Man carries gun openly into mall, gets verbal lashing
VANCOUVER, Wash. – One man believes he's within his rights to openly carry a gun in a mall, but almost two months after the Clackamas Town Center Shooting, that belief triggers an immediate gut reaction for many.
But 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.
He claims he would have been perfectly happy to leave if he'd simply been asked politely to do so.
He said he wears it outside his clothing because "if you have it tucked in, it's considered concealed and then if you don't have a concealed permit that is illegal."
Mall general manager Paige Moreau said she was aware of the incident. She said the mall's code of conduct prohibits firearms in the mall. But she couldn't confirm whether that rule was posted anywhere inside the mall. KATU News did not observe any signs posted Thursday prohibiting firearms and couldn’t find a notice posted on the mall's website.
Washington's open carry law allows gun owners to legally carry their weapons in plain sight. But Moreau said the mall is private property, so it's allowed to make these rules.
Washington gun rights expert and author Dave Workman says she's right. But a simple sign or two would help.
"It is their private property," he said. "But still it wasn't posted off limits to firearms and so he really didn't violate any law by going in there open-carrying a firearm."
Later in the day Mendiola said now that he knows it’s against the mall’s rules to bring a firearm on the premises, he’ll respect that and leave his gun at home.
Still, he says it would help a lot if they'd post a notice somewhere.
He says he’s applied for a concealed weapons permit, but mall rules don't make an exception for concealed weapons permits. So even if someone has one, and is carrying, the mall can legally ask the person to leave and have them arrested for criminal trespass if they refuse.
The law is essentially the same in both Oregon and Washington and businesses in both states have the right to set the rules for how they manage their private property.
We learned about this story through a news tip. If you have a story you'd like us to cover, email us at newstips@katu.com.
Just in case you need another reason to not shop at a mall.Â
there is NO logic to take guns away from non criminals just because the Criminals use them criminally...
These boneheads that think open carry if good better hope they don't run into another bonehead that thinks they're a threat (which they are). The ensuing shoot out might be interesting.
I'd love to see a poll of how many gun owners have ever actually needed to use their weapon in self defense. It could be broken down into sections like "At Home" and "In Public". Because I know a lot of gun owners and fully support their 2nd amendment rights, but not a one of them that I've asked has ever had to do so outside of their own property. That's where this argument changes direction, because once you leave your personal space you enter in everyone else', and not everyone is comfortable around guns.
@PhillyBuster well thats a false premise if I ever heard one,why do cops have guns,they only use them for one thing making people comply with them or do they also use them to prevent violence against them by the fact its strapped to their hip.And violence isnt confined to the HOME,you have a right to roam freely you also have a right per Washington state law to do so with a gun if you want,so change the laws if you dont agree but dont attack the PERSON obeying such LAWS and enjoying the FREEDOMS,btw no law was broken by just walking into mall since he did leave(ie no tresspass)
Okay I despise bringing this subject to this thread but....
I'm seeing a huge double standard here.
Â
People are screaming Van Mall is a PRIVATE business and can make their own rules.. (No Guns Allowed)
Okay, I agree.
Â
BUT
Â
Those same people are screaming Sweet Cakes Bakery is a PUBLIC place and CAN'T make rules for their business. (MUST create a cake for a homosexual wedding)
Â
So- as long as it's a law/rule/right that YOU like- then it must be enforced. (Baker can't refuse service)
But if it's a law/rule/right that YOU don't like- then it can be infringed upon & ignored. (Man must NOT open carry or must be arrested)
Â
Either BOTH businesses are PRIVATE or neither is. Either BOTH are public or neither is.Â
Van Mall is full of stores that sell to the public so how is it that they are private but the bakery is public?
Â
This is an insane double standard and hypocrisy to the highest order.Â
No soup for you!Â
 @cwpholder It's actually not the same at all. Sexual orientation is a protected class that can not be discriminated against by a private business, such as race, age or disability. This is due to the fact that these things can not be left at home, such as a gun.
 @PhillyBuster where is that in the bill of rights,constiution?
 @Nuclear-XÂ
Excuse me, was that your idea of a rebuttal? Â Pretty pathetic, don't you think? Â Almost as though you really don't have anything to add to a conversation? Â Like maybe you've never read the Constitution, don't understand what it says, don't care because it's nothing more than a prop for you to use to indict ideas that you disagree with? Â If that's the case, I'm very sad for you. Â The Constitution is a document that, in many ways, was the culmination of the Enlightenment and the rise of humanism. Â To not know it when you claim to be an American, well that's a circumstance you should endeavor to remedy.
 @Diogenes obviously you only read the parts you agree with.
