Joe's Crabby Shack has the scoop (yet again), along with photos.Wait a minute--if cameras can be brought in and used against mall policy (repeatedly)--and no one is able to prevent it beforehand or do anything about it while it's happening--how much less effective would these mercantile disarmers be against someone who decided to shoot people instead of photographs?
Oh, wait--we already saw that question answered, didn't we?
I love the wording these corporate weasels use. They "ask that everyone observe a few courtesies" and "refrain from...activities," which one could take as a request, as opposed to a command, but back everything up under threat of arrest. Still, the ultimate arrogance is represented by the assertion that "All rules are subject to change by Mall Management in its sole discretion at any time without notice."
Godlike little money grubbers, aren't they, instantaneously creating or annihilating unalienable rights at whim? Or at least that's how they apparently see themselves...
As long as we're wrapping ourselves up in legalese, here's another phrase I'd like to see these shameless maniac enablers address--in a court of law, with huge damage awards at stake: "...knew or should have known..."
14 comments:
The absolutist in me agrees with you, David, but the libertarian in me disagrees. The mall is still privately owned, and they should be able to exert control over what their customers can and can't do. That includes hiring who they want, and to allow smoking or not. The carriage of guns on someone else's property *IS* a privilege; it would be nice if they would provide a "gun check" room, or a set of lockers to store your piece in while you are shopping there.
I guess you could always boycott the joint if you don't like their policies...
Actually, Nimrod, I've taken quite a bit of heat for espousing your exact position, and would advise a boycott, or just ignoring their stupid rules. My comment doesn't directly address the property rights issue except to state that if you have a place of business open to the public and knowingly allow a hazardous condition to occur resulting in the injury or death of your customers, you have a financial liability, no different than if you don't clear the slippery ice away from the entrance or turn a blind eye to other hazards. There is a deceptive advertising/fraud for profit scam going on here, where they con a gullible public into believing they have posted rules and controls to enhance their safety, when in fact they have no basis to believe the rules create anything but a lethal danger to anyone who follows them.
If you forbid guns on your property and death or injury results, you are responsible for that.
In today's society it is no longer possible to boycott every business or area that forbids guns. Invite me onto your property and you invite all of me, including my tools.
Modern Public Lockers used now adays are for other purposes. Most now have finger print ID for opening and shutting. at the Statue of Liberty they use "smart" lockers. just what do you think they use your finger print ID for when you're done using the locker? That info is stored in a data-base somewhere. The "average" Joe thinks that's a dandy idea,"hey neato...no key to lose" I think it SUCKS LEFT HIND-TIT!! Just another instrument used by the cowards who wish to corral and control us.
Kent is right on this. David and I have argued this point forever,and it is one of the few issues I can state unequivocally he is wrong on.
You cannot rape, murder, rob, just because it is your property and you have the right to set the rules. Neither do you have the right to strip others of their rights just because they accepted an invitation to visit your property.
You do have a responsibilty to prevent harm that is a direct result of a visit to your property if you knew or should have known that harm could result.
When you do something or post rules that make harm to visitors inevitable, or even likely, you are liable. Depending on the harm there are provision for both criminal and civil actions against the property owner, why would this be any different?
It is not! It is treated differently only because of the the power structure's fear of armed citizens. Anything that deters an armed citizenry works only in favor of those who would harm you.
This hasn't got a damn thing to do with property rights, it is a matter of civil rights.
A property owner has the right to not invite you. He does not have the right to invite then deny you those civil rights.
I agree with SA, your property rights end at the soles of my shoes. I own myself and whatever tools I may be carrying. Yes as a property owner I can ask someone to leave for any reason, if they are smoking, have intense BO, too much perfume etc... Heck, as a business owner I could ask someone to leave who was carrying a large rifle if they were not controlling it so that my property could be damaged. However, I can not tell them not to carry it, doing so is prior restraint and should not be codified in law. Now courteous behaviour is different, which I think is whee a lot of this comes from. People are trying to codify courtesy which I strongly disagree with.
I wish I could read the sign. It is to small in the photo.
Or, I could just be needing a new set of glasses.
HELP.
