Quoted: Quoted: Random question, but technically since you were OCing did you actually need to show him your permit and drivers license?   No, he didn't.  Also, he wasn't committing any crime. The police detention was wholly unreasonable and therefore illegal -- that is, if he wasn't free to leave. _MaH

doesn't sound like he was being detained, sounds like he was asked for ID (which he produced) and then he was asked to leave.

Quoted: Quoted: The OP needs to file a complaint regarding all these officers, sounds as if the main one speaking to the OP shouldn't be carrying a badge. When he offered to go get mall management to kick you out (so that he could arrest you for trespassing if you didn't comply), that's akin to him intentionally stepping in front of the vehicle so he could fire at the driver. He needs to be fired. how did you go from being rightly concerned about a LEO overstepping his authority to saying he'd intentionally murder someone?

I was simply trying to point out that the LEO should not manipulate the situation in order to justify taking action, and I admit my analogy was a bit of a stretch (but similar in context to creating the bad situation).  Keep in mind, though, that past behavior is the best indicator of future behavior....

Quoted: doesn't sound like he was being detained, sounds like he was asked for ID (which he produced) and then he was asked to leave.

By the police who have no authority to request you to leave private property unless it is at the will of the property owner.  It carries no more authority than if another mall patron were to ask you to leave the mall.

Quoted: Ok guys, stop and think for a moment. You see someone walking through the mall with a coat on, no indication of them carrying at all. Nothing is thought about it. A few moments later you see the same person with their coat off and now you see a weapon. The weapon was initially concealed, how do you know that person was in compliance with the law moments earlier when his coat was on? You don't! What would a sensible person do? Probably call their local law enforcement. As a cop getting this call, I would DEFINITELY identify the person carrying and run a check on them, no only to be sure the permit had not been revoked but also check for any outstanding paper. If there was a complainant to be seen and I didn't do this, you can bet darn sure there would be a complaint about me not doing a proper investigation and they would be correct. How many of you would want to know if the person you saw in a simular situation was legally carrying?.  As far as the comments that are attributed to this deputy, I can't comment on because I was not there and did not see or hear what transpired.

I don't think there's anyone here who wouldn't agree with you on what you've written.  It's not what the officer did which has pissed off the OP (and the rest of us), it's how he did it (in a totally unprofessional manner) and what he said to the OP (borderline, if not in fact, advising him to violate VA Code).

A while back wchiang and I had an encounter with Fairfax County PD involving exposed firearms.  Here's what happened:

Quoted: So last week we were preparing to go to the Quantico Arms shindig and mhoffman shows me his new M1A. Later we were chilling in the garage waiting for others to show up and out of the corner of my eye I see 3 cruisers roll by. Thinking they'd simply just look around and drive off, we ignored them. A couple seconds pass and more cruisers roll by and we go out to see what's going on. As we head out, about 4 officers walk towards us. I laughed and said I was going to the gun show that was in town. As we were talking, a total of 7 cruisers are parked in front of my house along with an undercover. Apparently they received a report of some people running around with evil looking guns and they were wearing "dark clothing". Pretty much the entire Sully district force showed up but left after a minute when they realized there was nothing going on. For what it's worth they were all very friendly throughout the incident.

The part in red is what that Deputy should have done after making contact with the OP, especially considering that the OP told the Deputy that the only reason he wasn't concealing in the food court is because of VA law.  Seems to me like the guy was concealing where allowed earlier, and would be again as soon as he left the food court.  If they wanted to keep tabs on the OP after he left the food court (just to make sure he wasn't going to shoot up the damn place), that's fine, but once ID was established and no crime was determined to have been, or in the progress of being, committed, the Deputy should have said "Have a nice day" and either gone away or keep tabs on him from nearby or afar -- not jump on his face until he left.

[/rant]

I would definitely love to know what happens over this, since I go to DTC quite often.

_MaH

Quoted: Ok guys, stop and think for a moment. You see someone walking through the mall with a coat on, no indication of them carrying at all. Nothing is thought about it. A few moments later you see the same person with their coat off and now you see a weapon. The weapon was initially concealed, how do you know that person was in compliance with the law moments earlier when his coat was on? You don't! I see what you're saying.  Though if he knew the law regarding restaurant carry (which I'm sure he does, he commented about how many years on the force he had), he'd know that I was required to unconceal and that were I not in compliance in concealing in the first place, I would never have unconcealed (criminals don't obey the law and all that).  But, in his mind (I think) he saw my walking around with my weapon exposed as 'flaunting it', and thus I was looking for a confrontation.  Hell, I'd NEVER open carry if I could, but the law is what the law is, and I'm not interested in ending up on the wrong side of it, period.  I wish they'd repeal the rest. ban, it's just plain stupid. What would a sensible person do? Probably call their local law enforcement. As a cop getting this call, I would DEFINITELY identify the person carrying and run a check on them, no only to be sure the permit had not been revoked but also check for any outstanding paper. If there was a complainant to be seen and I didn't do this, you can bet darn sure there would be a complaint about me not doing a proper investigation and they would be correct. How many of you would want to know if the person you saw in a simular situation was legally carrying?.  As far as the comments that are attributed to this deputy, I can't comment on because I was not there and did not see or hear what transpired.

What you're saying makes perfect sense.  While it does bother me that he ran my permit and my license (because neither was being used at the time and I doubt anyone saw me "unconceal", but it's possible), what really bothers me is how he treated me.  I'm generally a very friendly, non-argumentative person (particularly with LEO's because as I stated earlier, I respect the job they do and have not ever had a bad experience with them prior to this).  I stated several times that I had no intention of disobeying any of his orders, and I was not trying to be confrontational. My tone/volume of voice was probably a little elevated because the way he approached me really caught me off guard.  

Had he and the officers who effectively stood over me while this happened been more polite and informational about ejecting me, I probably would have walked away thinking "That's how every LEO encounter should be."  As it is though, he treated me like a criminal, he suggested I violate the law, and it seemed very clear that his authority paired with his belief about the intelligence of 'deciding' to open carry was going to trump my right to carry a weapon within the confines of the law.  Had he just politely informed me that while he understood I wasn't breaking the law, the property owner does have a policy regarding open-carry and thus I would need to go to an area in the mall where I could legally conceal, this thread wouldn't exist.

Anyway, I don't want to beat the horse, it's dead now.  I've filed my complaint with the LCSO, and I've contacted the property owner to find out what the policy is (which, I believe is the only thing the officer would have been able to enforce (noting that that policy is NOT the same as an agreement by the current 'on-shift' manager to have me removed.)

