Holyoke Mall Weapon Restrictions

FPrice

Retired Zoomie
NES Life Member
NES Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2005
Messages
26,343
Likes
19,770
Location
Western Mass
Feedback: 104 / 0 / 0
Had to wait for the stores to open yesterday so I was sitting in the food court nursing a coffee, ruminating on the state of the world when I idly picked up a brochure from the Holyoke Mall management company. This mall is the one that made news a few months back when it banned children under 18 years old without parental escorts on Friday and Saturday nights. If you hang around this mall at all you can probably understand why.

Anyways, I digress.

The Pyramid Management Group (mall management) also has a behavior code with about nine "guidelines" for proper mall behavior. Most of them are fairly benign considering that this is public property catering to businesses that are trying to promote a safe atmosphere for shopping, not for open, unrestricted expression of your personal mores.

But one did catch my attention.

"The possession of any weapon, unless authorized by local, state, or federal statute, is prohibited."
 
FPrice said:
Had to wait for the stores to open yesterday so I was sitting in the food court nursing a coffee, ruminating on the state of the world when I idly picked up a brochure from the Holyoke Mall management company. This mall is the one that made news a few months back when it banned children under 18 years old without parental escorts on Friday and Saturday nights. If you hang around this mall at all you can probably understand why.

Anyways, I digress.

The Pyramid Management Group (mall management) also has a behavior code with about nine "guidelines" for proper mall behavior. Most of them are fairly benign considering that this is public property catering to businesses that are trying to promote a safe atmosphere for shopping, not for open, unrestricted expression of your personal mores.

But one did catch my attention.

"The possession of any weapon, unless authorized by local, state, or federal statute, is prohibited."
They claim that their mall is public property? Hmmmm
And it sounds to me that they're saying that if you're legally carrying, you're good to go. They're pro-gun!
 
I sincerely doubt that Pyramid Management was foolish enough to state that its property is "public property." It most certainly isn't, which is precisely why Pyramid (and any other mall owner) can refuse access to unaccompanied teens whenever it chooses to.

I got that "public property" drivel a lot when I worked in a mall; cretins who claimed it was "public property" simply because it was open to the general public. They were clueless and wrong. Their "right" ends when told to leave, as the "public" are licensees and have no RIGHT to enter.

One fool claimed she was entitled to have her brat daughter run amok, blaring her boombox, because MoronMommie paid "property taxes." Said cretin:

1. RENTED an apartment (Read: NO direct payment of property taxes)

2. In a DIFFERENT town. [roll]

Further proof that any idiot can breed and, unfortunately, WILL.
 
Scrivener said:
I sincerely doubt that Pyramid Management was foolish enough to state that its property is "public property." It most certainly isn't, which is precisely why it can refuse access to unaccompanied teens whenever it chooses to.

I got that "public property" drivel a lot when I worked in a mall; cretins who claimed it was "public property" simply because it was open to the general public (unless and until told to leave, as the "public" are licensees and have no RIGHT to enter).

One fool claimed she was entitled to have her brat daughter run amok, blaring her boombox, because MoronMommie paid "property taxes. Said cretin:

1. RENTED an apartment (Read: NO direct payment of property taxes)

2. In a DIFFERENT town. [roll]

Further proof that any idiot can breed and, unfortunately, WILL.

[lol] [lol] [lol]
 
Scrivener said:
I sincerely doubt that Pyramid Management was foolish enough to state that its property is "public property." It most certainly isn't, which is precisely why it can refuse access to unaccompanied teens whenever it chooses to.

Wasn't there some court case several years ago where someone sued to be able to hand out flyers of some kind at a shopping mall, and it was ruled that the shopping mall is, indeed, now the equivalent of public property?

I don't remember any more details, obviously. Just remember hearing about it. anyone remember this case?
 
dwarven1 said:
Scrivener said:
I sincerely doubt that Pyramid Management was foolish enough to state that its property is "public property." It most certainly isn't, which is precisely why it can refuse access to unaccompanied teens whenever it chooses to.