@PhillyBuster no he has a right to bear arms this means CARRY THEM,exactly what he is doing now tell me "the Right to bear arms" means anything else.
 @Nuclear-X  @PhillyBusterÂ
According to the Supreme Court, it's contained in the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Â Did you want to talk about that? Â Or are you another "constitutional conservative" who's never actually read the document in question.
 @Nuclear-X Are you really that ignorant or just trying to appear that way in this thread? You do realize that not all current laws were listed in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution right? And by your definition do you believe that a business should be able to refuse service to someone because they are black, Latino or disabled? Because that is what you are inferring.
 @cwpholderÂ
Worst. Â False equivalency. Â Ever.
@Diogenes CW is right you are wrong
Why is the concept of proper time and place so difficult for people to grasp. While it is his right to openly carry a gun into a shopping center, it's probably not the best idea, especially after what just happened a few miles away at another mall. Just like it wouldn't be appropriate to stand in front of a Vancouver school holding up a bag of weed (under and ounce of course) and singing Get Up, Stand Up, which is also perfectly legal.
"and businesses in both states have the right to set the rules for how they manage their private property".This isn't true if you try to refuse service to someone based on your religious beliefs. While I don't necessarily agree/disagree with the reason for refusing service, I feel it a business owner's right to choose with whom he/she does business.
Â
It's a fine line businesses have to walk on that issue. Switch out the gay couple from the bakery refusing service because of religious beliefs with a black person or an old person or a disabled person and the business would be heavily fined or shut down in a hurry. Gays are where blacks were in the 60s. It won't be long before they are included under the Federal discrimination protections.
It is an interesting topic you bring up though about setting rules. Should private property that deals with the general public (like retail establishments) be able to ban something everyone has a right to (guns)?
@Leroy Jenkins Thank you for "reading" what I had to say and not assuming I am for/against a specific group of people. I don't like "across the board" rules because very rarely do they make sense in all cases.
It is to Laugh. The "my right to carry" running smack into "my private property". What's a poor conservative to do?
@ShallowEnder respect property owner rights and spend your money elsewhere, or carry concealed. Works for me.
I strongly support the 2nd amendment, but private property is private property.  If I can't carry (legally), I don't patronize.  Pretty simple.  I'll catch some flak from the "open carry is my right" folks, but puh-leeze.  When I carry, I guarantee you won't know.  Which is what I do when I carry in town.  Now, if I'm out in the woods, unincorporated areas, yes, I'll open carry.  Different environments call for different tactics.  Never leave your cave without your club, but there are advantages in stealth.  Be safe, be smart out there, folks.....
The 2nd Amendment says nothing about these times and massive gun weapons, nor is it about any right to endanger others in any way shape or form:
Â
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Â
That's IT, period. Â NONE of that applies to this situation or other fools in public with guns, like many Pubs, so he is completely in the WRONG.
If you are focusing on the Militia as the only reason to bear arms then I feel you are wrong. there are two thoughts in this sentence and it still identifies the right of "the people". Read our Constitutional authors personal writings and you should have no doubt about thier intent. As far as this numbskull, ....get a concealed weapons permit or leave your gun at home. This open carry, while lawful, usually and needlessly alarms people and gives gun owners a black eye, IMHO. Malls would be better off posting a sign that says "Concealed carry permit holders welcome".  That keeps the bad guys guessing.Â
@P R Severe "massive gun weapons." It was a pistol. Another clueless liberal jack tard flaps his ignorant jaws.
They guy was "bearing" an "arm".
Â
What exactly was he doing wrong again?
Â
Also, it says "Arms". Not rifles and handguns, but arms. Back then this covered cannon as well.
I do believe in some regulation. I don't see why an individual would need or want a nuke. But I also think we have already gone too far in regulating. I believe all small arms should be legal for anyone with the proper training and permits. The trick is getting a national standard of what that training and permit system should be.
I was there that day and around that time. Â This stupid little punk is like so many other gun-losers, he's not carrying the gun on the OUTSIDE for anything other than to try and be what he thinks is cool-looking. Â Pathetic, he's not mature enough to be any smarter, and he's way too young to do this or have a kid.
Â
This area is over-run with troublesome Mexicans all over, many of which are illegal, and come here from Oregon where they're allowed to work in the fields. Â This utterly crazy fool is a perfect example of that and why we need gun laws changed. Â I absolutely do not trust someone like this carrying a gun openly like that...ever.
Â
Also, the store doesn't need to have signs saying "No Guns," it's just effing common sense for intelligent individuals, which this guy is NOT.