I'll let you all know what comes of this.  I'm hoping that at a very minimum I get clarification of the policy so I know whether the Deputy was acting on their accord or his own.

What if the OP had walked over to the deputy first and said:

"I am telling you: you had better get out of here right now or I am calling Mall Security to complain about you and have them make you leave - otherwise I am filing a complaint with your department against you."

Would that be acceptable?

By threatening to "call mall security" the deputy seemed to acknowledge that he did not have PC to arrest or further detain, so he tried to accomplish his goal through other means - which some might believe was NOT HIS JOB and an abuse of his authority.

But no need to argue here. OP - if you feel this way, then file a complaint.

Quoted: Ok guys, stop and think for a moment. You see someone walking through the mall with a coat on, no indication of them carrying at all. Nothing is thought about it. A few moments later you see the same person with their coat off and now you see a weapon. The weapon was initially concealed, how do you know that person was in compliance with the law moments earlier when his coat was on? You don't! What would a sensible person do? Probably call their local law enforcement.

LOL

I don't know anyone who would call.  I guess you're new to VA, but the law requires those that carry to carry openly where alcohol is served, so people uncovering their pistols in dining areas is actually rather common since 1995.

Quoted: As a cop getting this call, I would DEFINITELY identify the person carrying and run a check on them, no only to be sure the permit had not been revoked but also check for any outstanding paper. If there was a complainant to be seen and I didn't do this, you can bet darn sure there would be a complaint about me not doing a proper investigation and they would be correct.

I'm no lawyer, but isn't an officer supposed to have some reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime before detaining a suspect and demanding that ID be produced?  In your hypothetical scenario, what evidence suggests someone was carrying concealed illegally?

Quoted: Quoted: doesn't sound like he was being detained, sounds like he was asked for ID (which he produced) and then he was asked to leave. By the police who have no authority to request you to leave private property unless it is at the will of the property owner.  It carries no more authority than if another mall patron were to ask you to leave the mall. _MaH

how do you know the mall authority didn't ask the officer to make him leave? like it was said earlier, we have exactly 50% of the story.  

A lot of the time people want me to get trespassers of their property, but they do not want to confront the trespasser themselves (for whatever reason).  I can't tell the person to leave, but i can tell them the owner wants them to leave and they don't want me to have to go get the owner cuz then i have to arrest them if they refuse.

I'm not saying the deputy had the best attitude, or went about it the right way, but he didn't do anything illegal which is implied by using the word detain.

Quoted: Quoted: Ok guys, stop and think for a moment. You see someone walking through the mall with a coat on, no indication of them carrying at all. Nothing is thought about it. A few moments later you see the same person with their coat off and now you see a weapon. The weapon was initially concealed, how do you know that person was in compliance with the law moments earlier when his coat was on? You don't! What would a sensible person do? Probably call their local law enforcement. LOL I don't know anyone who would call.  I guess you're new to VA, but the law requires those that carry to carry openly where alcohol is served, so people uncovering their pistols in dining areas is actually rather common since 1995. Quoted: As a cop getting this call, I would DEFINITELY identify the person carrying and run a check on them, no only to be sure the permit had not been revoked but also check for any outstanding paper. If there was a complainant to be seen and I didn't do this, you can bet darn sure there would be a complaint about me not doing a proper investigation and they would be correct. I'm no lawyer, but isn't an officer supposed to have some reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime before detaining a suspect and demanding that ID be produced?  In your hypothetical scenario, what evidence suggests someone was carrying concealed illegally?

the reasonable suspicion could have been that the weapon was concealed, and now it is not.  It is possible that the person concealing saw a LEO and uncovered because he was afraid that he would be caught concealing w/o a license.

If i saw a person drinking a beer who looked to me to be 18yo, then i would get his ID to check his age, that is my reasonable suspicion that he MAY have been breaking the law and i have a right to investigate based on reasonable suspicion.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: doesn't sound like he was being detained, sounds like he was asked for ID (which he produced) and then he was asked to leave. By the police who have no authority to request you to leave private property unless it is at the will of the property owner.  It carries no more authority than if another mall patron were to ask you to leave the mall. _MaH how do you know the mall authority didn't ask the officer to make him leave? like it was said earlier, we have exactly 50% of the story.

Along with his demeanor, I believe this is exactly the point of the whole thing.  I said it earlier in the thread and I'll say it again....the simple statement that "I'm aware you're in compliance with the law, however the property owner has a policy against open carry, and I have to enforce the property owners rights.  You'll need to move to an area where you can put your jacket back on given that you have a permit, or you'll need to leave the mall."  If he'd been polite enough to do that, this thread wouldn't exist.  

Even if the property manager had said "kick him out" despite a corporate policy that allowed me to be there, I'd have no argument with the officers role, I would have thanked him for his courtesy and taken up my issue with the property owner.  The officer never told me who approached him about my carrying.

So basically, you're exactly right...we have exactly one half of the story because the officer didn't feel obligated to politely share with me the one piece of information that was crucial to justifying his actions: under what previously granted authority was he acting upon when he kicked me out.  

Offering to go get a property manager and 'have him tell you to leave" in my eyes is very different than acting on the wishes of the property owner.  Maybe that's just me.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: doesn't sound like he was being detained, sounds like he was asked for ID (which he produced) and then he was asked to leave. By the police who have no authority to request you to leave private property unless it is at the will of the property owner.  It carries no more authority than if another mall patron were to ask you to leave the mall. _MaH how do you know the mall authority didn't ask the officer to make him leave? like it was said earlier, we have exactly 50% of the story. Along with his demeanor, I believe this is exactly the point of the whole thing.  I said it earlier in the thread and I'll say it again....the simple statement that "I'm aware you're in compliance with the law, however the property owner has a policy against open carry, and I have to enforce the property owners rights.  You'll need to move to an area where you can put your jacket back on given that you have a permit, or you'll need to leave the mall."  If he'd been polite enough to do that, this thread wouldn't exist.   Even if the property manager had said "kick him out" despite a corporate policy that allowed me to be there, I'd have no argument with the officers role, I would have thanked him for his courtesy and taken up my issue with the property owner.  The officer never told me who approached him about my carrying. So basically, you're exactly right...we have exactly one half of the story because the officer didn't feel obligated to politely share with me the one piece of information that was crucial to justifying his actions: under what previously granted authority was he acting upon when he kicked me out.   Offering to go get a property manager and 'have him tell you to leave" in my eyes is very different than acting on the wishes of the property owner.  Maybe that's just me.