Wasn't there some court case several years ago where someone sued to be able to hand out flyers of some kind at a shopping mall, and it was ruled that the shopping mall is, indeed, now the equivalent of public property?

I don't remember any more details, obviously. Just remember hearing about it. anyone remember this case?

I can't imagine how that could be. A mall is owned by a Management company who leases space to vendors. I would consider that private property.

But Ross in this state nothing would surprise me.
 
"Wasn't there some court case several years ago where someone sued to be able to hand out flyers of some kind at a shopping mall, and it was ruled that the shopping mall is, indeed, now the equivalent of public property?"

Yes; on the grounds that it was POLITICAL speech (highly protected, at least back then) and the theory that the mall was the modern equivalent of the town square.

It was about 30 years ago and was NOT a SCOTUS decision, IIRC, but an opining from the 9th Circuit - THE most over-turned circuit in the entire Federal court system.

Given that the current court supports seizing private property by the government to promote private corporations under the illusion that there is some sort of vague, general benefit from alleged tax revenue, who knows how such a case would be decided now. I'm betting on the mall owner prevailing.
 
Scrivener said:
"Wasn't there some court case several years ago where someone sued to be able to hand out flyers of some kind at a shopping mall, and it was ruled that the shopping mall is, indeed, now the equivalent of public property?"

Yes; on the grounds that it was POLITICAL speech (highly protected, at least back then) and the theory that the mall was the modern equivalent of the town square.

It was about 30 years ago and was NOT a SCOTUS decision, IIRC, but an opining from the 9th Circuit - THE most over-turned circuit in the entire Federal court system.

Wow... was it THAT long ago? Damn... I'm gettin' old. But that sounds like the case I was thinking of. Thanks, Scrivener.
 
dwarven1 said:
Wow... was it THAT long ago? Damn... I'm gettin' old. But that sounds like the case I was thinking of. Thanks, Scrivener.

Ross,

You're not getting older, you're getting wiser. [wink]
 
...this is public property...

Perhaps bad terminology on my part, not Pyramid Managements. What I meant was that this was property with open access to the public.
 
80-mile Buffer Zone

I mapped them out on Google Earth and found that:

City Hall in Holyoke and City Hall in Boston are exactly 80 miles apart from one another. Apparently, that's a sufficient buffer zone to prevent contamination from Meninostan infecting the western reality-based portion of the Commonwealth.
 
In the next town north of here, Kingston, there is a Pyramid Mall. I'll have to look for their rules at the customer service desk.
 
I was just at the mall today and their policy has changed, not sure when. Now it states clearly that only law enforcement personnel are authorized to carry. Just an FYI.[hmmm]

That's their opinion on the matter. [wink]

I surely hope you don't put your life at risk because a piece of paper says "only cops can have guns". [grin]
 
I was just at the mall today and their policy has changed, not sure when. Now it states clearly that only law enforcement personnel are authorized to carry. Just an FYI.[hmmm]

Where does it say that? The brochure I referenced has not been around in a long time.
 
+1 If they cannot see it they cannot do a damn thing. I think the only way they could arrest you is if they ask you to leave because your carrying and you refuse. I'm not sure on this though.

You are correct. The signs are useless. If caught and asked to leave, you must do so or face criminal trespassing charges. I don't see how you would get caught though, keep it concealed and no one will be the wiser.
 
Considering that this is Holyoke in one sense I can understand Pyramid's concern. However like evan9201 notes, signs do not deter criminals/gang-bangers/assorted trash. After all, such restrictions do not apply to them.
 
I was at the Independence mall in kingston last night waiting for my son when I read a notice that no weapons were allowed except by lawenforcment. I guess I have been there illegally all this time, and in the future. OH WELL.
 
I was at the Independence mall in kingston last night waiting for my son when I read a notice that no weapons were allowed except by lawenforcment. I guess I have been there illegally all this time, and in the future. OH WELL.


Yeah, would love to see this tested. How is it illegal I wonder? Seems more of a civil thing...What would you be arrested for? If that could stand, what would then stop a group of neighbors from passing a similar enforcable no-gun zone in a neighborhood?
 
Back
Top Bottom