Â
@P R Severe no, fool, because in Washington you can open-carry unless a sign is posted by the property owner. Don't let law get in the way of your diatribe, nut job, and the Constitution doesn't guarantee the right of hand-wringing ninnies to trump the 2nd Amendment whether you think the guy is intelligent or not. The fact that it annoys nanny-statists like you is the absolute best reason to open-carry. Keep your laws off my body, right?
 @P R SevereÂ
Wow. Â And you know that these "troublesome Mexicans" (NOT RACIST AT ALL, NATCH) are "illegal" because...you can tell one when you see them? Â That was REALLY offensive, dude. Â So, you're against MEXICANS carrying guns openly? Â Or against ANYONE carrying openly? Â I really think you have some soul-searching to do.
@Diogenes @P R Severe well, it's perfectly fine here for the liberals to call for him to be arrested, to question his sanity and attack his character because he obeyed a law they don't like (open carry). Which is why I know longer give half a damn what hippiecrits say.
 @Playanekes Â
So, pretty much, you're not really very good at formulating an argument, so you just call names and create strawmen. Â Good to know.
I have to agree with you in total. Have not been to the mall or that area in several years but alas if as you say the area is overrun with illegal mexicans then it is time for the elected officials to do their job and start deporting. In Washington they are now wanting to give illegals a big break on education, they have alway allowed them to get driver licences and now some guy is in mexico try to import 5k farm workers.
Â
My guess is that he may be a mexican gangbanger and is testing the system i.e. public reaction but more importantly how long did it take for law enforcement to respond etc.
Â
This ding dong did something that a reasonable person would not have done considering the recent events.
This is entirely up to you - but it may be a good idea in light of what's been happening to establish in advance with the businesses you do your shopping at if open/concealed carry is allowed at their place of business. Â If you carry, simply avoid the businesses that don't allow it, or don't carry when shopping there. Â This seems reasonable to me.
 @nytefytr They don't need to post it anymore than they do signs saying you can't yell "fire," you can't go in half-naked, you can't yell obscenities as you wander around, and most importantly, YOUR 'right' doesn't trump the rights of ALL others to not be endangered by some punk like this.
 The yelling fire thing is against the law everywhere, doesn't apply. Everything else you example is the same as carrying a weapon. They can ask you to leave and that is all. None of those examples are illegal.
Â
How was this guy endangering anyone? Absolutely no reason to panic over someone wearing a holstered handgun. You don't panic over a gun when you talk to a police officer do you?
Most businesses wonât actually care about the issue. They care about their bottom line.
If a large number of their customers are the type of people who panic at just the sight of a gun, then the businesses is automatically going to publicly state that weapons aren't allowed. They donât care about guns, they care about possible losing a chunk of their money.
Van Mall is a perfect example of that. Their no gun policy wasnât posted anywhere, but when asked by a news outlet after an employee unjustifiably freaked out, they come out anti-gun.
 @Leroy Jenkins there was a store i read about but forget where it was that also had a gun counter were a guy bought a gun and placed it on his belt and stepped away from the gun counter were he was then asked to leave the store because the store had a no gun policy.
 @Leroy Jenkins Of course they'll care, after all the shootings, like C Town Center?
Â
Honestly, get a clue.
The real issue is not the 2nd amendment. Â A while ago npr spotlighted an interesting idea. Â Apparently an appellant court decision went as follows: Â A group of people handed out copies of the Bill of Rights in a mall. Â Now we all would "ideally" like to think that such an act would be protected under the 1st amendment........Alas, not so, despite the overwhelming positive responses, especially from younger people...."These are my rights...really!?!" was the general response. Â The court ruled that "malls" were not public spaces, but private property, and therefor were not "public squares" where traditionally and legally one could engage in public discourse. Â The group was banned from handing out the Bill of Rights in the mall. Â Yet some uninformed yahoo wants to go on to some private property and brandish a firearm. Â Rights mean responsibility. Â Retards that engage in such acts actually threaten all our rights. Â That man should be arrested and charged.
@gm shay he wasnt protesting it doesnt apply here,he was going about his way,he didnt have signs or was yelling 'Dont tread on me"
@gm shay ARRESTED AND CHARGED FOR WHAT, STALIN? HE WASN'T BREAKING ANY LAWS. Obviously, you're not interested in justice, just taking the rights and freedoms of people you don't like.
@Playanekes Correct. Had he refused to leave, when asked, then he might have commited a chargable offense. That did not happen.
 @gm shay AGREED.
Oh, ok - so people think the baker turning away a gay couple is wrong, but turning away someone carrying his gun - which he has a Constitutional right to do so -Â is ok.