I personally feel really bad that a LEO in VA did this.  i know that most officers in my department would have handled it better, but unfortunately we all know people are people, no matter what line of work they're in.  I hope your contact with Sheriff Simpson goes well and this can be resolved w/ the deputy learning a lesson in manners.

Quoted: I personally feel really bad that a LEO in VA did this.  i know that most officers in my department would have handled it better, but unfortunately we all know people are people, no matter what line of work they're in.  I hope your contact with Sheriff Simpson goes well and this can be resolved w/ the deputy learning a lesson in manners.

Based on the half of the story we know from the OP, the deputy surely deserves more than a simple 'slap on the wrist' (e.g. administrative notation in his personnel file).

height=8

Quoted: Ok guys, stop and think for a moment. You see someone walking through the mall with a coat on, no indication of them carrying at all. Nothing is thought about it. A few moments later you see the same person with their coat off and now you see a weapon. The weapon was initially concealed, how do you know that person was in compliance with the law moments earlier when his coat was on? You don't! What would a sensible person do? Probably call their local law enforcement.

height=8

Quoted:LOL I don't know anyone who would call.  I guess you're new to VA, but the law requires those that carry to carry openly where alcohol is served, so people uncovering their pistols in dining areas is actually rather common since 1995.

There is no sarcasm intended in this response, just factual information. There are many people out there who would call. I've dealt with many unfounded complaints of criminal activity during my career. I'm retired with 17.5 years in law enforcement in Virginia, most of that on the street.  I retired in 2001. What is common practice after that time, I cannot say.

Quoted:
As a cop getting this call, I would DEFINITELY identify the person carrying and run a check on them, no only to be sure the permit had not been revoked but also check for any outstanding paper. If there was a complainant to be seen and I didn't do this, you can bet darn sure there would be a complaint about me not doing a proper investigation and they would be correct.
height=8

I'm no lawyer, but isn't an officer supposed to have some reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime before detaining a suspect and demanding that ID be produced?  In your hypothetical scenario, what evidence suggests someone was carrying concealed illegally?

Again no sarcasm intended in this response, just factual information. The Reasonable Suspicion is the fact that the weapon was concealed earlier. Is this Probable Cause to arrest for carrying the concealed weapon... no. Is it a justifiable reason to investigate further to determine if a crime has occurred.... yes.


Quoted:
Sure enough, one of the officers came over, pulled out one of the unused chairs and sat down at our table.  He asked me if I was LEO, to which I responded "no sir".  He said "Do you read the newspaper" and I responded "Yes sir".  He went on to tell me (in not so many words) that he thought I was stupid for open carrying in the mall

Again I was not present during the conversation so I do not know the tone of voice used or the words spoken, and I am not trying to be a smart a**. I am purely playing the role of Devil's Advocate. Was the deputy trying to be educational and saying something along the lines of "this might not have been the best thing to do"? Or, was he demeaning you?


and asked if I had a permit, which I do.  He said "Let me see it"  He also told me to give him my drivers license. He was very belligerent and disrespectful through the entire conversation.

People have made complaints against me for being belligerent and disrespectful. I attributed it to them not liking being approached and their actions questioned. I AM NOT saying you acted  this way but people I encountered  HAVE. Fortunately, several of those situations were being recorded on the cruiser's video camera. When the video was reviewed by my supervisor, the person complaining realized that I really wasn't acting  inappropriately, and upon the person seeing this, the complaint was dropped by the person. Again, I'm not saying you acted inappropriately, I'm playing Devil's Advocate.

He wrote all of my information down and called in to run a check on me. His call started, "Yeah, this is officer *****, I'm calling about the guy with the canon." WTF, the guy with canon?  I'm carrying a 4" barrel 1911!

Again playing Devil's Advocate, if these were the exact words the deputy used, maybe the deputy felt he was being argued with and became sarcastic. If he was being sarcastic, that probably wasn't the wisest choice under these circumstances.


While this was going on, we had a conversation in which I told him that I would LOVE to be carrying concealed right now, but in compliance with VA law, I *have* to open carry to eat here because alcohol is sold in the food court" He said "I could see if you were at a bar or something, but....and that's all I'm going to say about that."

Officers have some latitude when dealing with a lot of misdemeanor offenses and a lot of traffic violations. Again being Devil's Advocate, the deputy may have been subtly trying to hint that he would have given anyone in this situation some latitude being that you weren't actually in the confines of the restaurant selling the alcoholic beverages.

CAN YOU BELIEVE IT?!?!?!  In utter astonishment, I said, "Are you TELLING me to break the law by carrying concealed in an establishment with a license to sell alcohol?" His response was "What I'm saying is that I'm not questioning your constitutionality, I'm questioning your judgment to open-carry in here."

If the deputy was hinting that he would give someone in this situation leeway, then it would have been better to stay concealed. You may say then, that you would be in violation, I would have to respond that I would not charge someone in that situation and all of the road officers I know would not either. Would a lot of the brass charge you? Possibly. But how many people would know you were carrying if you coat was still on? Probably none. I have a CCW am I would not hesitate staying concealed in your circumstances. Just my 2 cents.

When I again asked him how I should comply with the law, he said something along the lines of "concealed carry or leave your gun in the car".  

I think there was a good chance he was again hinting that he would have overlooked it and if you were uncomfortable carry concealed, then leave the gun in the car. Again my two cents as Devil's Advocate.


During my repeated statements that I'm doing what I'm required to do to be compliant with VA state law, he several times made the statement that I could either leave, or he'd go get mall management to come and kick me out, then if I didn't leave, he'd arrest me for trespassing.

Devil's Advocate: continually repeating your argument could be seen as being confrontational. With me, confrontation would have elicited the same response, if the mall management was the complainant.


At some point during all of this two more officers came over and stood over my shoulder and asked officer ****** if he needed assistance. My wife said "it's ok, we're leaving" and the officer over my shoulder said in his toughest voice "I wasn't talking to you I'm talking to another officer."

Devil's Advocate: I have had times where another person, who was with the person that was argumentative, started to interject into the discussion and they have received the same worded response with some authority in my voice.


I mentioned that if the mall owners wanted no guns in the mall, which it is absolutely their right to decide, they were required by law to post signs indicating so at the entrances, which they have not done. Again, he said "You want me to go get management and have them tell you to leave, and then if you don't I'll arrest you for trespassing and we can go to a different kind of court."

