Author Topic: Omaha oakview mall (Read 15129 times)

Famous556 · « **on:** June 23, 2010, 06:59:33 PM »

Hi all,

I have a question for those of you who live in or frequent Omaha,
I see that Oakview mall is listed on the "firearm unfriendly" list on the main NFOA site. However, on my visits to the mall I have seen no such signage. Could someone clarify?
Thanks!

justsomeguy · « **Reply #1 on:** June 23, 2010, 07:02:06 PM »

As you walk in the main doors, take a look at the signs posted to your left. Among the many things not permited are firearms.

Famous556 · « **Reply #2 on:** June 23, 2010, 07:08:55 PM »

Thank you for the quick reply, it seems one could make the argument that this is not a conspicous place to place such a notice, as I have never noticed it before on my many trips to the mall.

justsomeguy · « **Reply #3 on:** June 23, 2010, 07:11:20 PM »

Yeah, I never saw it 'till I was looking for it.

Wilson · « **Reply #4 on:** June 23, 2010, 08:25:12 PM »

When I go into Oakview, I enter through Sears and haven't seen any signage. If it was there, it wasn't obvious. I will continue to go through Sears.

I wonder what the "Emergency Response Procedures" are for stores like No Frills, Oakview Mall, and others are if someone is spotted with a handgun but if it is concealed, who will know? $:-\$

What would happen if we targeted "No Frills" for a letter campaign full of polite letters about their policy?

The signs indicate all concealed handguns but allowances are made for police officers. Wouldn't it be nice for them to recognize the training we who hold permits have gone through?

Mudinyeri · « **Reply #5 on:** June 23, 2010, 08:48:03 PM »

I thought pretty much all Sears and K-Marts were "no defense" zones.

Mudinyeri · « **Reply #6 on:** June 23, 2010, 08:52:15 PM »

Quote from: Wilson on June 23, 2010, 08:25:12 PM

The signs indicate all concealed handguns but allowances are made for police officers. Wouldn't it be nice for them to recognize the training we who hold permits have gone through?

Not to be a jerk, but are you seriously comparing the one day of "training" required for a CCW permit to the training that LEO's go through on a continual basis?

I know there was at least one person in my CCW class that I didn't fell very comfortable knowing that they would potentially have a CCW permit. I won't go into the reasons why, but as a guy who spent time in the Army, went through specialized training in the Army and has continued to seek out specialized training afterward and practices defensive shooting on a regular basis I don't think the one day class required for CCW permits is enough to make a statement like the one above.

Sorry. Like I said, not trying to be a jerk.

Ronvandyn · « **Reply #7 on:** June 23, 2010, 09:15:48 PM »

Quote from: Wilson on June 23, 2010, 08:25:12 PM

I wonder what the "Emergency Response Procedures" are for stores like No Frills, Oakview Mall, and others are if someone is spotted with a handgun but if it is concealed, who will know? $:-\$

OK, now you have me a bit curious. I have been into the No Frills out here in Bellevue (Hwy 370) numerous times and have never seen any anti-gun signage. And I look for it. Been about a month since I was in there last, have they posted?

Ron

Wilson · « **Reply #8 on:** June 23, 2010, 09:49:32 PM »

I understand the owner is firm on the no weapon policy for all the stores. The new one in the Elkhorn area is posted, Ashland is posted, LaVista is posted so if Bellevue isn't, it's probably a mistake so enjoy it.

2 E L O · « **Reply #9 on:** June 24, 2010, 04:29:58 PM »

Quote from: Mudinyeri on June 23, 2010, 08:52:15 PM

Quote from: Wilson on June 23, 2010, 08:25:12 PM
The signs indicate all concealed handguns but allowances are made for police officers. Wouldn't it be nice for them to recognize the training we who hold permits have gone through?

Not to be a jerk, but are you seriously comparing the one day of "training" required for a CCW permit to the training that LEO's go through on a continual basis?

I know there was at least one person in my CCW class that I didn't fell very comfortable knowing that they would potentially have a CCW permit. I won't go into the reasons why, but as a guy who spent time in the Army, went through specialized training in the Army and has continued to seek out specialized training afterward and practices defensive shooting on a regular basis I don't think the one day class required for CCW permits is enough to make a statement like the one above.

