Carry at the mall.

[texasprowler]

Appreciate the feedback. I was given three options, conceal, leave, or be carried out.
I have carried for 30 years, both openly and concealed. Either way has plusses. Never saw anyone run away scared, most take comfort in knowing someone is near that can protect the children. People generally think if you are open carrying, you have a right to do so. Only security or police have ever made an issue. Which baffles me, the guy with the lump under their shirt should be cause for suspicion, while I have nothing to hide.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[Grayskies]

The cops might not have had a choice with your open carry, it is possible the mall might have told the cops to have you conceal the gun or treaspass you.

At least they were polite about it, that does not happen as often as it should...

I hope it is more that people here need more time to get use to carry, tho some never will.

[cobb]

In a store, I guess I don't see how your rights were infringed upon as you describe the incident? They would allow you to carry as long as you concealed, this infringed how? Apparently that property owner has no problem with carry as long as it is concealed, that is his right. Signs mean nothing except to inform a permit holder that they are not welcome. Could it be that you may have violated the property owners rights? As far as law enforcement being called, the property owner had a concern and acted within his rights and called the local PD.

So where do I misunderstand?

[texasprowler]

"Apparently water is wet"

Please let me clarify a bit as I didn't mean to step on anyone's preference for carry. I said 'backwards way of thinking' and made reference to South Dakota because.......

If you open carry in South Dakota, the police don't stop and ask for a permit- you don't need one. But a lump under your shirt will cause them to ask questions. The police concerns here in Minnesota is backward or opposite from many other states which prefer that you not hide your gun.

The police at the mall did not threaten any consequences, but I felt threatened. I know the drill, you do what they want you to do or else they are not going away. And who needs to take a chance on being arrested in front of your children, for say, breach of peace.

The police should just leave law abiding shoppers alone. If they have no reason to suspect I did anything wrong, then they should comply with the laws just as the rest of us have to.

And may I add that the mentality that 'if you didn't do anything wrong, then why not subject yourself to search', is why Minnesota gun rights have been so starkly different from South Dakota all these years.

Seeing holstered guns in South Dakota has been so common for so long, it is a way of life. Nobody there is scared, guns are just a tool for shooting rattlesnakes, bobcats, or skunks in the chicken house.

With that said, I firmly believe Minnesotans will become accustomed over time, but they have to see them being carried by non threatening people.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[cobb]

I know the drill, you do what they want you to do or else they are not going away. And who needs to take a chance on being arrested in front of your children, for say, breach of peace.

So the LEO's just appeared or were they called by the property owner? Of course they are not going away, the property owner called them and they are suppose to ignore the property owners rights?

And may I add that the mentality that 'if you didn't do anything wrong, then why not subject yourself to search', is why Minnesota gun rights have been so starkly different from South Dakota all these years.

Where did you get those words of wisdom? That has nothing to do with what you presented. The Minnesota permit holders that I know do not consent to a search, if South Dakota permit holders do, that I do not know.

Bottom line, unless you can actually demonstrate how you were wronged, I don't see a problem with your incident as described.

[texasprowler]

To cobb, I was a guest of a tenant, the landlord complained. I'm not a lawyer, I suppose a 'public place' would play a role. If I see someone driving a car, can I expect the police to go get their name for me and make sure they aren't driving illegally?
The fact that it is policy of the mall to call out the police when nothing suspicious is happening should warrant some false reporting charges.
That it is police policy to limit one's right to carry is bad.
What is wrong with security advising me of their policy?
Why wouldn't the police just tell security that nothing was being done illegal?
Why was it necessary to interfere with my shopping at all? I did spend a thousand dollars that day.
And the court rulings on police conduct with regard to stops and possession of a legal weapon are well established. Constitutional rights don't end on private property.



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[cobb]

To cobb, I was a guest of a tenant, the landlord complained. I'm not a lawyer, I suppose a 'public place' would play a role. If I see someone driving a car, can I expect the police to go get their name for me and make sure they aren't driving illegally?
The fact that it is policy of the mall to call out the police when nothing suspicious is happening should warrant some false reporting charges.
That it is police policy to limit one's right to carry is bad.
What is wrong with security advising me of their policy?
Why wouldn't the police just tell security that nothing was being done illegal?
Why was it necessary to interfere with my shopping at all? I did spend a thousand dollars that day.
And the court rulings on police conduct with regard to stops and possession of a legal weapon are well established. Constitutional rights don't end on private property.



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

We see things a bit differently and will probably never full agree on your situation, you are wrong this one.

Constitutional rights don't end on private property.

Yes they do, my constitutional rights trumps yours on my private property.

Be safe.

[Countryfried Frank]

I was a guest of a tenant...

To be completely fair this is relevant but it doesn't have anything to do with gun rights or privileges. The tenant may have a valid complaint against the landlord for harassing its customer if the tenant chooses to pursue it. No offense texasprowler but a simple way of describing your experience would be, "I was asked to leave private property." IMHO open carry is irrelevant; it is private property and the property owners or their agents have a right to ask you to leave.

