Posted on 07/19/2022 5:44:01 AM PDT by Lazamataz
The good Samaritan who shot and killed the gunman who opened fire in the Greenwood Park Mall in Indiana on Sunday afternoon reportedly broke the property's policy against weapons.
The suspected shooter entered the mall on Sunday carrying a rifle and multiple magazines and opened fire in the food court, killing at least three and injuring three before he was shot to death. Greenwood Police Chief Jim Ison said the suspected shooter was killed by a "good Samaritan with a handgun."
The mall is owned by Simon Property Group, and the group's code of conduct, last updated in April of 2020, lists "No weapons" as number three.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsweek.com ...
I think that private owners of “gun free zones” need to provide adequate security, or else be held 100% liable for any casualties.
I did the same.
Went into the mall via a B&N for years.
Then one day the mall cop, who I am acquainted with, walked up to me and asked what I am carrying.
I told him. He then asked “So you go in through the bookstore don’t you? There is a no gun sign on all other doors.”
Didn’t get into trouble but that is a criminal trespass charge if you stay when asked to leave.
Screw the property owner. Their ownership does not trump the US Constitution or state law. They clearly are open to the public and get to live with the public visiting their public location.
Sprouts in Murphy, Tx has small signs on the entry doors saying an unlicensed carry of fire arms is subject to a fine. Inside the entry way on the big glass walls they have no carry signs (30.06 and 30.07) which are the right size letters and semi-prominently displayed (they are sometimes blocked by sale signs). I alerted employees to this three times and I guess it doesn’t really matter to them.
Rules are not laws, such as how our feds are trying to control us with various RULES. Well, the mall and the feds can KMA.
What you don’t know I have won’t matter.
People should ignore stupid rules, regardless of whose rules.
Here you don’t. On some leftscum sites, it’s they come close to saying exactly that (their excuse is “for the greater good”).
If the mall owners could prove damages, I suppose they could bring a civil suit, which wouldn't apply in this case.
However, what you have noted seems far more operative, that the mall owners' demands seem to have straightforwardly provable placed the public that came onto their property at great risk--without providing off-setting security--using a mechanism ("Come buy from our wonderful stores in a pleasing environment!") that ultimately lead to great harm or death.
Think about this. The 2nd Amendment says “...shall not be infringed...” it does not say “...congress shall make no law...”. Technically, it says no one can infringe the RKBA. That means governments AND private entities.
Signs, signs, everywhere is signs, blocking up the scenery, messin’ my mind.
> Yes, the mall’s rules do supersede the rights enumerated in the Constitution. Here’s why. The Bill of Rights protects you against government overreach. It does not protect you when you are on private property.
I don’t think you have that quite right. I can go to the dealership and say whatever I want to say. Their sign isn’t a gag order. If the don’t like me they can ask me to leave. However the dealership is a business open to the public and they’re on shaky ground if they set a conduct standard and apply it arbitrarily. It might even be a proxy for some illegal discrimination prohibited by law ( notice I didn’t frame it as a rights issue).
About 15 years ago here in the Philippines they had a major bombing in a mall in Manila, (I think it was Manila). After that incident all the malls put metal detector wands at all entrances. All bags are inspected before entering. At the entrance roads they have security using mirrors to check under the cars and have you open the trunk. Motorcycles with cargo boxes also have the boxes checked. This causes some delay entering on busy days but that is the cost of security for the customers.
> It might even be a proxy for some illegal discrimination prohibited by law <
Yes, but such a thing should not be stretched too far. Otherwise, property rights would disappear. The federal government has laws against discrimination. But anything not covered by those laws should be fair game. For example, many restaurants have a “no shoes, no service” policy. They are discriminating against people who prefer to go barefoot.
That discrimination is perfectly legal. And it should be, if property rights are to mean anything.
In the world of science, which the left worships, this is called empirical evidence that gun control laws DO NOT WORK.
> I know this because I saw it happen 33 years ago buying my wife’s designer wedding ring.
33 years ago is not today. I went into an upscale jewelry store in Los Altos California in garb similar to your description ( a scruffy T-Shirt printed with “keep calm and nuke it from orbit”) and enjoyed a polite experience.
In Silicon Valley billionaires routinely wander about about by themselves wearing scruffs, bad hair, and drive dirty cars; as long as you’re polite and don’t smell too bad they’re usually willing to hedge on premise you might be able to pull $100k out of your backpack and buy their ridiculously priced merch with minimal haggle (time is more valuable than money). The really nice places don’t have a storefront and only do business with people they know or through introduction, but odds are high you could show up in 2 coconut half shells and a grass skirt and they wouldn’t blink an eye.
I thought News Week was defunct.
Totally agree. Common sense is AWOL for Lefties.
“No shoes, no service” is from the municipal Health Department. No Dogs Allowed is usually the same.
For a private home or business, certainly. Once you open a business with public accommodation you agree to abide by a whole bunch of other laws. You can't exclude people by sex, race, religion, or disability.
If you want your business to exclude people exercising their inalienable right to keep and bear arms, make it a members only entity. Otherwise, disconnect from public streets, disconnect from public utilities, hire your own police, fire, and EMT response. Surrender any claim you might in court, including patent, copyright and trademark protections. Explain to your insurer why your store has no signed permits from the building inspector or the fire marshal. If your business claims authority to deny inalienable rights to citizens, the citizens already have the authority to deny your business any legal or public right.
So Newsweak prefers dozens slaughtered.
Of course they do. Then they can loudly demand gun bans.
BTW, did you know this is the SECOND time this year an armed citizen stopped a mass murderer?
If they hadn't, that would be FIVE mass shootings in SIX months.
Why, it's almost like someone is orchestrating this shit!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.