Sorry. Like I said, not trying to be a jerk.

No kidding...I think there were about 20 people in my CCW class. About a handful of them acted like they've never shot a pistol before. I was completely uncomfortable being around them while they were performing the shooting portion of the class. However, to be fair, they passed the shooting test and written test and could now be walking around out there with a weapon. That's a little scary.... Eek....

Hardwood83 · « **Reply #10 on:** June 25, 2010, 10:29:58 AM »

Quote from: 2 E L O on June 24, 2010, 04:29:58 PM

Quote from: Mudinyeri on June 23, 2010, 08:52:15 PM
Quote from: Wilson on June 23, 2010, 08:25:12 PM
The signs indicate all concealed handguns but allowances are made for police officers. Wouldn't it be nice for them to recognize the training we who hold permits have gone through?

Not to be a jerk, but are you seriously comparing the one day of "training" required for a CCW permit to the training that LEO's go through on a continual basis?

I know there was at least one person in my CCW class that I didn't fell very comfortable knowing that they would potentially have a CCW permit. I won't go into the reasons why, but as a guy who spent time in the Army, went through specialized training in the Army and has continued to seek out specialized training afterward and practices defensive shooting on a regular basis I don't think the one day class required for CCW permits is enough to make a statement like the one above.

Sorry. Like I said, not trying to be a jerk.
No kidding...I think there were about 20 people in my CCW class. About a handful of them acted like they've never shot a pistol before. I was completely uncomfortable being around them while they were performing the shooting portion of the class. However, to be fair, they passed the shooting test and written test and could now be walking around out there with a weapon. That's a little scary.... Eek....

Do you think individuals should have more training as a practical/proficiency matter? Or do you think only those meeting some specified criteria should be armed?

2 E L O · « **Reply #11 on:** June 25, 2010, 12:49:08 PM »

Quote from: Hardwood83 on June 25, 2010, 10:29:58 AM

Do you think individuals should have more training as a practical/proficiency matter? Or do you think only those meeting some specified criteria should be armed?

I think it should definitely be more difficult for a person to get a CCW....not from a legal criteria (clean record, no weapons charges, etc.) but more from a training/proficiency matter as you mentioned.

I think more practical/scenario training should be required as well as just basic firearm proficiency. Honestly, a couple of the guys in my CCW class looked like they've never, ever shot a handgun...or ANY type of gun for that matter. I actually felt a little sorry for the instructor having to teach them some basics DURING the "proficiency" test...

I didn't want to be anywhere near them while they were performing their shooting test. And I definitely wouldn't want to be in the same area as them if SHTF and they're carrying and decide to use their weapon. They would probably be more dangerous than the perp....

rluening · « **Reply #12 on:** June 25, 2010, 02:29:51 PM »

I agree completely. Look at Vermont and Alaska, who have no training. Blood running in the street!

Actually, that makes me wonder... which enumerated rights require additional training and education? Who gets to decide?

/rl

Dan W · « **Reply #13 on:** June 25, 2010, 02:30:04 PM »

All the data I have seen seems to point out the fact that states that have little or no training requirement have a nearly identical safety record compared to states that have the highest levels of training requirements.

Wilson · « **Reply #14 on:** June 25, 2010, 04:08:49 PM »

What on earth was I thinking!

Mudinyeri · « **Reply #15 on:** June 25, 2010, 05:56:18 PM »

Thank goodness that there are very few reported incidents of CCW permit holders actually having to draw and discharge. That keeps the statistics looking good.

My $0.02 on "enumerated rights" is that with rights come responsibilities. Believe me, I'm a civil libertarian through and through. Does that mean I'm 100% comfortable with the guy in my class who appeared to be hard of hearing, mentally challenged and bordering on Alzheimer's carrying a concealed weapon everywhere he goes? No way! Would I be upset by a fair-handed requirement that those who carry concealed be required to meet continuing education/training requirements? Nope. I'd feel even safer than I do today.

My point earlier, however, had nothing to do with rights. It had to do with the foundational premise that someone with one day of "training" was as QUALIFIED to carry a weapon in a public place as someone who trains constantly.

