Center Valley Promenade Shops Don't allow guns now, but is their policy legal?

[twency]

Someone's home property could certainly discriminate against visitors, but malls and the like are generally accessible to the public. So if I choose to disallow from someone from my property because they are a flaming liberal, fine. But if a mall or a park or restaraunt did so they would be sued. How is it different for the second amendment?

Under what legal theory? I'm pretty sure political opinion is not a protected class for public accommodation purposes.

[streaker69]

Under what legal theory? I'm pretty sure political opinion is not a protected class for public accommodation purposes.

Chick-Fil-A is apparently being sued for civil rights violations because of the statements of their CEO. Stupid people can sue for anything, doesn't mean they'll win.

[Ten*K]

Under what legal theory? I'm pretty sure political opinion is not a protected class for public accommodation purposes.

Perhaps not, but if it is Constitutionally protected, could not an argument be made? And if the First Amendment is, why not the Second?

http://civilrights.uslegal.com/discr...accommodation/

" The Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation. Generally, places of public accommodation are businesses or buildings that are open or offer services to the general public. These facilities can be publicly or privately owned and operated. Federal, state and local governments own and operate facilities such as courthouses, jails, hospitals, parks, and other places. They also provide services, programs, or activities including transportation systems and welfare programs. Privately-owned businesses and facilities offer certain goods or services to the public. Food, lodging, gasoline, and entertainment also come under the definition of places of public accommodation.

Section 2000a of Title 42, Chapter 21 of the U.S. Code (42 USC 21) prohibits discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation. Under this provision, all persons are entitled to full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation without any discrimination or segregation based on race, color, religion, or national origin. Many private establishments serving the public are considered places of public accommodation. Such private places include:

inns, hotels, motels, or other organizations that provide accommodation to temporary visitors

restaurants, cafeterias, lunchrooms, lunch counters, soda fountains, or other facilities providing food for consumption

motion picture houses, theaters, concert halls, sports arenas, stadiums or other places of exhibition or entertainment

Now, I read it as not making exceptions for firearms, but then, why are some classes protected and others not? Under the law, then, a place such as the Promenade, though generally accessible to the public under the criteria listed above, could prohibit homosexuals, union workers, people wearing green, or any other number of variances not specifically listed.

I'm not a lawyer, or perhaps I'd understand this more clearly.

[WolfMacabre9]

Tons of great responses, thanks everyone! My question was answered and it would seem no, they cannot take my firearm but can only ask me to leave the property and call the police if I don't.

I did like the one response though, the way they have it worded:

"Any weapons such as guns, knives, swords, laser pointers, and any other items that can harm the customer will be confiscated and given to the proper authorities."

It doesn't actually prohibit the possession of firearms, only the conditional circumstance that would allow my gun to cause harm to myself...

"that CAN harm" if you go by the definition of "can" that would make it conditional upon me handling it in a way that would make it able to harm.

And it says "harm the customer" not customerS, which would imply that it only applies to harming myself.

So BASICALLY.... If I'm being a legal, responsible, gun owner while carrying, my gun doesn't apply to conduct code #13!

All in all though I CC so not too big of an issue for me.

Oh and to answer the questions about where the sign was, I saw it outside of Barnes and Nobels, not sure if there were others around, and saw it on Saturday. I also left a post on their Facebook wall (I think they removed it though) just saying I was shocked to see the sign and disappointed that they were taking this stance against responsible, legal, gun owners. No threats though, was going to say something about not shopping there, but I don't like when government uses scare tactics to try to make gun laws, so I didn't stoop to it. Also didn't want to represent gun owners in that fashion.

[Mad Scientist]

"Any weapons such as guns, knives, swords, laser pointers, and any other items that can harm the customer will be confiscated and given to the proper authorities."

Wait...

There's an LL Bean there, and Bean sells knives. So I can no longer buy a knife at Bean and carry it through their property? Does Bean know that the sale of some of their products will now plummet?

[rxer311]

Tons of great responses, thanks everyone! My question was answered and it would seem no, they cannot take my firearm but can only ask me to leave the property and call the police if I don't.

