Posted: 1/13/2011 7:15:19 AM EDT
|
A dozen armed South Bay Open Carry gun activists were escorted out of a restaurant at the South Bay Galleria mall Saturday afternoon by a Redondo Beach policeman. South Bay Galleria marketing director Mickey Marraffino confirmed that the mall’s guest code of conduct does not allow anyone to bring firearms onto the premises unless permission has been granted ahead of time by mall management. “We have a code of conduct, and we were enforcing our code of conduct,” she said. http://www.easyreadernews.com/2011/01/redondo-beach-news/open-carry |
|
I saw a similar thing happen right here at the OutBack restaurant that #2 son used to work in.
Guy walks in with a 4" S&W on his hip, cops come 5 minutes later and escort him outside. Cops talk to the guy outside for 2 or 3 minutes and the guy drives away in a huff. To the cops credit they didn't take his gun. #2 son insists it wasn't management who called, the manager at the time always carried a 38. That means some anti-gun nut or angry ex-wife called the cops, probably as soon as he/she saw the gun. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'll be the first to start this shitstorm. Their property, their rules. Agreed! Yep. I just choose to not to spend money, with people who don't want me to have my gun. Problem solved. Ed Zachary. That's why NYC and Chicago will never be on my vacation list. |
|
Quoted: if they would have been concealed......... If they could have been concealed. You know what state Redondo Beach is in, no? My take? Fuck that mall. I'll find somewhere else to go if I'm up there anytime soon. On the same token, moron UOCers should've checked that their meet was in a place that allowed it in the first place. |
|
Quoted: A dozen armed South Bay Unloaded Open Carry gun activists were escorted out of a restaurant at the South Bay Galleria mall Saturday afternoon by a Redondo Beach policeman. South Bay Galleria marketing director Mickey Marraffino confirmed that the mall’s guest code of conduct does not allow anyone to bring firearms onto the premises unless permission has been granted ahead of time by mall management. "We have a code of conduct, and we were enforcing our code of conduct,” she said. http://www.easyreadernews.com/2011/01/redondo-beach-news/open-carry That's what it should have said, truth be known. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: A dozen armed South Bay Unloaded Open Carry gun activists were escorted out of a restaurant at the South Bay Galleria mall Saturday afternoon by a Redondo Beach policeman. South Bay Galleria marketing director Mickey Marraffino confirmed that the mall’s guest code of conduct does not allow anyone to bring firearms onto the premises unless permission has been granted ahead of time by mall management. "We have a code of conduct, and we were enforcing our code of conduct,” she said. http://www.easyreadernews.com/2011/01/redondo-beach-news/open-carry That's what it should have said, truth be known. Uh huh. In California, some people wet themselves at the sight of a poorly-designed club, since that's basically what an unloaded gun is. |
|
Quoted:
I'll be the first to start this shitstorm. Their property, their rules. How about the AZ law forcing property owners to allow guns in their parking lots? “Guns in Parking Lots” This law, codified as A.R.S. § 12-781, makes it illegal for a property owner, tenant, public employer, private employer, or any other business entity to establish, maintain or enforce a policy that prohibits their employees, visitors or customers from storing firearms in their cars or motorcycles so long as the firearms are stored in a locked vehicle or in a locked compartment of a motorcycle, and are not visible from outside the vehicle. This law does not impact an employers’ right to prohibit firearms within its buildings.
