Opinion on Carry at a mall near me

[bobbyb0322]

So today I saw that the mall here in Longview has posted the 30.06 at all of the entrances to the actual mall. However none of the businesses with direct entrances to their stores such as JC Pennys, Dillards, Sears, etc. have them posted at those entrances. Would this then mean that I can carry in those businesses so long as I don't enter the actual mall portion of the building?

[garcia946]

If I was you I`d carry , there should be Signs at all entrances to the mall.( Even the retail stores ) It`s the same way here in Dallas , I carry there also.
All entrances should be consistance, there`s not not consistance pre the law.

[HankB]

In my opinion - which would carry no weight with an idiot judge who doesn't care what the law says - licensed concealed carry would not be prohibited to anyone except those who enter the mall through a properly-posted entrance.

The law requires that the compliant PC30.06 signage has to be conspicuously posted - if it's not visible under normal circumstances (such as entering a NON-POSTED anchor tenant and then entering the mall proper through a NON-POSTED connection between the anchor and the mall proper) the signage has no weight.

While I'm certainly not volunteering to be a test case (which would involve breaking concealment anyway), if anyone has any information on someone being arrested and prosecuted for entering any partially-posted venue through a NON-POSTED entrance, please provide the cite.

[nitrogen]

The law does not say all entrances need to be posted.

[HankB]

The law does not say all entrances need to be posted.

The exact wording is that the sign "is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public."
If a sign is not visible at a normal entrance to a venue, it hardly qualifies as "conspicuous." That such a sign may be posted elsewhere in a location invisible from the entrance used would seem to be irrelevant.

Tx CHL law has been in effect for quite a few years now - if you have any case law (or, for that matter, anecdotes) establishing that restrictive signage visible at one entrance also is applicable to all entrances from which the sign is invisible, please cite.

[bobbyb0322]

I drove around the mall and best I can tell there are 3 posted entrances to the mall itself that are direct into the main portion of the mall. There are 4 major retailers with multiple entrances on their stores that are not posted. The majority of entrances here are not even posted. I realize that I know I cannot carry into the mall. However, if someone who goes into the mall through Sears everytime I don't believe they have received proper notice that they are not to carry on the property.

[nitrogen]

I drove around the mall and best I can tell there are 3 posted entrances to the mall itself that are direct into the main portion of the mall. There are 4 major retailers with multiple entrances on their stores that are not posted. The majority of entrances here are not even posted. I realize that I know I cannot carry into the mall. However, if someone who goes into the mall through Sears everytime I don't believe they have received proper notice that they are not to carry on the property.

It's an argument for the lawyers, basically.
The law says is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public."

I'm not a lawyer and don't know of any case law, but all I'll say is that if you get arrested, charged, and convicted of a 30.06 violation, even in the manner described above, you've made multiple errs:

1) Missed a conspicuous 30.06 sign meeting legal requirements
2) failed to conceal
3) failed to conceal in such a way that someone called the police, and not just asked you to leave

[bobbyb0322]

I drove around the mall and best I can tell there are 3 posted entrances to the mall itself that are direct into the main portion of the mall. There are 4 major retailers with multiple entrances on their stores that are not posted. The majority of entrances here are not even posted. I realize that I know I cannot carry into the mall. However, if someone who goes into the mall through Sears everytime I don't believe they have received proper notice that they are not to carry on the property.

It's an argument for the lawyers, basically.
The law says is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public."

I'm not a lawyer and don't know of any case law, but all I'll say is that if you get arrested, charged, and convicted of a 30.06 violation, even in the manner described above, you've made multiple errs:

1) Missed a conspicuous 30.06 sign meeting legal requirements
2) failed to conceal
3) failed to conceal in such a way that someone called the police, and not just asked you to leave

I agree completely on 2 and 3, this should never be an issue unless you have to pull your firearm in self defense. I'm not a lawyer either but I do have some educational background in CJ. I don't believe that it is in a conspicious manner if the majority of the places you can enter the building do not have the warning or for that matter a warning in view of said entrance or anywhere near it.

[KRM45]

The law does not say all entrances need to be posted.

The exact wording is that the sign "is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public."
If a sign is not visible at a normal entrance to a venue, it hardly qualifies as "conspicuous." That such a sign may be posted elsewhere in a location invisible from the entrance used would seem to be irrelevant.

This might be a sound defense. If you should happen to have posted on a gun board something to the effect of:
"I know all the entrances to the mall are posted except "x" entrance, so I always go in through there"
Then I think you will loose.

[subsonic]

Would this then mean that I can carry in those businesses so long as I don't enter the actual mall portion of the building?

An argument could be made that Sears is a separate premises from the mall based on separate management. The problem is you might have to make that argument in court.

[bobbyb0322]

I agree that you would have to prove it in court. The problem with it being a seperate premesis is I went inside, unarmed, and looked to see if there was a sign at the entrance to the mall from within sears and there is not.

[Oldgringo]

Is that the only place to shop in Longview?

[boomerang]

Is that the only place to shop in Longview?

Legal issues aside, I'd rather give my money to people who aren't antigun.

[bobbyb0322]

Is that the only place to shop in Longview?

Legal issues aside, I'd rather give my money to people who aren't antigun.

I have already emailed the company that owns the mall and stated my opinion on the matter and let them know that my business was lost. I know it won't change anything but I am letting all my friends with CHL's know and I am sure they will email the mall as well and not shop there anymore. Anything that is sold there I can get elsewhere so there is no need to return.1

[Oldgringo]

Is that the only place to shop in Longview?

Legal issues aside, I'd rather give my money to people who aren't antigun.

I have already emailed the company that owns the mall and stated my opinion on the matter and let them know that my business was lost. I know it won't change anything but I am letting all my friends with CHL's know and I am sure they will email the mall as well and not shop there anymore. Anything that is sold there I can get elsewhere so there is no need to return.1

Letters to the anchor stores; e.g., Sears, Penny's, Macy's, Dillards, etc. will carry more weight because their rent is what keeps the mall open.