I agree. I am also unreformed and unapologetic. I don't believe these laws are really Constitutional but these laws come from the liberal do-gooders who must protect us all from ourselves. What irks me is when people who seem to understand, to some degree, the private property argument will support these laws simply because they don't like smoking either.Well, "private property" seems to have double meanings in Indiana! I know of many people in Indiana that OWN businesses. However there is a sign on the front door stating "STATE LAW - NO SMOKING". I know many of you are against smoking - I have smoked for over 50 years and still do.
I don't hear the clamor about "this is private property - they should be able to tell people what to do on their property" - when smoking is involved!
This is the same "double standard" everyone here really gets angry about when "hunters" don't object to laws banning AR's or High cap mags. Any loss of personal freedoms for a few leads to loss of many freedoms for the many.
If they can pass a law saying it is illegal to smoke in "public places" (owned by private citizens) why can't they pass a law requiring no restriction on firearms.
+1 for the OP, he did stand up for ALL people and let his views be known. Many here seem extremely angry at all LEO's - possibly for the actions of one or two they have had the bad luck to encounter that were Axxholes. It is important for LEO's to understand that there is a lot of resentment against anyone that has the power to foul up a persons life based on their decision alone. Even an unwarranted traffic violation ticket can cost the average person financial heartache. I believe most LEO's are aware of this and try to be fair. (No I haven't had any encounters with LEO's for many years, paid my last traffic ticket over 40 years ago).
...and by the way, if I own a mall property, I wouldn't allow firearms either. I'd worry more about my bottom line and liability than being a gun friendly business. Simply put there are enough people that OC (CC people rarely care) that could break my business, but soccer moms? You gotta keep them happy.
There's really only one way to get this "private property" BS rule thrown out....
Open a private property business as a polling place. Then put up a sign that says "no women, blacks, or those over the age of 60 or under 30 allowed". Stand out there and start asking people to leave. Once the s#!^ is stirred up enough, and they tell you the 15th, the 19th, and the 26th overrule your property rights, maybe they'll agree the 2nd overrules theirs.
And that means exactly what? He never took any position in his post as being better or requesting better treatment because he was a LEO.
You seem to be the one that needs to re-read things.
I was asked to leave the Logansport Mall the other day as I was walking out of Dunhams from buying a new eotech 512 and some ammo. I was then approached buy some "half security", "half janitor guy" with a dust mop who told me firearms was not allowed in the mall and I was being asked to leave, (I just came from a few hours of range time with some of my Logansport PD friends of mine) I then identified myself as a police officer (Yes I showed Badge and ID) and was told, "only if I am in full uniform" I could be in the mall with my side arm on.
I requested that this mall security person call the mall manager and have them meet me on the spot to discuss this issue. (Thinking this guys has to be just blowing me smoke) So the person in charge of the mall walks up and I explain the situation to her and asked if this is how the mall treats all guest who carry a firearm and to toss out the fact for the moment that I was a police officer. In her very broken half English, half Spanish voice, I was then told that the mall does not allow people to carry any firearms in the mall and only police officers on duty, but they would "let me slide this time"
I then said, "no need to let me slide for anything". I then opened my bag and explained to the mall manager that the 429.99$ sight and ammo was going right back to the store for a full refund and I would never be back. I then explained to the manager of Dunhams why I was returning the items and that I will NEVER be back in that mall again. I have sent a letter to Dunhams Corp and the Company that runs the mall.....
So, Boycott Logansport Mall at all cost.
Well, "private property" seems to have double meanings in Indiana! I know of many people in Indiana that OWN businesses. However there is a sign on the front door stating "STATE LAW - NO SMOKING". I know many of you are against smoking - I have smoked for over 50 years and still do.
I don't hear the clamor about "this is private property - they should be able to tell people what to do on their property" - when smoking is involved!
This is the same "double standard" everyone here really gets angry about when "hunters" don't object to laws banning AR's or High cap mags. Any loss of personal freedoms for a few leads to loss of many freedoms for the many.
If they can pass a law saying it is illegal to smoke in "public places" (owned by private citizens) why can't they pass a law requiring no restriction on firearms.
He took his position of superiority when he called the mall security a "half security", "half janitor guy". And then again when he demeaned the mall manager with "her very broken half English, half Spanish voice".
He was informed of their policy, got huffy about it, returned his purchases, and ran home to make a post about it.
That's about the weakest argument I've read in this thread. You're going to have to do better than that. I 'd say a security man with a dust mop fits his description and Spanish-accented broken English is not uncommon in Indiana and neither has anything to do with "superiority". You are reaching to justify a weak position.