Â
Yeah, yeah - a gun can kill people and a gay lifestyle isn't a threat, but the point is the same - the bakery is private property, as is the mall.  It's just the liberal agenda at it again - trying to take away peoples' rights if it's inconvenient for them.Â
Â
Hypocrites!
 @djljejmÂ
So, um, you are aware that the Vancouver Mall is private property, right? Â Are you saying that anyone who visits your home can bring their AR-15 even if you don't want them to? Â What a weird and tragically ignorant conception of the Bill of Rights you have.
@Diogenes @djljejm nope. If I don't want somebody bringing an AR-15 into my home I'll tell them to leave. If they don't, that's criminal trespass. When they asked him to leave, he did. Ie, he obeyed the law and respected the property owner. The only real problem is that a bunch of hand-wringing liberal soccer moms don't think that's good enough, and many think he ought to lose his freedom for doing so. So, he should have simply broken e law and carried concealed like real criminals do. Then you hippie halfwits wouldn't have even known he had it. And that makes you safer. Which is why I carry concealed.
Yes they can bring whatever weapon they wish. All you can do is ask them to leave. If they don't, then they can be arrested for trespassing. Same thing with skateboarding, roller blades, or just being too loud. Bringing the item is not illegal. Not leaving when asked to is.
 @Nuclear-X Â
Pardon? Â What are you talking about?
@Diogenes but YOU dont respect the rights that annoy you also
 @Playanekes Â
Didn't charge him with what? Â I think you're just confused, and maybe not a little oblivious. Â I never said anything about anyone being charged with anything. Â This is a discussion about whether or not a private property owner forbidding firearms on their premise is a violation of the Second Amendment. Â Did you have anything to add to THAT discussion? Â Or are you just kind of saying something random and then wandering off?
 @Playanekes Â
You're just really not particularly interested in actually talking to someone, are you? Â Why would you call me a "hippie?" Â What does that even have to do with anything, except that you don't have a whole lot of imagination, nor a healthy respect for the property rights of others? Â And which liberal laws are you talking about? Â That wasn't even the discussion. Â It's like you can't read at all, so you just blunder from discussion to discussion, bellow out something stupid, then leave. Â Is that satisfying for you? Â Does it let you forestall the inevitable moment of truth when you look into a mirror and realize that dull-eyed cretin staring back at you is...you?
@Diogenes okay... But you can still carry a weapon in there until they tell you not to, and then you have to leave. Blather all you want, hippie, but THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED, isn't it? Apparently either the Washington police disagree with your or they just don't bother to follow liberal laws. Take that as a clue.
@Diogenes @Leroy Jenkins @djljejm where you've gone completely off the rails is evident by the fact that the police didn't charge him and the mall isn't pressing charges. So the only people who are throwing laws around don't have any law enforcement value whatsoever. Just a bunch of blathering liberals is all.
@ Playanekes Where does it say you can't smoke? On the door of every entrance. Also say you can't smoke within 50 feet of the door.
 @Leroy JenkinsÂ
Are you talking to me? Â If so, are you really sure you want to attack my intelligence when you're the one who keeps confusing the law and the Bill of Rights?
@ PR Severe
Seriously?
Â
Keep (own) and bear (carry) arms. Are you just trolling or do you really not know the meaning of the words?
Â
Yes I can walk onto your property with or without a weapon. You can ask me to leave. If I leave, no law is broken. If I stay then I'm trespassing.
Now if you have POSTED warnings stating no weapons, then that changes things a bit.
 @Playanekes Â
I don't think you understand your own argument. Â The Vancouver Mall is private property. Â The complex is owned by the Westfield Group. Â Because they're a public accommodation, the state has the authority to impose regulations, but that doesn't mean they're a public space.
@P R Severe @Leroy Jenkins where does it say you can't?
@Diogenes @Leroy Jenkins @djljejm "Vancouver Mall is not a public space..." bwaahahaaa! Try to smoke there, or block the fire exits.
 @Diogenes  @Leroy Jenkins  @djljejmA well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
 @Leroy JenkinsA well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Â
Where in there does it say you can carry deadly WMDs around at all, let alone into other's private property w/o advance permission?
 @Leroy JenkinsÂ
You seem to be confusing the 2d Amendment with Washington law.  @djljejm claimed that banning firearms on private property was a violation of Mendiola's right to keep and bear arms.  It clearly isn't, since Mendiola is required by law to comport with the rules of the property owner; in essence, you have no right to enter the Vancouver Mall because it's not a public space.  Your entrance there is conditional upon your adherence to their rules, and the privilege is revocable by the property owner.