Man Carries Gun Openly into Mall, Gets Harassed

Sat Feb 09, 2013 5:58 pm » by **WillEase666**

Published on Feb 9, 2013

How do Derek Mendiola's rights stand up against a store's right to kick him out?
Mendiola says his weapon does draw glances in public, but he says he means no harm and meant no harm at the Sears in Vancouver Westfield Shopping Center on Wednesday when he stopped in to look at some tools.
He went in wearing his 9 mm Taurus pistol on his shoulder. He says he was surprised how an employee took issue with his gun and started verbally attacking him for having it.

"For somebody to harass me for just following my rights is a pretty big deal. It's just like telling me, I can't breathe air, I can't live," he said.

Upload to Disclose.tv

Sat Feb 09, 2013 6:57 pm » by **Phoenix rising**

The guy is obviously a fucking moron, did he seriously think no one would say anything about it :bang;

Sat Feb 09, 2013 7:12 pm » by **Jet17**

Yeah, unfortunately a business does have a right to turn away anyone at their stores.

In most cases this needs to be done by management chosen to represent the store. However, if business want to segregate their potential customers base and let their own policies be their downfall, so be it.

I bet if push came to shove and if they kicked out enough people for a delusional opinions on guns, they would be begging for those same people to come and buy something from them, instead of going bankrupt.

Ah, the world of corporatism and ego driven business.

Sat Feb 09, 2013 7:42 pm » by **Constabul**

Phoenix rising wrote:The guy is obviously a fucking moron, did he seriously think no one would say anything about it

Don't agree with you, he showed no sign of being a moron. He knew his rights, He did not observe any signs prohibiting the open carrying, or conceal carry of firearms posted. Also he knew his limitations as to conceal carry laws.

I could just throw the insult you issued right back at you for lack of acknowledgement of these things.

It is the businesses responsibility to post such notices, which is something you learn of in conceal carry classes, or firearm training courses. Is where you can and can not carry, and how that is defined.

Should he have expected to be harassed, well that could be argued in my opinion. Something would certainly be said, and law enforcement notified. Even in this regard, responsibility falls back to the property owner to make notice of this.

What makes this sort of occurrence taboo is people who over react and are not familiar with ones rights, and the laws structured around those rights.
Good for him, It will be people like him that set the stage for this to be considered by the courts of the land and hopefully up hold the rights we do have, as it has been done in the past.

He may have been open carrying, but many more there were conceal carrying.

A criminal, a person intent on killing others, will not be bothered with firearm laws, or the posting .. or lack there of .. of postings restricting firearms on premises.

As to him being less then pleased in the way they told him to leave. Ohwell, it is there right as property owner, or representative of the property owner, to express their conditions for being on their property.
Once that has been issued then yeah the guy would be guilty of criminal trespass (if told to leave, but he refused to do so). But it would not be due to the firearm, it would be due to not following the expressed wishes of property owner or rep.

What is worse, someone expressing their rights and following the law in the proper way, or someone not following laws of any sort, and knowingly doing so?

Sat Feb 09, 2013 9:16 pm » by **Phoenix rising**

Constabul respectfully i disagree with you on pretty much all levels of this argument, at the very least he is insensitive and maybe even provocative considering the sentiment being felt at the moment, I'm not against you guys having guns because that's not my business but it just doesn't seem right what he did considering the timing, that's my opinion nothing more

Sat Feb 09, 2013 11:13 pm » by **Constabul**

Phoenix rising wrote:Constabul respectfully i disagree with you on pretty much all levels of this argument, at the very least he is insensitive and maybe even provocative considering the sentiment being felt at the moment, I'm not against you guys having guns because that's not my business but it just doesn't seem right what he did considering the timing, that's my opinion nothing more

That's cool, it's your opinion.
And you may disagree, But the constitutional rights are what they are, and the laws is what it is at this point. In the end it is what it is.
He did not break any laws, more to the fact he knew where his boundaries were, Minus the lack of the property owner expressing a stance on a property that is intended for public egress for the purposes of shopping And now that he knows of the owners wishes, ( tho it was more the general manager if i remember correctly) that they do not want that happening on the property. The guy said he would not carry on the premises in the future. If he should get his conceal carry, and they still have not posted a sign expressing their wishes.. Guess what he will be in his right to again carry (tho concealed) on the property.

