Katy Mills Mall

stroo · Post by **stroo** » Sun Dec 17, 2006 12:30 am

I thought the law was that if you know a business is posted with a 30.06 sign, you are bound by it even if you didn't see it. At Grapevine Mills every direct entrance into the mall that I have been through is posted but the business entrances like Burlington Coat Factory are not. It seems me then that if you stayed in Burlington Coat Factory or Bass Pro shop you might be okay but once you went into the mall knowing that it was posted you would be in violation. Does that sound right?

kauboy · Post by **kauboy** » Sun Dec 17, 2006 2:16 am

Mike1951 wrote:
kauboy wrote:I think your missing the real point. They don't wish to keep CHL carriers out.
If you had ever spoken with their corporate offices about their posting policy, you wouldn't think that. They are one of the most vicious anti-gun companies I have ever tried to deal with.

And while I don't doubt that they consulted an instructor about specific posting issues, their policy covers their approx 40 malls across the US. I'm pretty sure the anti concealed carry policy pre-dates Texas' CHL law.

First of all, why were you trying to deal with them? Was it this very issue? Second, whos to say their corporate policy can't bend to allow more profits. We are talking about a business that decided to build in Texas of all places. They know good and well where their bread is buttered and thats why they attach it to a huge hunting/fishing/outdoors/GUNS store. They know the potential profit loss associated with disallowing certain groups of citizens from lawful conduct. Thats why they specifically DON'T post on the Pro Shop entrances.

Mike1951 · Post by **Mike1951** » Sun Dec 17, 2006 2:24 am

kauboy wrote:First of all, why were you trying to deal with them? Was it this very issue?

Yes, this very issue.

Remember, some of us have been fighting this for 11 years.

As soon as Katy Mills opened, many of us contacted them.

They didn't want people carrying guns in their mall.

kauboy · Post by **kauboy** » Sun Dec 17, 2006 1:35 pm

Mike1951 wrote:
kauboy wrote:First of all, why were you trying to deal with them? Was it this very issue?
Yes, this very issue.

Remember, some of us have been fighting this for 11 years.

As soon as Katy Mills opened, many of us contacted them.

They didn't want people carrying guns in their mall.

Well thats sad to hear. Looks like I will only be spending my money in the Bass Pro Shop. Actually, Since there's a Cabela's closer to me, I may not evr visit Grapevine Mills again. Thanks for the info.

Venus Pax · Post by **Venus Pax** » Sun Dec 17, 2006 11:33 pm

As a matter of personal principle, I will NOT be shopping at Katy Mills Mall. If they want me to feel welcome, they can put up one of those signs that read "the UNLAWFUL possession of a firearm is prohibited."
Otherwise, I will spend my money elsewhere. (It may not be much, but I decide where it goes.)

longtooth · Post by **longtooth** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 10:17 am

Your right VP. BUT
Your "not much"
My 'Not much"
and the "Not much" of all the shoppers that you influience, I influience, & all the people on this forum influience----
is SUBSTANTIAL by any malls standards.
Keep talking CHL holders.

Keep writing CHL holders.

Worry less about boycot than who to SUPPORT in any issue.
I say plainly "I support __________ with my money because _________."
The only rights we will retain are the ones we are willing to stand for.
If we will not stand for them verbally & in print, we need not fool ourselves, we will not stand for them when the officers of tyranical politicians knock on the door w/ a "warrent".
If we will not "Vote Freedom First" & stand for the 2A at the ballot box, we need not fool ourselves, we will not stand for it when the officers of tyranical politicians knock on the door w/ a "warrent. (I may not like EVERYTHING the NRA does but there aint a bigger or better voice in W-ton.)
LT

HankB · Post by **HankB** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 11:29 am

stroo wrote:I thought the law was that if you know a business is posted with a 30.06 sign, you are bound by it even if you didn't see it. At Grapevine Mills every direct entrance into the mall that I have been through is posted but the business entrances like Burlington Coat Factory are not. It seems me then that if you stayed in Burlington Coat Factory or Bass Pro shop you might be okay but once you went into the mall knowing that it was posted you would be in violation. Does that sound right?