IANAL, YMMV

[texasprowler]

Thank you all. I do appreciate and respect all of your opinions. I question though, subd. 17 which prohibits landlords from banning guns, or evicting me for legally having one. And if they wanted me to leave they, should have just asked as the law prescribes.

[Grayskies]

They can trespass you for any reaon or no reason.

It is possible they only minded the open carry. People here like to "feel safe" and just are not use open carry like South Dakota is.

Personally If a place askes politely for me to conceal my fire arm I will conceal it, I figure given some time they may change their stance on it in my favor. If a place asks rudely I tend to leave, I am sure I can find a more friendly place that wants my business.

[texasprowler]

Thank you for that. As I said from the start "Lesson Learned" about the mankato mall.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[jshuberg]

OK. Unlawful stop.

According to MN 624.714 Subd. 1a. it is a crime to carry a pistol on or about your clothes in a public place unless you have a permit. The police are well within the law to approach and question you as to whether you have a valid permit or not to determine if you are committing crime. When someone is carrying a firearm, until you produce a permit it can and often is treated as a crime. This is unfortunate but true.

therefore unlawful demand for ID.

According to MN 624.714 Subd. 1b. You are required to have both your carry permit and government issued photo ID with you when carrying a firearm. You are legally required to produce your ID and permit for any LEO that asks for it. They can also require you to write your signature so they can compare it to your ID, and they can subject you to a breathalyzer to see if your BAC is above .04 if they have reason to believe you are intoxicated.

Also, a mall can trespass a person for any reason. They do not have to disclose that it is because you are carrying a firearm. If mall security told the police that if you do not conceal, that they are trespassing you, and to please escort you out of the building, they are well within their rights as property owners/managers.

It seems the trouble you got into was more a result of your misunderstanding of MN law than "police corruption". It sounds like they did everything right, and you got all bent out of shape because you misunderstood the law.

[mrp]

And the court rulings on police conduct with regard to stops and possession of a legal weapon are well established. Constitutional rights don't end on private property.

They explained politely that it is the policy of the mall to report a mwag and said I was not in any way suspicious. OK. Unlawful stop.
They then colluded with security to obtain my private information because security wanted to know if I had a permit, information they are not entitled to. So, the police demanded my ID, unlawful stop, unlawful detainment, therefore unlawful demand for ID.

I tried to go through security at the airport with my firearm concealed on my hip. Security tried to detain me, but I explained that air marshals are allowed to carry on flights, and they had no proof that I wasn't an air marshal, so they should just leave me alone. They attempted to argue that an armed air marshal was an exception to the general rule of "no firearms on planes", and tried to make me show my ID & badge, but I wasn't having any of that nonsense. Once the swelling goes down, I get the casts off, and the catheter can be removed, I'll tell you the rest of the story.

I don't think you understand what the court has actually said in Minnesota. The police get to assume that you're violating the law if you're carrying in public. It doesn't matter if you're acting suspiciously or not. This decision is a good place to start your research on this issue (see pages 10-11). It summarizes the relevant cases:

http://statecasefiles.justia.com/documents/minnesota/court-of-appeals/a11-1008.pdf

...the supreme court’s reasoning that lacking a handgun permit is not an element of the crime of
carrying a gun in a public place; rather, having a permit is a mere exception to the crime.
Id. at 396. So police developed reasonable suspicion that Timberlake’s conduct met all
the elements of the crime because he was reportedly carrying his handgun in a public
place.

I don't like that logic, but it is what the courts have determined.

[tman]

Here's the ID part of the carry statute, from https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=624.714

Subd. 1b.Display of permit; penalty. (a) The holder of a permit to carry must have the permit card and a driver's license, state identification card, or other government-issued photo identification in immediate possession at all times when carrying a pistol and must display the permit card and identification document upon lawful demand by a peace officer, as defined in section 626.84, subdivision 1. A violation of this paragraph is a petty misdemeanor. The fine for a first offense must not exceed $25. Notwithstanding section 609.531, a firearm carried in violation of this paragraph is not subject to forfeiture.

You wondered why the mall security didn't talk to you first? Likely because you had a GUN, and they don't. They didn't want to bring their pepper spray to a gun fight...

The comparison's between what SD allows and expects, while interesting, are useless here. This is Rome; do as the Romans do.

[fishdude]

Here's the ID part of the carry statute, from https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=624.714

Subd. 1b.Display of permit; penalty. (a) The holder of a permit to carry must have the permit card and a driver's license, state identification card, or other government-issued photo identification in immediate possession at all times when carrying a pistol and must display the permit card and identification document upon lawful demand by a peace officer, as defined in section 626.84, subdivision 1. A violation of this paragraph is a petty misdemeanor. The fine for a first offense must not exceed $25. Notwithstanding section 609.531, a firearm carried in violation of this paragraph is not subject to forfeiture.

I think what people sometime focus on in this statute are the words lawful demand, and since a LEO can't walk up to anybody on the street and ask to see ID without cause, the fact that someone is carrying shouldn't change that.

As mrp points out with the link to a court ruling on that issue, Minnesota Court's opinion is that if you are carrying, it is cause for LEO's to lawfully demand to see your ID and permit.