend themselves it seems. Much as I'm not sure how I feel on it, typing this out makes me think more along the lines of 'concealed is concealed'. sorry about the hijack. but is attitude a real one? i read this a lot on the site here when people start a topic like this. I always thought that it was more or less a joke kinda like the famous boating accidents that i thought were jokes but maybe they actually happen. Not sure about Arfcommers, but I've met it in real life. Not that I would say it's a majority, but I've had the debate. I'm still of the plan to if I know it's posted, I'll follow the law. this. i will not spend a dime in posted businesses. 100% agree. My wife misses walking around the mall, but we've found other stores go walk during the colder months and get shopping done. It's hardest for my wife - shopping is her sport. She won't spend a dime, but she likes to look and see and find deals. |
|
100% agree. My wife misses walking around the mall, but we've found other stores go walk during the colder months and get shopping done. It's hardest for my wife - shopping is her sport. She won't spend a dime, but she likes to look and see and find deals.
tell me about it i live in a smaller town and there isn't many places i can take my wife out to eat anymore. including my favorite pizza place. my wife just looks at me like really your gonna boycott them. |
|
Quoted: 100% agree. My wife misses walking around the mall, but we've found other stores go walk during the colder months and get shopping done. It's hardest for my wife - shopping is her sport. She won't spend a dime, but she likes to look and see and find deals. tell me about it i live in a smaller town and there isn't many places i can take my wife out to eat anymore. including my favorite pizza place. my wife just looks at me like really your gonna boycott them. I think the Menards and WalMart know us know on sight  We usually go walk a couple laps, look at what's on sale, etc. |