I'm not sure what you can disagree with on any level. Other then for the sake of you saying "I'm right no matter what you say, or the relevant circumstances".. Which is vary limited frame of mind.

As to timing, Or sentiment being felt.. About what? Sandy hook? That was just short of two months ago, there have been other shootings since then. There have been many deaths since then. I'm not sure how that is even relevant.
Was that occurrence a tragedy, indeed, Yes it was. So is any death to at least someone.
I was unaware tho there was some sort of time limit on anothers constitutional rights as a result of a killing having happened that involved a firearm. So when stabbings happen that result in death, we should not carry pocket knives for some undetermined amount of time?

Illinois has the strictest policies in regard to gun laws.

NUMBER OF PEOPLE SHOT IN CHICAGO IN 2011
2,217

NUMBER OF PEOPLE SHOT IN CHICAGO AS IN 2012

2,670

NUMBER OF PEOPLE SHOT IN CHICAGO AS OF JAN. 28, 2013

178

http://crimeinchicago.blogspot.com/

Removing an element of protection from the people does not protect the people, It empowers those who do not follow laws of any sort.

Again, What is worse, someone expressing their rights and following the law in the proper way, or someone not following laws of any sort, and knowingly doing so?

Simple question. The guy in the video knew his rights, knew his limitations, ergo not being able to Lawfully conceal it unless he had the proper credentials to do so, And acting with in the law, to express a right. It is no different then any of the other rights. He also knew once the property owner expressed there wishes of no one carrying open on their property that he would not do so again.

Sounds pretty far from moronic to me. Sounds like he understood every bit of it. Unlike another poster who deleted their comment earlier, who was calling for him to have done something that would be considered illegal.. Cover it up.

Here, in most states/places you Can open carry, and when in your car, Unless secured in the boot/trunk of the car or in the glove box. It Has to be in the open, on the seat or the dash.

Even if you have a conceal carry, it is meant for on your person, not tucked under the seat, or inbetween the seats etc. Cause they (law enforcement) can burn you if they choose to on that. Most dont tho.

If you want to disagree for the sake of disagreeing, or because your view point can not rationalize what i have written, it is no biggy to me. I'm not trying to call you a moron or some other slander, I am only trying to inform you, and others to the presented elements of this instance.

Nothing he did was wrong, nothing the owner of the property did was wrong. There were no sentiments or feelings tread upon by this, and in large part is a non story, Other then the media blowing a bubble about it. Happens a lot more here then you may think.

:cheers:

Sat Feb 09, 2013 11:45 pm » by **Recode**

Constabul wrote:
Phoenix rising wrote:Constabul respectfully i disagree with you on pretty much all levels of this argument, at the very least he is insensitive and maybe even provocative considering the sentiment being felt at the moment, I'm not against you guys having guns because that's not my business but it just doesn't seem right what he did considering the timing, that's my opinion nothing more

That's cool, it's your opinion.
And you may disagree, But the constitutional rights are what they are, and the laws is what it is at this point. In the end it is what it is.
He did not break any laws, more to the fact he knew where his boundaries were, Minus the lack of the property owner expressing a stance on a property that is intended for public egress for the purposes of shopping And now that he knows of the owners wishes, ( tho it was more the general manager if i remember correctly) that they do not want that happening on the property. The guy said he would not carry on the premises in the future. If he should get his conceal carry, and they still have not posted a sign expressing their wishes.. Guess what he will be in his right to again carry (tho concealed) on the property.

I'm not sure what you can disagree with on any level. Other then for the sake of you saying "I'm right no matter what you say, or the relevant circumstances".. Which is vary limited frame of mind.

As to timing, Or sentiment being felt.. About what? Sandy hook? That was just short of two months ago, there have been other shootings since then. There have been many deaths since then. I'm not sure how that is even relevant.
Was that occurrence a tragedy, indeed, Yes it was. So is any death to at least someone.
I was unaware tho there was some sort of time limit on anothers constitutional rights as a result of a killing having happened that involved a firearm. So when stabbings happen that result in death, we should not carry pocket knives for some undetermined amount of time?