Until you determine that someone in authority at the mall didn't make the complaint and tell the deputy, before he talked to you, that they wanted you to go no matter what, the deputy may have been in a position to make that statement. Hypothetical situation: just because a person in authority may not be justified to tell someone to leave under civil law, he can say I want this person to leave. Once he tells that person verbally or in writing to leave, the person must leave without undue hesitation. If the person refuses outright or substantially delays, such as taking a step, stopping, waiting a minute, taking another step, stopping, etc. they can be arrested. If the person demanding you leave had no justification for doing that, then your redress is through the civil court against the person making the demand.


As we were getting up to leave, he told me "now get out of here".

If this is what he said, it could have been said better.

I asked him again how I was supposed to comply between where we were sitting and the boundary of the food court,

It would have been better for you to end your conversation before this point- IMHO

and he said "this conversation is over".

Appropriate response from the deputy, probably should have been said earlier- IMHO

I hope all the highlights appear in the places I intended. I was trying to address the pertinent items at the correct place.

Again all the responses that might, in any way, be taken as personal are not meant as such. I am trying to respond to each item from a professional view/ how another person may view the incident.

Well spoken =

"The Reasonable Suspicion is the fact that the weapon was concealed earlier. "

There is NO indication that the deputy sheriff saw the weapon concealed at any time.

The deputy was being a grade A idiot.
If he had the orders of the mall management he would not have said he could have them ask for the person to leave (unless he just likes to lie for the sport of it).

Open carry is legal, as is concealed carry with a permit.
The mall owners sign could ONLY generate a trespass charge if the person refused to leave when asked by competent authority.
Absent other evidence, the deputy is NOT competent authority here.
He is NOT an employee or agent of the mall.
He did not claim to be an agent of the mall.

He is simply throwing his badge around and should be reamed out by the sheriff.

Unlike in court the deputy does NOT get the benefit if the doubt here.

Quoted: Quoted: I personally feel really bad that a LEO in VA did this.  i know that most officers in my department would have handled it better, but unfortunately we all know people are people, no matter what line of work they're in.  I hope your contact with Sheriff Simpson goes well and this can be resolved w/ the deputy learning a lesson in manners. Based on the half of the story we know from the OP, the deputy surely deserves more than a simple 'slap on the wrist' (e.g. administrative notation in his personnel file).

i like how you are ready to judge on 50% of the story.  Good thing most jurys don't work that way.

Quoted: "The Reasonable Suspicion is the fact that the weapon was concealed earlier. " There is NO indication that the deputy sheriff saw the weapon concealed at any time. The deputy was being a grade A idiot. If he had the orders of the mall management he would not have said he could have them ask for the person to leave (unless he just likes to lie for the sport of it). Open carry is legal, as is concealed carry with a permit. The mall owners sign could ONLY generate a trespass charge if the person refused to leave when asked by competent authority. Absent other evidence, the deputy is NOT competent authority here. He is NOT an employee or agent of the mall. He did not claim to be an agent of the mall. He is simply throwing his badge around and should be reamed out by the sheriff. Unlike in court the deputy does NOT get the benefit if the doubt here.

Thats been patently apparent since the beginning of the thread, that no one would want to get all the facts and judge based on those.  You all would much rather judge the deputy based on his poor attitude and the fact that you "feel" that he did something wrong.  

Quoted: Quoted: "The Reasonable Suspicion is the fact that the weapon was concealed earlier. " There is NO indication that the deputy sheriff saw the weapon concealed at any time. The deputy was being a grade A idiot. If he had the orders of the mall management he would not have said he could have them ask for the person to leave (unless he just likes to lie for the sport of it). Open carry is legal, as is concealed carry with a permit. The mall owners sign could ONLY generate a trespass charge if the person refused to leave when asked by competent authority. Absent other evidence, the deputy is NOT competent authority here. He is NOT an employee or agent of the mall. He did not claim to be an agent of the mall. He is simply throwing his badge around and should be reamed out by the sheriff. Unlike in court the deputy does NOT get the benefit if the doubt here. Thats been patently apparent since the beginning of the thread, that no one would want to get all the facts and judge based on those.  You all would much rather judge the deputy based on his poor attitude and the fact that you "feel" that he did something wrong.

I typed the original post as soon as I got home from the mall so that the events would be as fresh in my mind as possible.  Of course, my 'side' of the story is just that, but I'm trying to remain as objective about things as possible.  I couldn't care less whether the officer gets reprimanded,  it wouldn't change anything.  I want to know (and I want him to know) whether he was in the right or not, and if not, can I eat in that food court again without being confronted.  I suspect a part of that answer will come from the property owner directly, but we'll see.

I got a short, polite email from the Assistant Division Commander of Field Operations stating that he is reviewing my complaint and consulting with the Commonwealth Attorney and will be getting back to me.  The cynic in me says this is where my account of events gets discredited by the thin blue line and nothing happens.  The hopeful in me just wants some positive clarification of the malls policies as the LCSO is charged to enforce them (and none of that ambiguous crap like "at the officers discretion" either.)  If what comes out of it is "the recount of events as you relayed them is nothing like the recount given by the multiple officers on scene, but regardless, the mall has no specific policy on open-carry in the mall, therefore in the future while we don't recommend it, the LCSO cannot force you to leave."

height=8

Quoted: "The Reasonable Suspicion is the fact that the weapon was concealed earlier. " There is NO indication that the deputy sheriff saw the weapon concealed at any time.

The deputy doesn't need to see it concealed. If the complainant saw OP walking around with jacket on and later saw him with jacket off and weapon in plain view, then the complainant can conclude, and rightly so, that the weapon was concealed earlier. If  complainant is willing to prosecute if a criminal offense has occurred or the deputy spoke with the complainant before speaking with the OP, the deputy definitely can question the OP about the legality of his carrying concealed and obtain identification from him as well as his carry permit. Very seldom were the occasions where I didn't speak with the complainant before talking to the suspect. In the cases where it was impractical to speak with the complainant first, I would obtain all of the suspect's info first.

height=8

The deputy was being a grade A idiot. If he had the orders of the mall management he would not have said he could have them ask for the person to leave (unless he just likes to lie for the sport of it).

Again, I'm playing Devil's Advocate here. He could have been told by dispatch to contact the management after making contact with the OP. I have acted on information before based on the dispatcher telling me that such information exists. It happens all the time, for example: in cases where there are warrants from other jurisdictions and the other jurisdiction indicated they will extradite, an arrest is made.

height=8

Open carry is legal, as is concealed carry with a permit. The mall owners sign could ONLY generate a trespass charge if the person refused to leave when asked by competent authority.

True. That competent authority can be the manager or designee on duty at the time of occurrence.

height=8

Absent other evidence, the deputy is NOT competent authority here. He is NOT an employee or agent of the mall. He did not claim to be an agent of the mall.

