Man pulls concealed carry weapon in gun-free mall to defend family and bystanders during shooting

NHCraigT

NES Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
11,436
Likes
17,998
Location
Southern NH
Feedback: 2 / 0 / 0

A father pulled out his concealed carry weapon in a weapons-free Nebraska mall to protect his family and others when a fatal shooting unfolded.
"Every indication said our lives were in danger, and I was going to do everything in my power to make sure we got out of there OK,” Scott Tafoya said.
The Omaha Westroads Mall is a weapon-free zone, but Tafoya said he had to pull out his legal concealed carry weapon .... "I knew that if I ever pulled that out, it would truly be a life-and-death situation, and I would deal with the consequences later," he said.

..... Police soon arrived on the scene, and Tafoya unloaded the bullets of his gun and put his hands up.
"I unloaded my weapon. I put it back in the holster where it was very visible that the slide was locked open. I put my permit in my hands and my hands above my head,” he said.
Law enforcement officers also did not charge him for having a gun in a weapons-free zone, and he added that those zones put people at risk.
"I don’t condone anyone breaking the law. I made the decision that was right for my family, and I stand behind it. I may still get in trouble for it. If I do, it was worth it,” he said.
 
Well it is. But the municipality/state can decide to not to prosecute. Which would seem wise in this case. The dude helped.
In MA, my understanding is gun free businesses hold no legal weight. Keep it concealed or stay away. If you print and soccer mom freaks out, you may get invited never to come back should bring no legal repercussions.

Of course I did hear about a case where a snowflake pressed “assault” charges for seeing a gun when some dude reached for the Cheerios. Don’t know what happened there tho in that case.
 
In MA, my understanding is gun free businesses hold no legal weight. Keep it concealed or stay away. If you print and soccer mom freaks out, you may get invited never to come back should bring no legal repercussions.

Of course I did hear about a case where a snowflake pressed “assault” charges for seeing a gun when some dude reached for the Cheerios. Don’t know what happened there tho in that case.
Signage is not legally binding in MA (outside of actual no-gun zones like fed buildings and schools). But if you are told to leave the premises because someone realizes you are carrying, you must do so. "Standing your ground" and refusing to leave will get you arrested for trespassing most likely.
 
Cue the idiots saying "duhhh it's their business their rules hurr durr!"

Ugh....those people are the worst! BTW....if this is a private business who has the authority to make the rules anyway? How do they force people onto their private property un-armed without any choice, like they HAVE TO go into the mall? That seems to be the real crime.
 
Found one

One what? One person sensible enough to give gun free zones a wide berth, instead of crying that the private business has no right to keep you out? Which they do, and why it is much more sensible to avoid the business. Instead you wanna be a Charlie Bronson, and bitch about people that respect private property. You are on the wrong side of this one, good luck with that.

You want to increase your safety, avoid gun free zones. There is nothing in that mall you need so badly (btw, do they still have malls?)
 
I always carry at the mall despite gun buster signs on the main door. I out is finding an entrance that has no gun buster sign. The negates any possible citation. The law here requires that gun buster signs be "conspicuous." Without any sign, GBZ is not enforceable.
Costco and Waffle House claim to have a corporate gun buster policy. But they have zero GBZ signs on their locations.
 
Where did I said that? I definitely didn't mean to imply that. Do private businesses not have a right to make their own rules or conditions for doing business on their private property?

Example: private businesses do not have a right to make their own rules and prohibit people from entering and shopping based on race or handicap.
 
Where did I said that? I definitely didn't mean to imply that. Do private businesses not have a right to make their own rules or conditions for doing business on their private property?
I’m thinking about starting up my own business with some special rules and conditions.
No black people, Jews, Hispanic, or anyone else I feel is undesirable.

How far would I get with this business model?
 
I’m thinking about starting up my own business with some special rules and conditions.
No black people, Jews, Hispanic, or anyone else I feel is undesirable.

How far would I get with this business model?

Armed people are not protected by the Civil Rights Act. I mean, I see what you are doing, but you do recognize there's a difference right?
 
Yes. Except when it comes to the BOR. If you don't like that pack your business up and go to another country. See it works both ways.


Ummmmm. . . . .

"Hey Pathy - wanna come over and watch TV tonight."

"Sure. But I'm bringing my gun."

"Yeah. You can't bring your gun. Stay home or leave it home."

"CONSTITUTION!!!!!! I'm calling Dan OingoBoingo!!!!"

Explain the difference between a person and a store denying you admittance and/or requiring certain conditions. BOR is a limit on government, not JC Penny.
 
Armed people are not protected by the Civil Rights Act. I mean, I see what you are doing, but you do recognize there's a difference right?

I have to disagree with you there. Civil rights, Constitutional Rights, Natural Rights, they are all semantic games. They are all the rights we wish to have as citizens.

The old, often counter argument to the business's rights is "What if I don't want to serve black people?"

Well, that argument is the correct argument. Since we have decided as a society that serving everybody regardless of your personal preference is the law, then businesses should not have the right to deny people the right to exercise another right we wish to regard as the law.
 
I have to disagree with you there. Civil rights, Constitutional Rights, Natural Rights, they are all semantic games. They are all the rights we wish to have as citizens.

The old, often counter argument to the business's rights is "What if I don't want to serve black people?"

Well, that argument is the correct argument. Since we have decided as a society that serving everybody regardless of your personal preference is the law, then businesses should not have the right to deny people the right to exercise another right we wish to regard as the law.

When does your case get picked up by the SCOTUS? Because, until you win your case there, you are still wrong. Law school is still an option, there could be hope for you yet.
 
When does your case get picked up by the SCOTUS? Because, until you win your case there, you are still wrong. Law school is still an option, there could be hope for you yet.

my case was already laid down in the constitution. Unalienable rights and all. Just like Nancy couldn't force the guardsmen in DC to be housed by the citizenry. The hessians had to sleep in a garage. Settled law.
 
my case was already laid down in the constitution. Unalienable rights and all. Just like Nancy couldn't force the guardsmen in DC to be housed by the citizenry. The hessians had to sleep in a garage. Settled law.

Your depth of understanding is undeniable...you certainly let people know the depth of your knowledge. Good on you, mate!
 
Back
Top Bottom