It's up to THEM to provide you with notice - the law explicitly defines what constitutes notice - and if they don't, too bad.

Posting a non-compliant sign doesn't constitute notice.

Neglecting to post at a regular entrance routinely used by customers during regular business hours doesn't consititute notice to customers entering that way.

In a practical sense, unless they have CCTV footage of you entering through a door with a fully-compliant PC30.06 sign shortly before you're "made" for whatever reason, how would anyone prove what you "knew" anyway . . . unless you've gone on record by exchanging letters or email with the mall's management?

Venus Pax · Post by **Venus Pax** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 7:13 pm

LT,
I agree that we should choose to patronize only businesses that respect our 2A rights, but my current personal boycot of 30.06 posted establishments is more personal than political at this point.

You're exactly right: my "not much," your "not much," and a few other CHL holders' "not much" adds up. Unfortunately, we're only 1% or 3% (can't remember exactly) of the TX population. These businesses aren't dealing with major purchasing power, so most are unlikely to take down the signs.

I do agree with keeping membership in the NRA. We might not agree with every little thing they do, but IMO, our 2A rights would have been long gone by now if that organization were not as powerful as it is.

Doug.38PR · Post by **Doug.38PR** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 10:43 pm

anyone know why KM mall chose to put up those stupid 30.06 signs?

stroo · Post by **stroo** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 11:45 pm

The signs I have seen at Grapevine Mills are 30.06 compliant. And when I have looked I have found them at the direct entrances to the mall. You don't find them however at store entrances.

srothstein · Post by **srothstein** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 11:59 pm

kauboy wrote:They know good and well where their bread is buttered and thats why they attach it to a huge hunting/fishing/outdoors/GUNS store. They know the potential profit loss associated with disallowing certain groups of citizens from lawful conduct. Thats why they specifically DON'T post on the Pro Shop entrances.

I disagree. There is a much better and more logical reason why they don't post on the Pro Shop or any other store. The reason is that the MALL has no authority to post on the store entrance, since it is leased property to the store. It could be written into the leases in some cases, but it might cost them leases, which is really how the mall makes money. Remember that the mall gets it s money from the stores, not the customers directly, so they are more concerned about the stores attitudes.

In addition to the lease issues, many malls are not built completely by the mall developer. The anchor stores usually build the store themselves, and own the store, with an agreement that after so many years (25 and 50 are common terms), then the store becomes the mall's property.

It can get complicated when you look at these issues, but as a general rule, I go with the mall not wanting gun owners or CHL's if they post on so much as one door. I usually try to abide by their desires and not go in when carrying, which means I rarely go to places like that since I always carry.

kauboy · Post by **kauboy** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 11:10 am

srothstein wrote:I disagree. There is a much better and more logical reason why they don't post on the Pro Shop or any other store. The reason is that the MALL has no authority to post on the store entrance, since it is leased property to the store. It could be written into the leases in some cases, but it might cost them leases, which is really how the mall makes money. Remember that the mall gets it s money from the stores, not the customers directly, so they are more concerned about the stores attitudes.

Uh, wouldn't that mean that if they indeed didn't want a CHL holder on their property, even if its leased, that they wouldn't care what the lessee wanted, they would have to post anyways? It goes against their very position of being an anti-CHL establishment if they are just going to allow it in parts of their facility(leased lots). I wouldn't say thats a more logical view. In your view, they must hold both opinions. 1.)They don't want CHL carriers in their stores. 2.)They will allow their stores to allow CHL carriers.

"That dog won't hunt, Monsignor."

srothstein · Post by **srothstein** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 8:51 pm

No, it means that the stores are not theirs, so they have no sya in the matter. They don't want CHL's in their mall, so they post the mall. They cannot post the stores since they have no control over the stores, whether they want the CHL there or not.

Now, if they did not want the CHL in the store, and they wanted to go to the trouble of putting in the lease that the store must post, they could but it would cost them leases. So, since they want the leases, they do not put the requirement in the lease. This is easy for them since they don't want the store to allow CHL but have no liability over the store or its actions. Remember, the mall owner is only liable for what happens in the common area of the mall, not inside any of the leased spaces, so they post for the common areas and don't worry about the stores.