As far as we know right now, this is most likely true.

height=8

He is simply throwing his badge around and should be reamed out by the sheriff.

As another poster pointed out earlier, we have only one side of the story. I have looked like a fool in court before because I obeyed a lawful order from one Sargent, while I was conducting an investigation on a felony unlawful use of a motor vehicle. The investigation wasn't complete and I had sufficient evidence to charge a developed suspect in the crime and my Sargent told me to charge the suspect because he wanted the case closed. Because I had the evidence and was given a lawful order by my supervisor (even though I felt I needed to investigate further), I was required to obtain the warrant. After the warrant was obtained and served, I was able to contact other witnesses who could vouch for the suspect not being involved. In court, I asked the judge to nolle prosse the charges citing the additional evidence I obtained. The innocent "suspect" had been GREATLY inconvenienced because I didn't have all the evidence I could have had. The deputy deserves the same benefit of the doubt until ALL the evidence is in.


height=8

Unlike in court the deputy does NOT get the benefit if the doubt here.

There are bad characters in law enforcement that never should have been hired and/or deserve to be in jail, but it is truly unfair to pass sentence on someone until all the evidence is in.

I have made some suppositions, on the part of the deputy, in this post. It is in an effort to point out that more information is out there and it has not been obtained yet. If it turns out that the rest of the information, or most of this information, indicated the deputy acted improperly or unprofessionally,  then he deserves to have a review of his performance and/ or disciplinary action taken.

just to interject here, and I know this is unpopular, but the RAS for the deputy could have come from whatever call precipitated the encountered....

For example:

"Hello, there is a guy with a gun in the mall, and I am very scared...."


if that is all that is given to the officer (guy with gun, people scared), he has the authority to investigate why the call was made....

For the record, this INCLUDES investigating if the complaintant was being a paranoid idiot, and also investigating the subject of the complaint.....(IMHO sometimes step 1 is overlooked, although in my experience most LEOs are extremely conscientious...sorry this guy wasn't)


if the deputy just walked in, and saw kcobean with his weapon while he was eating dinner, and there was NO complaint, given VA Open Carry laws, there is a good argument that RAS did NOT exist


BUT:

A lot of cities, counties, etc. have ordinances (many times just outright, sometime in their loitering statutes) that say something along the following lines:

b) [Identification.]  It shall be unlawful for any person at a public place or place open to the public to refuse to furnish a proper form of identification or otherwise properly identify himself by name and address to a uniformed police officer or properly identified police officer not in uniform if the surrounding circumstances are such as to indicate to a reasonable person that the public safety requires such identification.  

what I have quoted there is actually from the Manassas Park City ordinances from the Loitering section of the city code.....it was relevant during the Tony's 7 incident (or could have been at least) because the officer in that instance asked for ID too...

No offense, but I don't feel like looking up Loudon code, or if it DTC is in an ancillary jurisdiction....but if a section of the code like the above one exists, then the officer wouldn't need RAS to ask for ID...because DTC, like Tony's restaurant, is a "place open to the public"....and as I said when this came up the first time....it isn't "reasonable member of arf.com"....it is "reasonable person" which, unfortunately, includes Fudds, Brady idiots, etc. etc.....and it is 99% likely that, under the reasonable person standard, it would be reasonable for an officer to ask for ID in a mall of someone carrying a weapon 1 week after mall shootings....may not be ideal, but it is likely the law...


anyway....just my 2 cents since there was some question...either way, sorry it happened to you...further proof we need to work hard to get rid of the idiotic restaurant law....

Quoted: Quoted: I'm no lawyer, but isn't an officer supposed to have some reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime before detaining a suspect and demanding that ID be produced?  In your hypothetical scenario, what evidence suggests someone was carrying concealed illegally? the reasonable suspicion could have been that the weapon was concealed, and now it is not.  It is possible that the person concealing saw a LEO and uncovered because he was afraid that he would be caught concealing w/o a license.

Since your location is concealed, we don't know what state you're in, but here in VA the law requires those that carry to do so openly where alcohol is served, so people uncovering their pistols to enter dining areas is increasingly common since 1995.

Quoted: The Reasonable Suspicion is the fact that the weapon was concealed earlier. Is this Probable Cause to arrest for carrying the concealed weapon... no. Is it a justifiable reason to investigate further to determine if a crime has occurred.... yes.

It's unfortunate that careful adherence to the law is viewed by some as reasonable suspicion of a crime.

I hope that few officers maintain this outlook, or the result will be a lot of wasted police officer time and a lot of gun owners unnecessarily harassed.  

I know several folks who, to comply with the law, uncover their pistols to eat in restaurants; I've done it myself multiple times.

Quoted: just to interject here, and I know this is unpopular, but the RAS for the deputy could have come from whatever call precipitated the encountered....

So, a complaintant's call, absent any observable evidence of wrongdoing, is sufficient for RAS?

Quoted: ...under the reasonable person standard, it would be reasonable for an officer to ask for ID in a mall of someone carrying a weapon 1 week after mall shootings...

Note that per the OP's story, he wasn't asked for ID (unspecified documentation) nor asked to identify himself (where a verbal response would suffice).  Per the OP's story, the officer demanded that he produce specific documents.  A minor point maybe, but an important one in these situations.

Quoted: ...further proof we need to work hard to get rid of the idiotic restaurant law....

Agreed.  

Quoted: Quoted: just to interject here, and I know this is unpopular, but the RAS for the deputy could have come from whatever call precipitated the encountered.... So, a complaintant's call, absent any observable evidence of wrongdoing, is sufficient for RAS? Quoted: ...under the reasonable person standard, it would be reasonable for an officer to ask for ID in a mall of someone carrying a weapon 1 week after mall shootings... Note that per the OP's story, he wasn't asked for ID (unspecified documentation) nor asked to identify himself (where a verbal response would suffice).  Per the OP's story, the officer demanded that he produce specific documents.  A minor point maybe, but an important one in these situations. Quoted: ...further proof we need to work hard to get rid of the idiotic restaurant law.... Agreed.

1)  yes, it can be RAS, when the police receive a call, their job is to investigate.  i know you and i went on about this in the norfolk situation, but its just the way it is.  the police don't get a call, and then go confirm that the call should have been made before investigating.....they get a call, and they investigate.  there is punishment for making false calls, but the police have to investigate in order to determine this.  And, unfortunately, in the end, as we have gone over many times in many threads, it all comes down to human judgment of the person initiating the call.  You and I would never call in this situation.  Many people would.  The police don't "choose" which calls they investigate. They investigate them all.  Hopefully in a professional manner (this certainly seemed to be on the weak side here...).  But you investigate all calls.  Note, investigate does NOT always mean "conduct a terry stop"....it would, of course, have to be appropriate to the circumstances...  