Click on the title link, Dion, and that will take you to the page where the originals are posted--you can click on the photos there and they will enlarge.
OK, I don't know how anybody who espouses individual rights (including property rights) can say that *I* don't have any say on what people (lawfully) do on *MY* property.
You cannot rape, murder, rob, just because it is your property and you have the right to set the rules.
Nobody said anything about ME (or anyone else) raping, murdering and robbing anyone on MY property. This is just PSH, hyperbolic rhetorical nonsense.
NOBODY has the right to (unlawfully) cause harm to another, anywhere - period. On MY property or elsewhere.
However, nobody is forcing you to come to my property if you know full well ahead of time that I don't permit guns on MY property. MY house MY rules. But SA doesn't seem to get this:
Neither do you have the right to strip others of their rights just because they accepted an invitation to visit your property.
I'm not "stripping" anyone of their rights, because I'm not FORCING them to come. If they don't know ahead of time, you either make provision for them to hang up their gun, or they leave. It's just that simple.
If, as you say, I can't "strip" (your term) people of their rights on MY property, what's keeping them from setting up a tent on MY property and camping out forever? I mean, they have the right to "liberty" (free movement) and "association", don't they? Hell, why not build a church and invite everyone over (freedom of religion)?
YOUR right to do whatever you want ends at *MY* property line.
As for tortious responsibility for something (other than a slip and fall) befalling you becaues of some third-party criminal act, I don't see why *I* should be responsible. That's like blaming gun owners for "allowing" their guns to be stolen.
If you've got some kind of serious, rational argument for your position, please present it without indulging in hyperbole.
Would you FORCE someone accepting an invitation to your property to carry a gun?
Same difference.
David:
I guess I'm just not seeing how someone can be held for the criminal action of some third party -I've never been a big fan of the "attractive nuisance" school of jurisprudence.
Why not look at it from the other side of the coin: would you, as the mall owner, be held liable for someone else's actions if they shot someone on your property in error? On your own private property?
And, as you postulate by ignoring their stupid rules, if it becomes known that you are packing, do you have the "right" to stay, even though the property owner asks you to leave? At that point you become a "trespasser", don't you?
I can't state my rationale any more succinctly than I have here and in previous posts, and just don't have the time to get drawn into another debate. Others feel free to advocate what you will--I've made my positions clear and am not persuaded by the counter-arguments I've heard thus far. If I see soemthing that does persuade me, I'll be the first to admit it.
Nimrod, the libertarian in you seems to be not quite so libertarian.
Sure seems like aiding and abetting.
They removed a most efficient means of self defense by their policy only from those who would comply with the law or rule. They knew or could be expected to know that policy could result in the outcome we saw. This wasn't the first case where something like this has happened. The mall management associated themselves with the crime by removing the right of people to defend themselves. They provided "security" who were unarmed as well. They created an environment with their policy that provided no real security.
I can't grasp how this is difficult to understand.
It's simple, in a case like this it's not private property. It's "public" even thought it is owned by someone. Without the "public" to shop at these stores they close and your property is worthless. You have no income and can't pay the taxes and poof, you have to sell it. You're forced to compromise and either allow others to protect themselves or provide enough adequate security.
Rights AND responsibilities.
Rights AND responsibilities.
Correct. But only YOU are responsible for YOU. Nobody is forcing you to shop at such an establishment.
THEIR property, THEIR rules.
And "could happen" is not the same as "will happen". Somebody could plow their car through the mall - you should have know that could happen.
Nimrod, the libertarian in you seems to be not quite so libertarian.
Sure seems like aiding and abetting.
But I'm not resposible for the actions of others, so I shouldn't be punihsed for those actions.
Who would be liable if this mutant shot someone out on the street? Why not sue the municipality for their gun-free-zone policies next time someon gets shot up?
I'm not forcing someone to do something against their will. Nobody has the RIGHT to come onto my (or anyone else's) property. You are there at my invitation, and remain there under my sufferance.
YOUR rights do not supercede MY rights on MY property. Period.
I notice that you tap-danced around my "build a church" hypothetical... if I can't control what goes on on MY property, what good is having private property?
Here is my libertarian take on this debate: link.
Post a Comment