|
|
it is sad how quick GD is to jump on the "property rights" bullshit (no property rights arn't bullshit you know what i mean)
1. we aren't talking about residential land at issue is property "Open to the public" (not to be confused with public property) 2. Firearm ownership is a fundamental right (per SCOTUS) and should be treated as such. 3. Anywhere i can legally be I should be able to legally carry. This is the same reason you can't say "no mexicans" are allowed in your store. In many states its the same reason you can't say women can't breast feed in your store. you'd think people here want guns rights banned. what if 99% of corporations/owners banned carry on thier property. You would be resticted to only carrying in your driveway and on public streets |
|
Quoted:
I saw a similar thing happen right here at the OutBack restaurant that #2 son used to work in. Guy walks in with a 4" S&W on his hip, cops come 5 minutes later and escort him outside. Cops talk to the guy outside for 2 or 3 minutes and the guy drives away in a huff. To the cops credit they didn't take his gun. #2 son insists it wasn't management who called, the manager at the time always carried a 38. That means some anti-gun nut or angry ex-wife called the cops, probably as soon as he/she saw the gun. That's actually not the same thing. |
|
Quoted: Finally, someone who gets it. If you are open to the public, then be open to the public. Don't pick and choose what aspects of the public you want to have in your business.it is sad how quick GD is to jump on the "property rights" bullshit (no property rights arn't bullshit you know what i mean) 1. we aren't talking about residential land at issue is property "Open to the public" (not to be confused with public property) 2. Firearm ownership is a fundamental right (per SCOTUS) and should be treated as such. 3. Anywhere i can legally be I should be able to legally carry. This is the same reason you can't say "no mexicans" are allowed in your store. In many states its the same reason you can't say women can't breast feed in your store. you'd think people here want guns rights banned. what if 99% of corporations/owners banned carry on thier property. You would be resticted to only carrying in your driveway and on public streets Until it's legal for me to have a whites only business, a no guns business shouldn't exist either... |
|
Quoted: This pretty much sums up my opinion, as well.Quoted: Finally, someone who gets it. If you are open to the public, then be open to the public. Don't pick and choose what aspects of the public you want to have in your business.it is sad how quick GD is to jump on the "property rights" bullshit (no property rights arn't bullshit you know what i mean) 1. we aren't talking about residential land at issue is property "Open to the public" (not to be confused with public property) 2. Firearm ownership is a fundamental right (per SCOTUS) and should be treated as such. 3. Anywhere i can legally be I should be able to legally carry. This is the same reason you can't say "no mexicans" are allowed in your store. In many states its the same reason you can't say women can't breast feed in your store. you'd think people here want guns rights banned. what if 99% of corporations/owners banned carry on thier property. You would be resticted to only carrying in your driveway and on public streets Until it's legal for me to have a whites only business, a no guns business shouldn't exist either... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'll be the first to start this shitstorm. Their property, their rules. How about the AZ law forcing property owners to allow guns in their parking lots? “Guns in Parking Lots” This law, codified as A.R.S. § 12-781, makes it illegal for a property owner, tenant, public employer, private employer, or any other business entity to establish, maintain or enforce a policy that prohibits their employees, visitors or customers from storing firearms in their cars or motorcycles so long as the firearms are stored in a locked vehicle or in a locked compartment of a motorcycle, and are not visible from outside the vehicle. This law does not impact an employers’ right to prohibit firearms within its buildings. Guns in a parking lot, in a locked vehicle, is very, very different. The vehicle is effectively a bubble of personal property of the owner. Note that no one should be required to provide parking... But once they do, they accept that those bubbles of someone else's property will be there. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Finally, someone who gets it. If you are open to the public, then be open to the public. Don't pick and choose what aspects of the public you want to have in your business.
it is sad how quick GD is to jump on the "property rights" bullshit (no property rights arn't bullshit you know what i mean) 1. we aren't talking about residential land at issue is property "Open to the public" (not to be confused with public property) 2. Firearm ownership is a fundamental right (per SCOTUS) and should be treated as such. 3. Anywhere i can legally be I should be able to legally carry. This is the same reason you can't say "no mexicans" are allowed in your store. In many states its the same reason you can't say women can't breast feed in your store. you'd think people here want guns rights banned. what if 99% of corporations/owners banned carry on thier property. You would be resticted to only carrying in your driveway and on public streets Until it's legal for me to have a whites only business, a no guns business shouldn't exist either... i was on the " thiers property .. thiers rules.. " bandwagon.. your post.... while.. i have not removed myself from the bandwagon... i am now standing by the door thinking about getting off < does a wagon have a door ? > does that make sense. damn you GD! |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
This pretty much sums up my opinion, as well.