ETA:  I hope the beginning of my answer here is clear "CAN" does not mean "ALWAYS IS"...a 911 call, in order to provide RAS, would still have to meet all of the standards for RAS that observed behavior by a police officer would....not all 911 calls create RAS...I don't mean to create that impression....but you can certainly get RAS from a 911 call...

the most obvious example..."there is a blue ford truck driving and swerving down rte 28 near falmouth"...a cop responding to this comes upon a blue ford truck on rte 28 near falmouth at a stoplight...he likely has RAS already....

at any rate...there is NO case law that says "911 calls are RAS"....in all instances the 911 calls are evaluated based on the same standard as anything else (in Virginia, the relevant case law is obviously Terry v. Ohio, Buck v. Commonwealth, Miller v. Commonwealth, there are a ton more...)...again, I was just trying to show instances that could create RAS since, IMHO, an officer observing a man, openly carrying, eating dinner, does NOT have RAS

2)  it would depend on the specific code..again, the one I was using was from Manassas Park, and again, I was just trying to provide an example when an officer could ask for ID without RAS

3)  Amen, brother


Editted to break that up some to make it more readable...

Quoted: the reasonable suspicion could have been that the weapon was concealed, and now it is not.  It is possible that the person concealing saw a LEO and uncovered because he was afraid that he would be caught concealing w/o a license. If i saw a person drinking a beer who looked to me to be 18yo, then i would get his ID to check his age, that is my reasonable suspicion that he MAY have been breaking the law and i have a right to investigate based on reasonable suspicion.

So what you're saying is that you could basically come up with a "reasonable suspicion" scenario for any person in any situation?

height=8

Quoted: just to interject here, and I know this is unpopular, but the RAS for the deputy could have come from whatever call precipitated the encountered.... For example: "Hello, there is a guy with a gun in the mall, and I am very scared...." if that is all that is given to the officer (guy with gun, people scared), he has the authority to investigate why the call was made.... For the record, this INCLUDES investigating if the complaintant was being a paranoid idiot, and also investigating the subject of the complaint.....(IMHO sometimes step 1 is overlooked, although in my experience most LEOs are extremely conscientious...sorry this guy wasn't) if the deputy just walked in, and saw kcobean with his weapon while he was eating dinner, and there was NO complaint, given VA Open Carry laws, there is a good argument that RAS did NOT exist BUT: A lot of cities, counties, etc. have ordinances (many times just outright, sometime in their loitering statutes) that say something along the following lines: b) [Identification.]  It shall be unlawful for any person at a public place or place open to the public to refuse to furnish a proper form of identification or otherwise properly identify himself by name and address to a uniformed police officer or properly identified police officer not in uniform if the surrounding circumstances are such as to indicate to a reasonable person that the public safety requires such identification.   what I have quoted there is actually from the Manassas Park City ordinances from the Loitering section of the city code.....it was relevant during the Tony's 7 incident (or could have been at least) because the officer in that instance asked for ID too... No offense, but I don't feel like looking up Loudon code, or if it DTC is in an ancillary jurisdiction....but if a section of the code like the above one exists, then the officer wouldn't need RAS to ask for ID...because DTC, like Tony's restaurant, is a "place open to the public"....and as I said when this came up the first time....it isn't "reasonable member of arf.com"....it is "reasonable person" which, unfortunately, includes Fudds, Brady idiots, etc. etc.....and it is 99% likely that, under the reasonable person standard, it would be reasonable for an officer to ask for ID in a mall of someone carrying a weapon 1 week after mall shootings....may not be ideal, but it is likely the law... anyway....just my 2 cents since there was some question...either way, sorry it happened to you...further proof we need to work hard to get rid of the idiotic restaurant law....

+1 on both counts, Reasonable Suspicion and the restaurant ban needing to be reworked.

height=8

Quoted: The Reasonable Suspicion is the fact that the weapon was concealed earlier. Is this Probable Cause to arrest for carrying the concealed weapon... no. Is it a justifiable reason to investigate further to determine if a crime has occurred.... yes.

It's unfortunate that careful adherence to the law is viewed by some as reasonable suspicion of a crime.

height=8

I hope that few officers maintain this outlook, or the result will be a lot of wasted police officer time and a lot of gun owners unnecessarily harassed.

There is a lot of time wasted on bogus reports of criminal activity. Until it is investigated though, how can anyone be certain it is bogus? Yes, there are a lot of people out there who need to be taught what common sense is and how to apply it.  

height=8

Quoted: height=8 Quoted: the reasonable suspicion could have been that the weapon was concealed, and now it is not.  It is possible that the person concealing saw a LEO and uncovered because he was afraid that he would be caught concealing w/o a license. If i saw a person drinking a beer who looked to me to be 18yo, then i would get his ID to check his age, that is my reasonable suspicion that he MAY have been breaking the law and i have a right to investigate based on reasonable suspicion. So what you're saying is that you could basically come up with a "reasonable suspicion" scenario for any person in any situation?

If an officer observes circumstances or has facts which indicate to a reason person that a crime might have been or could possibly be committed, the officer can use that for his basis of Reasonable Suspicion. He can't arrest based on that, but it is allowed for him to continue talking with/ watching someone to see if Probable Cause for an arrest can be obtained either through observed actions or statements that are made.

Based on what some have said in this discussion, a certain number of calls that are received at dispatch should just be ignored. I know a lot of dispatchers and officers who would love to see this policy implemented, and to a very small degree they are, and upon very specific SOPs. Ex: 911 is accidentally dialed, caller stays on line and explains it was an error in dialing and nothing unusual is heard in the background, no officer sent. But, there questionable calls and officers are sent on those- CYA from lawsuits.

Q: Do we know that there was a 911 call made?  The OP didn't mention one, so I assumed the deputy was acting on his own.

If there was a 911 call made, he needs to FOIA the transcript.

Quoted: Q: Do we know that there was a 911 call made?  The OP didn't mention one, so I assumed the deputy was acting on his own. If there was a 911 call made, he needs to FOIA the transcript.

i dont, again, my examples were completely in the realm of the hypothetical...I was just trying to give examples where RAS could have come from, other than the idea that "he uncovered"...or an alternative to why he asked for ID....