Oh yeah, let's get another law passed. Let's make big government bigger and more intrusive. While we're at it, let's ban fences and locks because that restricts my right to freedom of movement.
Are you saying you are against private property rights? You don't think that if someone comes to your house that you should have the right to ask them to leave?
Don't you know that "Civil Rights" trump "Constitution Rights" every time?
I don't understand the mindset or mentality of utilizing open carry in a public arena. What is the purpose ? Intimidation, bluster, or . . . . . ? If the purpose of being armed is for self defense, is a confrontation less likely because an individual is openly carrying a firearm ?
I think this demonstrates a lack sensibility on the OP's part. With the concern(s) of the general public running rampant in today's environment, I think most folks would be either surprised or shocked or both to see an individual walking through a crowded (assumption) mall with a gun while the wearer was not in uniform.
I would think someone in law enforcement would be even more attune to the public reaction. I do take exception to anyone believing their personal right trumps the general consideration for common sense and well being. It brings to mind the theory that it's wrong to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre - regardless of the right to free speech. From a law enforcement standpoint, I suggest your situatinal awarenes would be raised if, while on duty, you encountered someone who was openly carrying a firearm.
Next time use some common sense and don't flaunt your 2nd amendment right. You do a disservice to your fellow gunowners - and to your department for that matter.
......I strongly support the 2nd amend...
......Your tactics suck and the only "LE's" that I've seen carry openly like that are new boots or idiots that don't stay in LE very long! It's one thing to be on duty in plain clothes, in your own jurisdiction or working a case. But to be an LE and open carry in a mall is just stupid!
......I strongly support the 2nd amend., and believe it's a persons right to carry openly if they have the proper documents, etc, etc.........
I'm with you TF. The original post made it seem as if OP expected a break because of his "status." I immediately went into facepalm mode. Only after someone called out OP was there a clarification.
The million dollar question, is what would the OP have done "if" the mall rep had said "oh, you're a LEO, then you're fine to OC here, just not anyone else).
I'm just conjecturing, I'm not trying to offend the OP, but his original post should have clarified why he identified himself.
Further, I also didn't like the reference to the employee. Pointing out "broken English," and "Spanish voice," does what for the story? Even with those apparent "hindrances," the OP obviously got the point. I'm not going to call it bias, but it looks like ..... Well.... Bias. A LEO should be mindful to avoid appearing as such.
I was asked to leave the Logansport Mall the other day as I was walking out of Dunhams from buying a new eotech 512 and some ammo. I was then approached buy some "half security", "half janitor guy" with a dust mop who told me firearms was not allowed in the mall and I was being asked to leave, (I just came from a few hours of range time with some of my Logansport PD friends of mine) I then identified myself as a police officer (Yes I showed Badge and ID) and was told, "only if I am in full uniform" I could be in the mall with my side arm on.
Really? Do you believe that someone should have the right to go into a business and exercise their First Amendment rights too? Just stand in the store/restaurant and rant on about some topic that is important to them?You're all missing the point. I just think that places that are "open to the public" (my home isn't) should not be allowed to choose what Constitutional Rights are valid and which ones aren't.
Donnelly, I think you've almost got it. The right to protect one's self and others with deadly force, if necessary, should be a Civil Right. However, if the mall really wanted to, they could put up a sign that says "whites only" and not permit any others to enter. It would be the end of their business, but it's still legal. Which of your Civil Rights do you retain and which ones do you yield when you step foot on my property?
Yup.....Man, it's like alligators eating their young around here sometimes.
I can read the stories of LEOs hassling law-abiding gun-toters and not get my knickers in a twist because I know that most LEOs are not like that. They're regular Joes who have chosen to perform a task that most of us would not do. They risk their lives on every traffic stop, every domestic call, and certainly not for the money.
I wish that more LEOs participated on INGO, but after seeing how the OP has been criticized and his actions parsed for every possible offense by some, I can understand why most LEOs probably avoid this place like the plague.
Too bad, because as one who carries daily, it would be nice to have solid input from actively participating LEOs on issues that affect us all. Kudos to the OP for sharing his story.
You're all missing the point. I just think that places that are "open to the public" (my home isn't) should not be allowed to choose what Constitutional Rights are valid and which ones aren't.
Really? No. You are wrong. The Gubmint passed laws infringing on private property rights and made discrimination based upon race a crime., However, if the mall really wanted to, they could put up a sign that says "whites only" and not permit any others to enter. It would be the end of their business, but it's still legal. Which of your Civil Rights do you retain and which ones do you yield when you step foot on my property?