"No Guns" posted malls

[Lenny Benedetto]

imported post

ESCH wrote:

They even have their own motor vehicle code. Every vehicle parked on Tribal land must have the parking brake on!

If this is true then someone should tell the guys in Valet parking the LAW!!!
Put the car in VIP Parking Saturday. Regular Valet was full. They take your car and park it right outside the doors of valet parking desk. When you come to get your car, you just hand the guy at the desk your ticket and he hands you your keys. NO WAITING for your car. It is 20 feet away.

Now remember the Valet parked it there hours ago for us....NO PARKING BRAKE ON!!

Sounds like somebody does not know the law of the land that they work on.

 

[gluegun]

imported post

ESCH wrote:

Hef wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there's no statute that makes a "no guns" sign legally enforceable. The worst that could happen is you get trespassed if you refuse to leave when asked. So, really, who cares if they post a sign or not?

Sec 29-28(e)

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/pub/Chap529.htm#Sec29-28.htm

(e) The issuance of any permit to carry a pistol or revolver does not thereby authorize the possession or carrying of a pistol or revolver in any premises where the possession or carrying of a pistol or revolver is otherwise prohibited by law
or is prohibited by the person who owns or exercises control over such premises (ie. posted signs.)


Basically, carrying in a premise posted as "no guns" is illegally carrying a firearm. Your permit is invalid in such a location. You are facing punishment the same as carrying without a permit altogether. You are "Not thereby authorized to possess or carry in that premise" by statute 29-28.

As far as how big of a deal is made out of each and every circumstance that this may or has happened? I cannot say and willnot venture a guess. Your best bet would be to simply avoid such places or situations altogether. Know that the person who has posted such a sign has done so because they feel you are part of their problem.I would recommend not even tempting fateand simply move on to the next establishment.

Sec. 29-37. Penalties. (a) Any person violating any provision of section 29-28 or 29-31 shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than three years or both, and any pistol or revolver found in the possession of any person in violation of any of said provisions shall be forfeited.

 

[Leverdude]

imported post

GoldCoaster wrote:

I guess it's some sort of acknowlegement that they got their own rights trampled on a couple of hundred years ago.

Personally I don't care that the Indians have their own tribal council, laws, casinos. It's small recompense for having their entire land overrun I guess. I'm not a gambler so they aren't gaining any money from me.

The arrangement with the State of CT was they get X millions from the casinos in return for CT not allowing any other avenue for slot machines. More of a way to make CT keep them (both casino's) from having any competition in their main money making games.

It may be silly but it's the way things are. It's the same as if you tried to break into a foreign embassy in NYC or somewhere. Those properties are considered sovereign soil of the countries they serve.

Its really not a big deal to me, I dont gamble & have only been to the Mohegan Sun once. But I dont think its the same as a forien embassy. A foreign embassy as you noted is considered sovereign soil of the country they represent. By civilized nations anyway, our embasies have been overrun before & will again. At any rate they are considered a sovereign nation not an embassy of one that exists elsewhere.

I read their constitution & one very important thing I noticed is that you have a right to petition the US courts to test the legality of detention by the Tribe.

I'v never heard of a truly sovereign nation letting a person appeal to another sovereign nation before. It would be like a Canadian arrested for violating Canadian gun laws being able to appeal their case here in the US.

Section 1. - [Restrictions on Law-Making.] The Mohegan Tribe, in exercising its powers of self-government, shall make no law inconsistent with The Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 (25 USC 1301—1303; 82 Stat. 77), which requires that The Tribe not: (a) make or enforce any law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition for a redress of grievances; (b) violate the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, nor issue warrants, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized; (c) subject any person for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy; (d) compel any person in any criminal case to be a witness against himself; (e) take any private property for a public use without just compensation; (f) deny to any person in a criminal proceeding the right to a speedy and public trial, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and, at his own expense, to have the assistance of counsel for his defense; (g) require excessive bail, impose excessive fines, inflict cruel and unusual punishments, and in no event impose for conviction of any one offense any penalty or punishment greater than imprisonment for a term of one (1) year or a fine of $5,000.00, or both; (h) deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of its laws or deprive any person of liberty or property without the process of law; (i) pass any bill of attainder or ex post facto law; (j) deny to any person accused of any offense punishable by imprisonment, the right, upon request, to a trial by jury of not less than six persons; or (k) prohibit any person from testing the legality of his detention, by order of The Mohegan Tribal Court, by petitioning for a writ of habeas corpus in a court of the United States.

I'v not much doubt that the state of CT would uphold their decision in something like this
but see it more as a private property thing, just like anybody can forbid firearm posession on their property but that doesn't mean that my property is the sovereign state of Leverdude.

I also couldn't find anything regarding a tribal Dept of Corrections. If people convicted there are incarcerated in CT state prisons its another inconsistancy with the idea of a sovereign nation.

I am glad it makes them feel good & has brought them wealth, I will respect their wish's as private property owners etc, but I'll need something more than what I'v seen so far before I would consider them a truly sovereign nation. Do they even print their own currency?

 

[GoldCoaster]

imported post

Na they just scalp ya and send you home.

 

[gluegun]

imported post

I'm not usually PC, but that was pretty offensive.

 

[Lenny Benedetto]

imported post

gluegun wrote:

I'm not usually PC, but that was pretty offensive.

Offensive? Probably.:cuss:

Funny? Definitely! :celebrate and so is this Dancing Banana.

 

[GoldCoaster]

imported post

Well I got scalped out of $50 the last time I was there.

I think the native Indians got one hell of a raw deal, so any chance they get now to make a buck or two off the alien invaders - more power to them.

I spent a week up there for work a few years back, learned quite a lot about the tribe and how they handle things. They seem to have a pretty good deal going (at least at Foxwoods, haven't been to Mohegan Sun). They are providing cultural enrichment for the tribe members and their offspring, the museum is cool. I'm not sure that Stonington is all that happy about them but them's the breaks.

 

[Leverdude]

imported post

Heck there isn't a country on earth that wasn't taken from the people there before them in the same way the English took CT from the Indians.

That said it has been a good thing for the tribes economically & if it helps their ego to think they have their own country so be it.

 

[atrule]

imported post

While Connecticut was first being settled, the Colonists were actually invited in many ways. The Quinnipiacs, for example, invited John Davenport et. al. to New Haven area because they would be good allies against the Mohegans and Pequots. So, when New England was settled, much of the time it was consensual and mutually beneficial. And, the "white man" made right with purchasing land.

There were some times, unfortunately, when understandings got lost in translation and the native tribes did get the raw end.

All this to say, settling New England wasn't as bad for the natives as it was in say, the 19th century when the US government literally had a holocaust against the Indians for their own purposes. That was a great sin.

 

[BPK63]

imported post

I gotta say I would never go to Waterbury, especially at night, even in the Brass Mills mall without carrying. I've seen too many bad things, heard and read about too many bad things going on in and around that mall and Waterbury in general. One evening I went to the mall and one of the jewelry stores just got robbed at gunpoint and there was 10 cops there and the store was in lockdown. Just too dangerous a place to worry about some hidden sign, especially walking back to your car with bags in your hand in a dark parking lot. Too many people have been mugged in that area. Just not a good place to be.