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'm no lawyer, but isn't an officer supposed to have some reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime before detaining a suspect and demanding that ID be produced?  In your hypothetical scenario, what evidence suggests someone was carrying concealed illegally? the reasonable suspicion could have been that the weapon was concealed, and now it is not.  It is possible that the person concealing saw a LEO and uncovered because he was afraid that he would be caught concealing w/o a license. Since your location is concealed, we don't know what state you're in, but here in VA the law requires those that carry to do so openly where alcohol is served, so people uncovering their pistols to enter dining areas is increasingly common since 1995. Quoted: The Reasonable Suspicion is the fact that the weapon was concealed earlier. Is this Probable Cause to arrest for carrying the concealed weapon... no. Is it a justifiable reason to investigate further to determine if a crime has occurred.... yes. It's unfortunate that careful adherence to the law is viewed by some as reasonable suspicion of a crime. I hope that few officers maintain this outlook, or the result will be a lot of wasted police officer time and a lot of gun owners unnecessarily harassed.   I know several folks who, to comply with the law, uncover their pistols to eat in restaurants; I've done it myself multiple times.

I live in VA, and have done so all my life I don't know why my location is unlisted, probably screwed up when playing with my user info.

Quoted: Quoted: the reasonable suspicion could have been that the weapon was concealed, and now it is not.  It is possible that the person concealing saw a LEO and uncovered because he was afraid that he would be caught concealing w/o a license. If i saw a person drinking a beer who looked to me to be 18yo, then i would get his ID to check his age, that is my reasonable suspicion that he MAY have been breaking the law and i have a right to investigate based on reasonable suspicion. So what you're saying is that you could basically come up with a "reasonable suspicion" scenario for any person in any situation?

no, i'm saying that if i see something that appears to me to be someone possibly breaking the law, it is my duty to investigate.  Believe me, i have enough work that i dont need to make shit up.

Just got a very polite and informative reply from the Manager of the Dulles Town Center.  He sent me a copy of their "Rules of Conduct" document, which is kept at the customer service desk on the premises, and item #4 in that document is:

• No guns, knives or weapons whatsoever allowed on premises

So, in the end, while the officer was tactless, he was in fact enforcing the policies of the property owner.  Would have been so simple to just politely say that.

So did you already send him the "okay, then I won't be back" letter?

Quoted: Just got a very polite and informative reply from the Manager of the Dulles Town Center.  He sent me a copy of their "Rules of Conduct" document, which is kept at the customer service desk on the premises, and item #4 in that document is: • No guns, knives or weapons whatsoever allowed on premises So, in the end, while the officer was tactless, he was in fact enforcing the policies of the property owner.  Would have been so simple to just politely say that.

While you are at it tell them to post that crap on the doors so people will know not to shop or carry there.  

Quoted: So did you already send him the "okay, then I won't be back" letter?

Yes I did.  He was very polite to me, so I returned that respect, but I did say that I would unfortunately be shopping elsewhere since I don't consider my personal safety, and my families, negotiable.  I don't bank with Wachovia or Bank America for the same reasons.

I did also pass along that I would love to see the policy amended to exclude permit holders, with a clause regarding the food court, though I don't expect it to be met with much enthusiasm.

Quoted: Quoted: Just got a very polite and informative reply from the Manager of the Dulles Town Center.  He sent me a copy of their "Rules of Conduct" document, which is kept at the customer service desk on the premises, and item #4 in that document is: • No guns, knives or weapons whatsoever allowed on premises So, in the end, while the officer was tactless, he was in fact enforcing the policies of the property owner.  Would have been so simple to just politely say that. While you are at it tell them to post that crap on the doors so people will know not to shop or carry there.

I didn't suggest it, though the ambiguity bothers me, especially if this event is typical of how the law enforcement working there is going to handle people who just simply didn't know they were running afoul of the property owners policies.  

All reasons I won't be going back there.

I understand the problem with ambiguity.

Still, is it wise in the long run to advise the mall of the proper way to legally prohibit the carrying of firearms?

Quoted: I did also pass along that I would love to see the policy amended to exclude permit holders, with a clause regarding the food court, though I don't expect it to be met with much enthusiasm.

+1, and the concealed statutes need to be relaxed on a number of counts. IMHO

A former LEO in full favor of law abiding citizens carrying concealed.

As another member said before: "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away!"

Quoted: I understand the problem with ambiguity. Still, is it wise in the long run to advise the mall of the proper way to legally prohibit the carrying of firearms?

A very valid point, and while I *hate* the thought of giving up my nose to save my face, a face is better than nothing, which the property owner has every right to leave us with if they choose (yes, I know, that's how it starts, erosion of rights and all, I'm open to alternatives).  Lerner corporation is a huge entity (the property owner), if they wanted to know how to legally prohibit the carrying of firearms, they'll find out, in fact they've already done it....exercise their rights as a property owner.

"Still, is it wise in the long run to advise the mall of the proper way to legally prohibit the carrying of firearms?"

They can post all the sings they want, all that they can do is ask you to leave if they see you carrying.
ONLY if you refuse to leave can you be charged with trespassing.
I would send them a letter explaining why you will no longer be patronizing their mall though.

Quoted: "Still, is it wise in the long run to advise the mall of the proper way to legally prohibit the carrying of firearms?" They can post all the sings they want, all that they can do is ask you to leave if they see you carrying. ONLY if you refuse to leave can you be charged with trespassing. I would send them a letter explaining why you will no longer be patronizing their mall though.

I did so via email, in reply to the one I received clarifying their policies.  (see above).

Quoted: Just got a very polite and informative reply from the Manager of the Dulles Town Center.  He sent me a copy of their "Rules of Conduct" document, which is kept at the customer service desk on the premises, and item #4 in that document is: • No guns, knives or weapons whatsoever allowed on premises So, in the end, while the officer was tactless, he was in fact enforcing the policies of the property owner.  Would have been so simple to just politely say that.

How many malls don't have this policy?  Seriously.  Any mall that doesn't have a policy like this one, and doesn't make an effort to enforce it, exposes itself to liability if there is an active shooter event at the mall.

Just because the law allows you to do something, it doesn't mean you should.  Carrying concealed would have been far more unobtrusive and you would have had a very solid argument that you were unaware of their policy, since there was no signage that you could see, warning you not to carry, concealed or otherwise.

I'm interested to see if the mall posts signs prominently at all entrances as a result of this event. . . .

It's unwise to call to the attention of the property owner a defect in that owner's attempt to prohibit firearms from the premises, from the standpoint of future visitors to the mall who may be carrying.

VA Code 18.2-308 (O) reads:

O. The granting of a concealed handgun permit shall not thereby authorize the possession of any handgun or other weapon on property or in places where such possession is otherwise prohibited by law or is prohibited by the owner of private property.