Quoted:
Finally, someone who gets it. If you are open to the public, then be open to the public. Don't pick and choose what aspects of the public you want to have in your business.
it is sad how quick GD is to jump on the "property rights" bullshit (no property rights arn't bullshit you know what i mean) 1. we aren't talking about residential land at issue is property "Open to the public" (not to be confused with public property) 2. Firearm ownership is a fundamental right (per SCOTUS) and should be treated as such. 3. Anywhere i can legally be I should be able to legally carry. This is the same reason you can't say "no mexicans" are allowed in your store. In many states its the same reason you can't say women can't breast feed in your store. you'd think people here want guns rights banned. what if 99% of corporations/owners banned carry on thier property. You would be resticted to only carrying in your driveway and on public streets Until it's legal for me to have a whites only business, a no guns business shouldn't exist either... i can't believe there are 3 of us... there is hope for GD yet :) |
|
Quoted:
it is sad how quick GD is to jump on the "property rights" bullshit (no property rights arn't bullshit you know what i mean) 1. we aren't talking about residential land at issue is property "Open to the public" (not to be confused with public property) 2. Firearm ownership is a fundamental right (per SCOTUS) and should be treated as such. 3. Anywhere i can legally be I should be able to legally carry. This is the same reason you can't say "no mexicans" are allowed in your store. In many states its the same reason you can't say women can't breast feed in your store. you'd think people here want guns rights banned. what if 99% of corporations/owners banned carry on thier property. You would be resticted to only carrying in your driveway and on public streets What if? Well, 1% of corps/owners would make a ton of money from 2A supporters choosing them over that anti2A corp/owner. It's a moot point anyways as this is not the case, and will never be the case. I think you will find that property rights supporters will generally claim the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Just because the law states that someone can't refuse service to a "Mexican" for reasons of ethnicity does not not mean that we support that law. Just because one bad law is in place, does not mean we should should support a second bad law just because it makes me a "protected class." I hope this clears it up for you. |
|
There is such a thing as bad timing.
What about waiting for a slightly less heated time to make a political statement with firearms? The mall was within its rights to ask them to leave but then again,it's one of the reasons I am very pro CCW but quite skeptical of the need to OC. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
it is sad how quick GD is to jump on the "property rights" bullshit (no property rights arn't bullshit you know what i mean) 1. we aren't talking about residential land at issue is property "Open to the public" (not to be confused with public property) 2. Firearm ownership is a fundamental right (per SCOTUS) and should be treated as such. 3. Anywhere i can legally be I should be able to legally carry. This is the same reason you can't say "no mexicans" are allowed in your store. In many states its the same reason you can't say women can't breast feed in your store. you'd think people here want guns rights banned. what if 99% of corporations/owners banned carry on thier property. You would be resticted to only carrying in your driveway and on public streets What if? Well, 1% of corps/owners would make a ton of money from 2A supporters choosing them over that anti2A corp/owner. It's a moot point anyways as this is not the case, and will never be the case. I think you will find that property rights supporters will generally claim the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Just because the law states that someone can't refuse service to a "Mexican" for reasons of ethnicity does not not mean that we support that law. Just because one bad law is in place, does not mean we should should support a second bad law just because it makes me a "protected class." I hope this clears it up for you. I already understand the other side. at the risk of being labeled a commie i don't think you should be able to deny service based on race or legal possession of a firearm, The civil rights act is not going to be repealed we shouldn't take pot shots at our existing rights to make a point. FWIW I do think you should spend your money at places that are pro 2A |
|
Big gov't, small gov't. Lib's have a hard time fending for themselves and want to rely on the gov't to change their diaper. Gun owners take control of situations and don't want the gov't to interfere. Gun owners are stronger in most respects. The funny thing is, Lib's are also anti-war. They are against the US impressing our views on other countries and other people. They are too short-sighted to see their own obvious faults. I am on 22 years old, and the ignorance of this world almost brings me to tears. The anger that wells up in me when I read or see or hear a Lib's view, or the liberal agenda, causes such rage that I can't even begin to express it. I'm heading to the farm. Wish I had some tannerite so I could get a reaction out of my wasteful shooting.  **None of this was a euphemism. I'm just sick of ignorant liberal bullshit** Quoted: Ever notice how gunowners/conservitives think "your property your rules" but antigunners/libtards think "your property my rules". |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Finally, someone who gets it. If you are open to the public, then be open to the public. Don't pick and choose what aspects of the public you want to have in your business.
