The Northeast Mall in Hurst is a Simon property, and I find no listing for it as posted 30.06 on Texas3006.com. So either Simon's policy is not nationwide, or no one reported it to Texas3006.com. I'd like to know if anyone has the answer.chabouk wrote: That said, the Mills Malls ownership (Simon Property Group) has a nationwide anti-gun policy, and they will not be budged from it. I prefer to spend my money elsewhere.
Legal Sign? (pics)
Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
Re: Legal Sign? (pics)
Re: Legal Sign? (pics)
To be flippant, oneshooter, in Texas, in general anyone can sue anyone for anything. Our state constitution arguably says that. Whether the suer can succeed against the suee is another question.oneshooter wrote:If it is a "poorly worded" sign, and you are arrested, tried, and found innocent or not guilty, would you then have legal standing to sue the mall owners?I think that most of those who have used this sloppy language do not do it out of their ignorance; I think it is really meant to be a shorthand, but incorrect, way of saying, "When the cop/DA interprets the law wrong, be prepared to take the ride, being booked, locked up a bit with not the best members of our society, followed by a very expensive acquittal."
Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas
To be nonflippant, I will give you my personal opinion, which is worth exactly what you paid for it.
I would think an effort to recover damages from the mall owner, if indeed there were any damages, given the limited facts you relate, would be usuccessful, after being costly to you, if you could find a lawyer to bring the lawsuit for you. After all, what has the mall owner done wrong? Nothing in the law says a sign has to comport with 30.06. For example, he posts a sign saying, "NO GUNS ALLOWED," and you are arrested by an LEO for no other reason, repeat, for no other reason than that you entered the premises with a concealed handgun contrary to the wishes of the owner only as expressed by the sign. The owner was within his rights to post that sign. There is nothing "illegal" about that sign. It is perfectly legal.
The question of the success of a lawsuit against the obviously uninformed LEO, and/or the jurisdiction by which he was employed, for false arrest, for example, is a different matter. Similarly, if the mall owner actually precipitated your arrest, by, for example, calling you to the attention of an ignorant LEO and demanding your arrest, his potential liability changes. I do not suggest that even then success with the lawsuit is guaranteed, but success would be more likely when you change the factual situation just a bit. I add this because it is my experience, during my short time on this forum, that examples like yours, oneshooter, are too frequently followed by comments of readers beginning with "but what if...," and the whole ballgame changes.
Again, just a guess,
Elmo
- 03Lightningrocks
- Senior Member
- Posts: 11460
- Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 5:15 pm
- Location: Plano
Re: Legal Sign? (pics)
You didn't mention if they have metal detectors or those cool x-ray vision glasses they sell in all the comic books. I need this info to tell ya what I would do.
NRA-Endowment Member
http://www.planoair.com
http://www.planoairconditioningandheating.com
http://www.planoair.com
http://www.planoairconditioningandheating.com
Re: Legal Sign? (pics)
Excellent explanation, and welcome to the forum.b322da wrote:To be flippant, oneshooter, in Texas, in general anyone can sue anyone for anything. Our state constitution arguably says that. Whether the suer can succeed against the suee is another question.oneshooter wrote:If it is a "poorly worded" sign, and you are arrested, tried, and found innocent or not guilty, would you then have legal standing to sue the mall owners?I think that most of those who have used this sloppy language do not do it out of their ignorance; I think it is really meant to be a shorthand, but incorrect, way of saying, "When the cop/DA interprets the law wrong, be prepared to take the ride, being booked, locked up a bit with not the best members of our society, followed by a very expensive acquittal."
Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas
To be nonflippant, I will give you my personal opinion, which is worth exactly what you paid for it.
I would think an effort to recover damages from the mall owner, if indeed there were any damages, given the limited facts you relate, would be usuccessful, after being costly to you, if you could find a lawyer to bring the lawsuit for you. After all, what has the mall owner done wrong? Nothing in the law says a sign has to comport with 30.06. For example, he posts a sign saying, "NO GUNS ALLOWED," and you are arrested by an LEO for no other reason, repeat, for no other reason than that you entered the premises with a concealed handgun contrary to the wishes of the owner only as expressed by the sign. The owner was within his rights to post that sign. There is nothing "illegal" about that sign. It is perfectly legal.
The question of the success of a lawsuit against the obviously uninformed LEO, and/or the jurisdiction by which he was employed, for false arrest, for example, is a different matter. Similarly, if the mall owner actually precipitated your arrest, by, for example, calling you to the attention of an ignorant LEO and demanding your arrest, his potential liability changes. I do not suggest that even then success with the lawsuit is guaranteed, but success would be more likely when you change the factual situation just a bit. I add this because it is my experience, during my short time on this forum, that examples like yours, oneshooter, are too frequently followed by comments of readers beginning with "but what if...," and the whole ballgame changes.
Again, just a guess,
Elmo
“I’m all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let’s start with typewriters.” - Frank Lloyd Wright
"Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms" - Aristotle
"Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms" - Aristotle