I'm happy to debate that point any time, any place.

Famous556 · « **Reply #16 on:** June 26, 2010, 12:15:51 AM »

IT seems that my thread has gone a bit off topic, so in light of that... I'll chip in my $.02

I do agree that there were people in my concealed carry class that I felt should take an "intro to pistol" class or the like. For instance, there was a person immediately next to me on the right shooting a sig that did not even know how to load the pistol besides inserting a magazine. I stood clear while the instructor came over to help them, but felt that this person (at this point) probably shouldnt be carrying a firearm in public. I was impressed when the instructor of the CCW class showed the person the basic safe operation of the pistol and suggested that they take a class as noted above to help them become more proficient with the weapon.

That being said, I feel it is the duty of a responsible citizen to seek some sort of training wether it be an intro class, defensive class, carbine/advanced class, or simply going to the range to get trigger time and practice on their own. I do not feel that it is the role of the government to constantly "protect" us from ourselves. I feel that we as responsible citizens have a duty to act and behave in responsible ways. I guess you could say I prefer individual responsibility rather than blanket regulations/rules/what have you from .gov, which I'm sure most if not all of you could agree with.

JimP · « **Reply #17 on:** June 26, 2010, 12:51:51 AM »

Quote from: Mudinyeri on June 25, 2010, 05:56:18 PM

My $0.02 on "enumerated rights" is that with rights come responsibilities. Believe me, I'm a civil libertarian through and through. )

Really? That's not what it sounds like....

Yes, Rights = Responsibilities, but you can't go enforcing responsibilities, or we'd have a police state in short order. Let Darwin/ The Market / School of Hard Knocks sort out the idjits. If stupid hurts, there will be less stupid, same as if being a goblin gets a person shot, there will be fewer goblins.

DanClrk51 · « **Reply #18 on:** June 26, 2010, 07:17:16 AM »

I agree with Famous556. It is not the role of government to enforce responsibilities. Training requirements are an infringement on the 2nd Amendment because "you" (the government) are saying that if you don't get training you can't carry a firearm. It is not called "THE RIGHT to BEAR arms" for nothing. The CCW permit itself is unconstitutional because it singles certain people out (even non felons) and prohibits them from exercising a constitutional right. It also makes you pay a fee to the government in order to exercise a right. So we have to ask for permission to exercise a right?! What does that make it then? When you have to ask the government for permission it is no longer a right but has become a priviledge. A priviledge can be revoked just as they can revoke your CCW permit. This means it is no longer a right. That is flat out wrong and needs to end ASAP. But for now it is the only way to "legally" carry in this state.

To answer the original post: Yes, the No Frills in Bellevue (370) has a sign. It is very small and is located on the second set of automatic doors when you walk in coming in from the east side. The sign is maybe a 2inch by 2inch little cartoon revolver sign. It is one of the worst signs I have seen around.

Mudinyeri · « **Reply #19 on:** June 26, 2010, 08:42:17 AM »

If it's not the role of the government to enforce responsibilities (by making laws) whose role is it?

There are plenty of laws related to each of the first eight amendments to the constitution, including the second. Certainly, I disagree with some of those laws, but by-and-large those laws are intended for the well-being of the people.

We do have to "ask permission" to exercise rights - in a way - because each of our individual rights have the potential to infringe upon the rights of another individual. My absolute right to free speech may well infringe upon the right of other individuals to be safe, for instance. It is not in the best interest of the public at large, and therefore illegal, for me to yell "fire" in a crowded building. By so doing, I am putting the lives of people in jeopardy.

Likewise, by allowing those who are un-trained or unsafe to carry loaded guns, we are putting the lives of others at risk. Thank God we have yet to have an incident due to lack of training or ability (that I'm aware of) that has resulted in death. We have had incidents, however, that have clearly put people at risk and have given those of us who constantly train and practice a bad name. Just a couple weeks ago, there was a guy in Oregon with a CCW permit firing shots at a car that was driving away. The thieves had stolen a couple iPhones from an AT&T store. In the background was a commuter train full of people. That guy just gave up his 2nd Amendment right, IMO, because he couldn't handle the responsibility that came with it.