it is sad how quick GD is to jump on the "property rights" bullshit (no property rights arn't bullshit you know what i mean) 1. we aren't talking about residential land at issue is property "Open to the public" (not to be confused with public property) 2. Firearm ownership is a fundamental right (per SCOTUS) and should be treated as such. 3. Anywhere i can legally be I should be able to legally carry. This is the same reason you can't say "no mexicans" are allowed in your store. In many states its the same reason you can't say women can't breast feed in your store. you'd think people here want guns rights banned. what if 99% of corporations/owners banned carry on thier property. You would be resticted to only carrying in your driveway and on public streets Until it's legal for me to have a whites only business, a no guns business shouldn't exist either... Apparently many here can't see the future, and you DON'T need a crystal ball. Go to Work- Banned, Your Job's Parking Lot- Banned. Pick up your mail at the Post Office, Banned, Pick up your children at School, Banned. Go to the Mall- Banned. You "Property Rights" advocats might as well have 666 Tatooed on your forheads. |
|
how about now.. ?
please read before saying we cant qoute the article anymore A dozen Homo activists were escorted out of a restaurant at the South Bay Galleria mall Saturday afternoon by a Redondo Beach policeman. Homo activists accused the officer of “rogue” behavior in singling out the group at the Red Robin restaurant and said he violated their Constitutional right to privacy by checking to see if their dildos were loaded. The officer, Sgt. Pete Grimm, said he was responding to a request from the restaurant and was simply following the law by checking their dildos . “What was it that I did that was rogue?” Grimm said. “For the record, the South Bay Galleria does not allow homos on their property. It is private property…The management at the Red Robin did not want them in there, and they are not allowed to be on Galleria premises with heels on .” But Harley Green, president of Homos loud and proud., said that he and his group have been at the mall previously while being homos and have not encountered problems. He said this is the second time that Grimm has confronted them in the vicinity of the mall. “It’s very suspicious,” he said. “We were there before, many times, and had no problems. The only time it is a problem is when Officer Grimm shows up. If the mall really wanted us gone, and Red Robin wanted us gone, why are they feeding us, and welcoming us there?” The incident occurred at about 12:20 p.m. Members of the group, which included Green, were wearing holsters that held visible, unloaded dildos < OK this would be wrong > , which is permitted in most public places by California law. < unless unloaded dildos are allowed like the story says > homos loud and proud has made of a point of being homo at places and events around the South Bay – including the Hermosa Beach Strand and Manhattan Beach’s Hometown Fair – in order to demonstrate their right to man love.. South Bay Galleria marketing director Mickey Marraffino confirmed that the mall’s guest code of conduct does not allow anyone to be homo on the premises unless permission has been granted ahead of time by mall management. “We have a code of conduct, and we were enforcing our code of conduct,” she said. Green said California law is more restrictive than the laws in most other states that allow being homom He said the purpose in homos loud and proud being homo is public is twofold – they carry both for self defense and to help educate others on their homo rights. He said members of the group carry loaded dildos – as is legal – so they can pleasure themselves should the need arise. “So while it’s certainly not the ideal way to be a homo– you can be a open homo in Arizona and 42 other states – we are doing the best we can here in California,” Green said. Grimm also checked group members’ didlos in a Dec. 11 incident near the intersection Artesia and Hawthorne boulevards, shortly after they’d left the Galleria. The officer said he was just following California Penal Code 12031(e). “It authorizes the checking of dildos see if they are loaded,” Grimm said. Green believes that state law is in conflict with federal law and that Grimm’s actions put the city at risk of civil rights litigation. He also argued that since Grimm had already encountered the group on Dec. 11 and knew that it did not represent a danger, he must have been personally motivated to harass group members. “The fact is that this officer is acting in a manner not consistent with his peers in the South Bay or even in the rest of California,” Green said. “Police officers throughout California have all but stopped performing the unconstitutional, optional, PC 12031(e) check, except for this RBPD officer…Despite all of us being law abiding citizens with no criminal record, in full compliance with California state law, meaning he has no reasonable suspicion that we would be in violation of the law, he continues to harass us.” “If I was a trial lawyer I would be all over this,” said Green, 24, who works as a computer engineer. “But I make my money elsewhere, so no need to worry about that.” City Attorney Mike Webb said that police officers can continue to check dildos under state law. “It’s still in the penal code,” Webb said. “Police officers have to balance, daily, protecting public safety without infringing on anybody’s constitutional rights. That is specifically in the penal code to allow police to determine if somebody is lawfully carrying an unloaded dildo or illegally carrying a loaded dildo . The penal code says you don’t have to wait until someone starts shooting to find out. But it is an evolving area.” ER Share this story: |