Previous Post
Next Post

That’s the weapons policy at the Carousel Center Mall in Syracuse, New York [above]. This just in via “Syracuse Police said they responded to a fight on the third level of the mall outside the Regal Movie Theaters around 10 p.m. When the first officer arrived at the scene, he found 15 to 20 people in a fight and one man on the ground, apparently knocked out. The officer also saw three live shotgun shells and immediately called for backup. Responding officers saw a group of young men running down the escalators and they attempted to stop them. After a brief struggle, two were taken into custody and it was discovered that one of them had a sawed-off shotgun hidden in the sleeve of his jacket. The teen was charged with criminal possession of a weapon and resisting arrest and his name is not being released due to his age.”

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. I guess the Statue of Liberty or Mount Rushmore could be considered a federal statues, but since those are pretty far away, I’ll have to go looking for state and local statues to authorize my guns for me.

  2. It’s almost as if those who would illegally possess a gun also pays no heed to “no guns” signs!

    They should have just said “no fighting,” I’m sure that would have deterred all of these upstanding citizens.

  3. ‘This is a gun free zone’ :)Obviously those signs don’t deter criminals from carrying weapons and committing violence. Rather such signs may further motivate criminals since the signs indicate the criminals will encounter less threats in response to their actions. The malls are doing what their lawyers suggest hoping to limit their own liability in case of a crime, and probably to give the impression to their modern consumer shopper that they promote a safe shopping experience.

    How about mall signs that state:
    This a theft free zone
    Spending is required zone
    All we want is your money zone

    • All of what you say and the events in this matter just goes to show that what most of us are saying is true. Declaring a “Gun Free Zone” in a Mall, or anywhere else, just invites the criminally minded to take advantage of the situation (since they are by definition committing criminal acts) and prey upon the undefended (who meanwhile have taken the “sucker punch” of being lulled into a false sense of security by a posted policy). It staggers the mind that people just cannot seem to get this despite it being demonstrated as true time and again.I do get the part about the Mall’s lawyer’s advice in our litigious society, the Mall’s desire to avoid being sued, being in Syracuse, NY, and all that entails. It just demonstrates that those factors do not deter criminals. What a surprise…NOT!

  4. What drives malls to become gun free zones is liability and not an opinion on the Second Amendment. Look at it from management’s point of view.

    If he allows guns on his property then he will be sued if some citizen goes nuts and shoots up the place.

    If in process of stopping the madman an armed citizen shoots a bystander he is going to be sued. Why do you think mall security is armed with pepper spray instead of a Taser or firearm?

    If he doesn’t allow guns and someone shoots up the mall he will be sued but his insurance will pay. If the police are called and they shoot a shopper by accident, the cops might get sued but the mall owner is not liable.

    There will be cases where an armed citizen stops the crime, doesn’t fire a shot or nobody except maybe the perp gets macro lead poisoning but to paraphrase Woody Hayes there are three things that can happen if guns are allowed in the mall and two of them are very bad.

    The mall management is not the cause of the problem. It is our tort system that offers inducement to management to make their property a safe for crime environment. You want to make the world a better place than take the Bard’s advice.

  5. Misspelling aside, what’s objectionable about a weapons policy which permits lawful possession of weapons and prohibits unlawful possession?

    • “Authorized by statute” is legalese for police, on-duty military, and the like. It is not the same as “permitted” or “licensed”.

      • That is not at all clear to me, or I suspect, anyone else. Had they meant law enforcement, they could have easily said so. Instead, they used a far broader construction, which is easily interpreted to include citizens holding carry permits “authorized by statute”.

      • Are you certain about that? I don’t think it just applies to police or law enforcement. Ambiguous language is ambiguous.

        The reason I’m not sure you’re correct is this: many city parks in Florida had signs up prohibiting firearms. Not too long ago, the state legislature passed a preemption amendment (790.33) to the firearms section, which means that they reserved all rights of regulation to the State, “to the exclusion of all existing and future county, city, town, or municipal ordinances or any administrative regulations or rules adopted by local or state government relating thereto. Any such existing ordinances, rules, or regulations are hereby declared null and void.”

        What this means is that the city park signs were now in violation of the preemption statute. When this was brought to their attention, many of them didn’t replace the signs, they simply amended them by adding some variation of “except as permitted by law” or “except as permitted under 790.06,” which is the concealed carry statute here in Florida. Here’s an example of a replaced sign and an amended sign.

        I would interpret “The possession of any weapon, unless authorized by local, state, or federal statue, is prohibited” as being the same as the signs here, they just don’t have the specific statute numbers listed.

    • Look, I am just the messenger. Until a permit holder who has been a victim of a violent crime at a mall successfully sues the mall management for not allowing him to legally carry his defensive weapon malls will continue to ban legally carried weapons out of fear liability in the wake of a gun incident on his property. Once it becomes damned if you do damned if you don’t malls will relax their no gun policies.

  6. Obviously the youngster was “authorized by local, state, or federal statue” to carry that sawed-off shotgun, right?

    • Seeing how New York continually passes laws to punish legal gun owners and not criminals (who are a key voting block for their politicians), they essentially did.

  7. So much for a violation of the NFA right? How come that isn’t tacked on as a charge.

    10 years and/or $250,000 fine for not registering that shotgun.

    • Because not even the local LEO’s have a good handle on NFA laws.

      Or maybe since NY doesn’t uphold other federal laws (FOPA), they aren’t allowed to enforce them?

    • How about if the ‘teen’ is a student in good standing at an age appropriate educational facility, otherwise, they are charged as an adult.

    • Sadly some of the most blatant and repeat violent offenders are inner city youths with something to prove. They know they will be out in less than a month for most felonies and will just treat it as a game.

  8. Interesting though, how even with demonstrably violent, unlicensed felons running around with illegal weapons, even THEY had the good sense to NOT open fire during a fight, something gun control advocates often cite…

  9. “The possession of any weapon, unless authorized by local, state, or federal statute, is prohibited”

    How about the Second Amendment of the US Constitution? Does that qualify as a federal statute?

    Sometimes the ignorance of the anti-gun crowd is just amazing.

  10. The term “authorized by statute” is meaningless. Unless a statute specifically forbids a particular action an American citizen doesn’t need authorization to engage in that action. I am not required to wait until some jackass in my state legislature or DC authorizes me to fart on Saturday afternoon.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here