Carry at the mall.

[Hmac]

If you or I violate the law in front of the police, we can expect to receive some kind of fine. Yet the malls POST it and nothing happens.

Ignoring a "no guns" sign on a store, or a mall (or a theater) isn't violating the law in this state (or in Colorado).

However if the mall catches you, and asks you to leave, and you don't, THEN you can be ticked for trespassing.

My point is they are in violation of the law by posting that they ban guns. They can NOT ban guns. yet the police will side with them (as demonstrated http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=2795) when in fact they are violating our rights.

Forgive me if this is old ground, but those "tenants" aren't leasing the mall commons area. That is solely owned by the mall owner who is responsible for the actions of the public using it. As such, they get to call the shots. As I said, they don't have to post, they can ask you to leave for any reason whatsoever.

[westhope]

...My point is they are in violation of the law by posting that they ban guns. ...

There is NO LAW that says they cannot post a sign banning guns if it is wrong or misrepresents the law. There is no law that says they cannot post a sign the says the Earth is flat.

The law, 624.714, states; if they want to ban guns they can post a sign following specific requirements. They then must personally notify the person and that person must refuse to leave before that person can be charged with violating the carry law (624.714).

[Punisher102]

...My point is they are in violation of the law by posting that they ban guns. ...

There is NO LAW that says they cannot post a sign banning guns if it is wrong or misrepresents the law. There is no law that says they cannot post a sign the says the Earth is flat.

The law, 624.714, states; if they want to ban guns they can post a sign following specific requirements. They then must personally notify the person and that person must refuse to leave before that person can be charged with violating the carry law (624.714).

what ever,,,

guess this is meaningless,,

https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/bca/bca-divisions/administrative/Pages/Permit-to-Carry-FAQ.aspx

[Paul]

What's so difficult to understand about this? You're saying that they are breaking the law by posting the sign... Everyone here is trying to explain that it's NOT illegal for them to post a sign.

Your points about enforcement are a separate issue.

You seem to be mixing or confusing the two.

[jshuberg]

1) A FAQ is not the law. There have been misrepresentations as to the law on the BCA website in the past. Looking to a FAQ for legal advice is a very poor idea. Not to say that it's wrong here, but when making an argument it's always best to cite original sources - in this case the MN statue 724.714.

2) You're right in that the mall, as a landlord, cannot ban the carrying of firearms. It is also true that they can ask anyone to leave, for any reason, or for no reason at all since it's private property.

3) There is no law that exists that says that an establishment that cannot legally ban firearms is committing a crime if they post a sign claiming they can. I know, it sucks. The signs annoy me on the very rare occasions that I go to the mall. It is what it is though.

4) Even if there was a law that prevented the mall from posting that they ban firearms, you as a guest of the mall are not an injured party. You're rights are not the ones being violated. If such a law were to exist it would be the tenants of the mall that would be the injured party.

5) Any individual store in the mall is allowed to ban guns from their store. For all we know part of the standard lease agreement is that every store there agrees to a firearm ban, which would make the mall banning firearms in keeping with the interests of their tenants.

6) Even if they were breaking the law by posting signs, unless you have the money and political backing to fight the mall in court, any discussion of changing their policies is a waste of oxygen.

Personally, I think that any private establishment should be allowed to ban guns if they want to, without restriction. I also believe that if anyone becomes the victim of a crime in any private establishment that bans guns, that the owner of the establishment be held fully liable for the crime, as they assumed the legal responsibility of protecting everyone within their establishment when banning guns. Because of this insurance for businesses that ban guns would be significantly higher than those who don't. This isn't how it currently works, but I think it should be.

If you want to spend time on something, don't bang your head up against the signs at the mall. They are inconsequential to the big picture. Get involved with MN GOCRA, or push for a change of legislation through your representative.

[smokintone]

1) A FAQ is not the law. There have been misrepresentations as to the law on the BCA website in the past. Looking to a FAQ for legal advice is a very poor idea. Not to say that it's wrong here, but when making an argument it's always best to cite original sources - in this case the MN statue 724.714.

2) You're right in that the mall, as a landlord, cannot ban the carrying of firearms. It is also true that they can ask anyone to leave, for any reason, or for no reason at all since it's private property.

3) There is no law that exists that says that an establishment that cannot legally ban firearms is committing a crime if they post a sign claiming they can. I know, it sucks. The signs annoy me on the very rare occasions that I go to the mall. It is what it is though.

4) Even if there was a law that prevented the mall from posting that they ban firearms, you as a guest of the mall are not an injured party. You're rights are not the ones being violated. If such a law were to exist it would be the tenants of the mall that would be the injured party.

5) Any individual store in the mall is allowed to ban guns from their store. For all we know part of the standard lease agreement is that every store there agrees to a firearm ban, which would make the mall banning firearms in keeping with the interests of their tenants.

6) Even if they were breaking the law by posting signs, unless you have the money and political backing to fight the mall in court, any discussion of changing their policies is a waste of oxygen.

Personally, I think that any private establishment should be allowed to ban guns if they want to, without restriction. I also believe that if anyone becomes the victim of a crime in any private establishment that bans guns, that the owner of the establishment be held fully liable for the crime, as they assumed the legal responsibility of protecting everyone within their establishment when banning guns. Because of this insurance for businesses that ban guns would be significantly higher than those who don't.

If you want to spend time on something, don't bang your head up against the signs at the mall. They are inconsequential to the big picture. Get involved with MN GOCRA, or push for a change of legislation through your representative.