I did like the one response though, the way they have it worded:

"Any weapons such as guns, knives, swords, laser pointers, and any other items that can harm the customer will be confiscated and given to the proper authorities."

It doesn't actually prohibit the possession of firearms, only the conditional circumstance that would allow my gun to cause harm to myself...

"that CAN harm" if you go by the definition of "can" that would make it conditional upon me handling it in a way that would make it able to harm.

And it says "harm the customer" not customerS, which would imply that it only applies to harming myself.

So BASICALLY.... If I'm being a legal, responsible, gun owner while carrying, my gun doesn't apply to conduct code #13!

All in all though I CC so not too big of an issue for me.

Oh and to answer the questions about where the sign was, I saw it outside of Barnes and Nobels, not sure if there were others around, and saw it on Saturday. I also left a post on their Facebook wall (I think they removed it though) just saying I was shocked to see the sign and disappointed that they were taking this stance against responsible, legal, gun owners. No threats though, was going to say something about not shopping there, but I don't like when government uses scare tactics to try to make gun laws, so I didn't stoop to it. Also didn't want to represent gun owners in that fashion.

Maybe its possible that it is only a Barnes and Noble policy and not the Mall?

[rxer311]

And what if I am carrying a steak knife? I carry it to cut my meat, not to use as a weapon!

[twency]

Under the law, then, a place such as the Promenade, though generally accessible to the public under the criteria listed above, could prohibit homosexuals, union workers, people wearing green, or any other number of variances not specifically listed.

Yes. Except for a reason specifically prohibited by law (race/ ethnicity/ national origin/ sex/ religion/ disability/ probably one or two I'm forgetting), a place of public accommodation is free to discriminate on any basis it sees fit. No AC/DC tattoos. No eyebrow piercings. No Hawaiian shirts. Whatever.

Some states prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, but PA is not one of them, and sexual orientation is also not a protected class for such purposes under federal law.

I've never heard of a state or federal law preventing a business from excluding union workers or people wearing green. It would be weird if they did so, but not illegal. Likewise with excluding people carrying firearms, except that instead of being uncommon it's all to common.

[streaker69]

I've never heard of a state or federal law preventing a business from excluding union workers or people wearing green. It would be weird if they did so, but not illegal. Likewise with excluding people carrying firearms, except that instead of being uncommon it's all to common.

Here an example of some interesting rules.

http://www.targetmaster.com/range_rules.html

Dress Code

To ensure a satisfactory experience, the following dress code will be enforced:

• No Flip-Flops, Sandals or Open Footwear of any kind Allowed.

• No Tank Tops or Low-Cut Tops Allowed

• Extremes in apparel or jewelry, which are distractive, disruptive, disrespectful or unsafe will not be permitted.

• Clothing or jewelry displaying: drugs, obscenities, lewd or illegal behavior, sexual overtones. etc. or any reference that is disruptive to others.

• Undergarments worn as outer garments are not permitted, including muscle shirts.

• Hats, caps, bandanas or other head covering will be removed while in the building, except baseball caps facing forward.

• Torn or ragged clothing will not be permitted.

[Hawk]

Don't you think that it is wrong to violate the property owner's wishes and therefore, his rights? You use the retail services based on your agreement to abide by the property owner's rules.

Lets reverse that idea a bit. Isn't the property owner trying to prohibit your right to bear arms? On what grounds? Because he feels like it?

Based on your logic, it is fine to steal as long as you don't get caught. I am not accusing you of stealing, but rather, using theft as another example of your logic which says it is okay to use his property anyway, just don't get caught breaking the rules.

Have you ever driven faster than the speed limit? Coasted through a stop sign? Change lanes without using your turn signal? Come on now.

Your logic also says we need only respect one another in the courtroom. I reject that notion.

Whether you like it or not, that's the way it is in today's society. I don't disagree that it should be different.

IANAL
It's my position that you are not breaking any state or federal law by legally carrying a firearm on private property. Private property "policies" are just that...a made up rule by the property owner, it's no different and has no more weight than a "no shirt, no service" policy. Now if I was caught breaking the policy, I'd comply with a property owners request and leave, otherwise it will likely win me defiant trespass charge.

IMHO, the right to bear arms trumps any property owners "terms of service" policy.