Under subsection (A) of the statute, it is unlawful to carry a concealed handgun.  It is a Class 1 misdemeanor.  To gain a conviction, a prosecutor would have to show that you committed the act and you had the intent.  Being in the mall with adequate signage that the subsequent individual saw, or should have seen, would be sufficient to establish both requirements.  As it is now, absent the person knowing of the policy, and acknowledging the same to the police, it would be very difficult to obtain a conviction for someone carrying concealed at Dulles Town Center.

Why did you carry openly?  Because a vendor at the food court serves alcohol, you said.  Va. Code 18.2-308 (J.3) prohibits carrying concealed in a restaurant that serves alcohol.  The statute reads:

No person shall carry a concealed handgun onto the premises of any restaurant or club as defined in § 4.1-100 for which a license to sell and serve alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption has been granted by the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board under Title 4.1 of the Code of Virginia; however, nothing herein shall prohibit any sworn law-enforcement officer from carrying a concealed handgun on the premises of such restaurant or club or any owner or event sponsor or his employees from carrying a concealed handgun while on duty at such restaurant or club if such person has a concealed handgun permit.

Va. Code 4.1-100 defines restaurant as:

"Restaurant" means, for a beer, or wine and beer license or a limited mixed beverage restaurant license, any establishment provided with special space and accommodation, where, in consideration of payment, meals or other foods prepared on the premises are regularly sold.

A food court is not an establishment and it is not the premises of a restaurant of club.  It is open space shared by a number of of establishments selling food, candies and snacks, and refreshments.  Just because one establshment sell alcohol, that does not make every establishment and the common area premises covered under Subsection (J.3).

Again, there's what the law allows and common sense.  Better to exercise common sense than blindly asserting your rights, especially when you don't need to.

I always scratch my head about that liability issue you speak of.  I mean... a mall is liable if a shooting goes on because they didn't put a sign up saying no guns allowed?

How does that get by any logic?

Quoted: Just because the law allows you to do something, it doesn't mean you should.... Better to exercise common sense than blindly asserting your rights, especially when you don't need to.

lol

Why did you carry openly?  Because a vendor at the food court serves alcohol, you said.  Va. Code 18.2-308 (J.3) prohibits carrying concealed in a restaurant that serves alcohol.  The statute reads: No person shall carry a concealed handgun onto the premises of any restaurant or club as defined in § 4.1-100 for which a license to sell and serve alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption has been granted by the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board under Title 4.1 of the Code of Virginia; however, nothing herein shall prohibit any sworn law-enforcement officer from carrying a concealed handgun on the premises of such restaurant or club or any owner or event sponsor or his employees from carrying a concealed handgun while on duty at such restaurant or club if such person has a concealed handgun permit. Va. Code 4.1-100 defines restaurant as: "Restaurant" means, for a beer, or wine and beer license or a limited mixed beverage restaurant license, any establishment provided with special space and accommodation, where, in consideration of payment, meals or other foods prepared on the premises are regularly sold. A food court is not an establishment and it is not the premises of a restaurant of club.  It is open space shared by a number of of establishments selling food, candies and snacks, and refreshments.  Just because one establshment sell alcohol, that does not make every establishment and the common area premises covered under Subsection (J.3). Again, there's what the law allows and common sense.  Better to exercise common sense than blindly asserting your rights, especially when you don't need to.

I disagree with your interpretation of a restaurant.  The establishments that serve alcohol at that mall hold the exact same 'restaurant' ABC license as any other restaurant that serves alcohol.  The space to consume those beverages is inside the limits of the food court.  The OP was right to not be concealing in the establishment like he would in any other restaurant that serves alcohol.
Frank and Stein's ABC license

ETA:
www.abc.virginia.gov/licensing/downloads/sellers_servers.pdf
Sales in Unauthorized Place or Manner
Certain areas of an on-premise licensed establishment are designated areas for alcohol consumption. Alcohol cannot be consumed in areas not designated.
(3 VAC 5-50-110)
When your ABC license is issued, certain areas in the establishment are identified as “designated areas” for alcohol consumption; these are typically dining rooms, banquet rooms, the bar area, etc. If an area is not designated, then alcohol cannot be consumed in that location. For instance, if a patio behind a restaurant has not been classified as a designated area by ABC, and alcohol is sold or consumed there, it is a violation of administrative law. The person who is consuming is considered by law to be drinking in public.

Quoted: While you are at it tell them to post that crap on the doors so people will know not to shop or carry there.

NEGATIVE!

That place is in my back yard and I go there pretty much whenever I need anything!  Don't bloody HELP them make it easier to prohibit guns!!  A posted sign means I know I can't conceal there, whereas an absent sign means I don't!  

With trespassing, since you need to be informed that you are trespassing, it makes it easier for people like me to shop there in the bliss of ignorance!

_MaH

You know, I think anti's try to fight the 2a anyway they can, including lawsuits.  

There is a law proposed in AZ that has me thinking.  They basically say, that if a populace is disarmed, then the ownership/governing authority is to be help fiscally responsible for any damages should any assault occur on it's premises.

I'm wondering if a polite, "and I never plan to go back" .... "but if I ever find myself on your premises and anything happens I'll sue you back to premonetary times" letter might at least have him thinking about his responsibility to patrons when he chooses to disarm them ... you know, fixed up sounding a bit legal and professional and polite like...

Quoted: A posted sign means I know I can't conceal there, whereas an absent sign means I don't!   With trespassing, since you need to be informed that you are trespassing, it makes it easier for people like me to shop there in the bliss of ignorance!

+1

Even when posted, I thought they still had to ask you to leave before it was trespassing...

Quoted: Even when posted, I thought they still had to ask you to leave before it was trespassing...

Possibly...  But no signs makes it easier to plead "I had no idea!" than with signs posted.

And if not for that reason, than for the reason that I don't want to get pissed off every time I enter that mall while packing

_MaH

Quoted: Quoted: While you are at it tell them to post that crap on the doors so people will know not to shop or carry there.   NEGATIVE! That place is in my back yard and I go there pretty much whenever I need anything!  Don't bloody HELP them make it easier to prohibit guns!!  A posted sign means I know I can't conceal there, whereas an absent sign means I don't!   With trespassing, since you need to be informed that you are trespassing, it makes it easier for people like me to shop there in the bliss of ignorance! _MaH

Sorry but I would like to know were I should and should not spend my money.   If they are going to go so far as to kick a guy out for following the law then they need to make thier policy public so I will not shop there.