Illinois has the strictest policies in regard to gun laws.
NUMBER OF PEOPLE SHOT IN CHICAGO IN 2011
2,217

NUMBER OF PEOPLE SHOT IN CHICAGO AS IN 2012

2,670

NUMBER OF PEOPLE SHOT IN CHICAGO AS OF JAN. 28, 2013

178

http://crimeinchicago.blogspot.com/

Removing an element of protection from the people does not protect the people, It empowers those who do not follow laws of any sort.

Again, What is worse, someone expressing their rights and following the law in the proper way, or someone not following laws of any sort, and knowingly doing so?

Simple question. The guy in the video knew his rights, knew his limitations, ergo not being able to Lawfully conceal it unless he had the proper credentials to do so, And acting with in the law, to express a right. It is no different then any of the other rights. He also knew once the property owner expressed there wishes of no one carrying open on their property that he would not do so again.

Sounds pretty far from moronic to me. Sounds like he understood every bit of it. Unlike another poster who deleted their comment earlier, who was calling for him to have done something that would be considered illegal.. Cover it up.

Here, in most states/places you Can open carry, and when in your car, Unless secured in the boot/trunk of the car or in the glove box. It Has to be in the open, on the seat or the dash.

Even if you have a conceal carry, it is meant for on your person, not tucked under the seat, or inbetween the seats etc. Cause they (law enforcement) can burn you if they choose to on that. Most dont tho.

If you want to disagree for the sake of disagreeing, or because your view point can not rationalize what i have written, it is no biggy to me. I'm not trying to call you a moron or some other slander, I am only trying to inform you, and others to the presented elements of this instance.

Nothing he did was wrong, nothing the owner of the property did was wrong. There were no sentiments or feelings tread upon by this, and in large part is a non story, Other then the media blowing a bubble about it. Happens a lot more here then you may think.

Completely agree. Let the man go about his business, he did nothing wrong and was in no one's way. Might just take some time for others to get used to people open carrying but it seems to be slowly gaining popularity. Eventually people wont freak out as much.

Sun Feb 10, 2013 5:31 am » by **Phoenix rising**

Constabul I know you guys have strong beliefs regarding guns and gun laws so maybe its not my right to judge, maybe its nothing more than a cultural thing, i understand you're stance to a degree, if its not against the law its a right and rights are there to be exercised as one see's fit, but like i said maybe its just a cultural thing on my part hence my first response.

Sun Feb 10, 2013 6:36 am » by **The57ironman**

.

.......you know, i have been thinking about this for the past month or so...

...the only thing that bothers me about open carry, is the fact that you are advertising the weapon..

....which i personally, don't like to do.. :mrcool:

.

Sun Feb 10, 2013 7:14 am » by **Iwanci**

tsk tsk tsk..

are you guys kidding yourselves or what?

After everything that has been happening this guy is obviously simply being provocative and has done the cause ZERO justice.

It is one thing to carry a gun and another altogether to flaunt it, especially in today's environment.

If you think differently you are either being pig headed or deliberately blinding yourselves...

Here's a ridiculous example, but one worthy of comparison..

Imagine for one second 'if' chickens were responsible for spreading a virus that could not be contained and a human catching this virus was assured of either cronic illness or certain death.. not all chickens were carriers, but we could not determine which ones had the illness because there were no obvious signs in the chickens, for all intents and purposes they were silent carriers, the on,y time you could know was when the virus spread to humans and by then it was too late...

now, imagine that there were scattered outbreaks accross your country, and you could not tell where or when the next outbreak would occur.. in every case the chickens were left perfectly unharmed by the virus and you could never tell when the virus would jump to a human except that when it did it was too late.

now... imagine all the chicken farmers were outraged by a proposal to limit or introduce stricter controls on chicken distribution... and so, one day, after a recent spate of chicken deaths, a chicken farmer went into the local shopping mall with a trailer of chickens and let them all loose in the mall...

what would you say?

1/ Cool that is his right to bring his chickens to the mall

or

2/ What the fuck is he thinking?

Sometimes we are blinded in our thinking by our own biases and need to step outside ourselves for a better view..