Very well put!

[ttousi]

^^^ agree

[xd ED]

1) A FAQ is not the law. There have been misrepresentations as to the law on the BCA website in the past. Looking to a FAQ for legal advice is a very poor idea. Not to say that it's wrong here, but when making an argument it's always best to cite original sources - in this case the MN statue 724.714.

2) You're right in that the mall, as a landlord, cannot ban the carrying of firearms. It is also true that they can ask anyone to leave, for any reason, or for no reason at all since it's private property.

3) There is no law that exists that says that an establishment that cannot legally ban firearms is committing a crime if they post a sign claiming they can. I know, it sucks. The signs annoy me on the very rare occasions that I go to the mall. It is what it is though.

4) Even if there was a law that prevented the mall from posting that they ban firearms, you as a guest of the mall are not an injured party. You're rights are not the ones being violated. If such a law were to exist it would be the tenants of the mall that would be the injured party.

5) Any individual store in the mall is allowed to ban guns from their store. For all we know part of the standard lease agreement is that every store there agrees to a firearm ban, which would make the mall banning firearms in keeping with the interests of their tenants.

6) Even if they were breaking the law by posting signs, unless you have the money and political backing to fight the mall in court, any discussion of changing their policies is a waste of oxygen.

Personally, I think that any private establishment should be allowed to ban guns if they want to, without restriction. I also believe that if anyone becomes the victim of a crime in any private establishment that bans guns, that the owner of the establishment be held fully liable for the crime, as they assumed the legal responsibility of protecting everyone within their establishment when banning guns. Because of this insurance for businesses that ban guns would be significantly higher than those who don't. This isn't how it currently works, but I think it should be.

If you want to spend time on something, don't bang your head up against the signs at the mall. They are inconsequential to the big picture. Get involved with MN GOCRA, or push for a change of legislation through your representative.

Nice write up. However, making a third party property owner responsible for someone else's criminal act is wrong. The responsible party is always the criminal....however tempting your idea might be.

[Scratch]

IBTL....

[phorvick]

Just a picky point. It was said that "It is also true that they can ask anyone to leave, for any reason, or for no reason at all since it's private property."

Maybe, maybe not.

There are way too many variables, but even private property owners generally cannot discriminate against a protected class of people. For example, it generally would be impermissible to post a sign that limits the mall and its use to a specific class of people. For example: "No xxxxxxx allowed in the mall" (insert your own ethnic group). To say that the mall can ask anyone to leave for any reason is not necessarily the case. But, alas, gun owners, or permit holders, are not a protected class.

[jshuberg]

Think about it in the case of a business without a sprinkler system and an arsonist. If someone sets fire to a building and a bunch of people die, the arsonist is ultimately the person responsible. However, if the business didn't have an adequate sprinkler system, then they can also be held liable as having one may have prevented or minimized the tragedy.

I think the same should be true for establishments that ban guns. In denying me the ability to protect myself, they should be assuming the legal responsibility for providing for my security. If I become the victim of a crime while in their establishment, then they should also be held liable for failing to adequately protect me.

It doesn't really matter though, it's not how it works, and I don't think it's likely to change anytime soon. Just throwing out my thoughts on how things oughta be.

[jgalt]

Think about it in the case of a business without a sprinkler system and an arsonist. If someone sets fire to a building and a bunch of people die, the arsonist is ultimately the person responsible. However, if the business didn't have an adequate sprinkler system, then they can also be held liable as having one may have prevented or minimized the tragedy.

I think the same should be true for establishments that ban guns. In denying me the ability to protect myself, they should be assuming the legal responsibility for providing for my security. If I become the victim of a crime while in their establishment, then they should also be held liable for failing to adequately protect me.

It doesn't really matter though, it's not how it works, and I don't think it's likely to change anytime soon. Just throwing out my thoughts on how things oughta be.

You're missing one important point - if you aren't required to be in the place that bans your firearm, decide to disarm then enter that place anyway, then you are the one who has determined that your reason for being there is more important than having an effective means of self defense on your person, not the store / establishment...

[xd ED]

Think about it in the case of a business without a sprinkler system and an arsonist. If someone sets fire to a building and a bunch of people die, the arsonist is ultimately the person responsible. However, if the business didn't have an adequate sprinkler system, then they can also be held liable as having one may have prevented or minimized the tragedy.

I think the same should be true for establishments that ban guns. In denying me the ability to protect myself, they should be assuming the legal responsibility for providing for my security. If I become the victim of a crime while in their establishment, then they should also be held liable for failing to adequately protect me.

It doesn't really matter though, it's not how it works, and I don't think it's likely to change anytime soon. Just throwing out my thoughts on how things oughta be.

Putting your argument to test in a current tragedy:
(IF)The theatre in Aurora Colorado DID allow carry- When the shooting began, I attempt to flee. I am then shot by a legally permitted carrier. The theatre is responsible for me getting shot?

[Pezhead]

How deep are your pockets? I fpr one don't want to be the one to take them them on alone. We have many members on this and the other boards more knowledgeable and better equiped than myself that know how to get things changed for the better.

[Seismic Sam]

Oh My GAWD!! This is the n00b thread people were telling me about....

Luckily, it looks like they are preoccupied with their own personal sense of rage against the machine more than they are with shooting, so they probably don't go through much ammo. If anybody wises them up, I'm gonna come over to your house, dump your can of Varget down the toilet, and refill it with Titegroup or 231!!