# Gun-free zones (Mall of Omaha)



## Grenadier (Dec 7, 2007)

I posted this tidbit in the Study earlier, but it's certainly worth posting here as well.  

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,315563,00.html

I guess someone forgot to tell the bad guy that guns weren't allowed in the mall...  



> Media Coverage of Mall Shooting Fails to Reveal Mall's Gun-Free-Zone Status
> 
> Thursday, December 06, 2007
> 
> ...


 
There are more examples in that article, and it's certainly worth reading.


----------



## Carol (Dec 7, 2007)

Didn't the shooter read the signs? (just kidding...)

Heard a bit about this a few nights ago while driving home listening to Coast to Coast AM.  George Noory took some calls from LEOs around the country and asked them a bit about how they would respond.   It was eye opening.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 7, 2007)

It certainly made all the main news bulletins here. How do the gun free zones police this? do they do searches or rely on people being honest and not bringing guns in?


----------



## Grenadier (Dec 7, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> It certainly made all the main news bulletins here. How do the gun free zones police this? do they do searches or rely on people being honest and not bringing guns in?


 
They generally don't search anyone unless they are really suspicious about someone, such as someone wearing a leather trench coat with a large bulge in it, on a hot August afternoon, or if someone is exposing their firearms, in which case they can detain.  

In general, yes, you're right, that they rely on people being honest about it.  In this case, it's simply a matter of the law-abiding folks obeying the law, and the criminals not doing so.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 7, 2007)

Grenadier said:


> In this case, it's simply a matter of the law-abiding folks obeying the law, and the criminals not doing so.


That cannot be stated often enough, nor loud enough. Somehow, some people still think disarming the law-abiding will stop crime.
What we had in Omaha was a criminal, bent on suicide, who stole a weapon, no law would have stopped him.


----------



## Sukerkin (Dec 7, 2007)

*Don*, I know that it must've felt like that we haven't seen eye-to-eye on some 'big issue' topics this week, so it's a real pleasure to say without reservation or prevarication that I utterly concur with your stance on this one :tup:.


----------



## thardey (Dec 7, 2007)

> Nebraska allows people to carry permitted concealed handguns, but it allows property owners, such as the Westroads Mall, to post signs banning permit holders from legally carrying guns on their property.



How does this relate to the other thread on the subject of private companies banning guns?

Is it actually Illegal to carry in these places, just because it is marked, or is it another one of those "follow our policy, or we'll have to ask you to leave" situations?

In Oregon not even the counties or cities are allowed to restrict concealed carry locations beyond what was established by the State.


----------



## newGuy12 (Dec 7, 2007)

Big Don said:


> That cannot be stated often enough, nor loud enough. Somehow, some people still think disarming the law-abiding will stop crime.
> What we had in Omaha was a criminal, bent on suicide, who stole a weapon, no law would have stopped him.


Absolutely.  Its just this simple.


----------



## Grenadier (Dec 7, 2007)

thardey said:


> Is it actually Illegal to carry in these places, just because it is marked, or is it another one of those "follow our policy, or we'll have to ask you to leave" situations?


 
In Nebraska, it is against the law to carry into such a place.


----------



## Jai (Dec 7, 2007)

Grenadier said:


> In Nebraska, it is against the law to carry into such a place.


 

Indeed, but most private security companies do not allow the officers to search for weapons, even with cause. The mall in Omaha where the shooting happened is one such place. Security can not even approach a person who may be hiding a weapon of any kind. They are to afraid of a lawsuit if they are wrong. I know first hand as I worked for the security company for a few years. They can't even stop a shoplifter, even if they see the person stealing.

Everything is for the most part "On your Honor"


----------



## KenpoTex (Dec 7, 2007)

Great article, I saw it yesterday on another forum.  He makes a great point regarding all the mass shootings happening in "gun free zones."

Until the lawmakers and business owners pull their heads out of their butts, I think we're going to see many more people just ignoring the stupid restrictions about not carrying in malls, restaurants, etc.



thardey said:


> How does this relate to the other thread on the subject of private companies banning guns?
> 
> Is it actually Illegal to carry in these places, just because it is marked, or is it another one of those "follow our policy, or we'll have to ask you to leave" situations?
> 
> In Oregon not even the counties or cities are allowed to restrict concealed carry locations beyond what was established by the State.


 
It varies from state to state.  In some, all they can do is ask you to leave, the police don't become involved unless you make a scene.
In others, it's actually a misdemeanor (or maybe more in some places) to carry into a "posted" business.

concealed means concealed...If no one sees it, there's no problem.  (disclaimer...I'm not advocating illegal activities, it's not my fault that I don't have good enough eyesight to read the signs )


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 7, 2007)

kenpotex said:


> concealed means concealed...If no one sees it, there's no problem.  (disclaimer...I'm not advocating illegal activities, it's not my fault that I don't have good enough eyesight to read the signs )



Me too. It's hilarious how all of us with terrible eyesight carry firearms. :lol:


----------

