Lawmaker Challenging Mall Of America’s Gun Policy

[frontwoods]

Lawmaker Challenging Mall Of America’s Gun Policy After Threat

Sounds like the debate is opening again...

[mmhoium]

Always refreshing to see some logic from politicians.

[Bearcatrp]

Always refreshing to see some logic from politicians.

That would be an oxymoron, logic and politician.

[Lumpy]

At least the MoA security don't have standing as an official police force, the way the State Fair and U of M cops do. I seem to recall that the Park Police were a problem at one time too.

[steve4102]

What MN Law are they referring to?

[jshuberg]

None. Landlords can't ban firearms.
There's just no law against posting an invalid sign either.

[steve4102]

Excuse my ignorance, but who owns the MOA?

Is there any government money like the Stadium involved?

If it is 100% private, what is Tony Cornish trying to do? Strong arm a Private business into allowing guns, or just blowing "Feel Good" political smoke?

[jshuberg]

Read the law or take a carry class before posting.

[s4oak]

Excuse my ignorance, but who owns the MOA?

Is there any government money like the Stadium involved?

If it is 100% private, what is Tony Cornish trying to do? Strong arm a Private business into allowing guns, or just blowing "Feel Good" political smoke?

It's 100% privately owned by a Canadian firm AFAIK. But, the MoA is a landlord and the individual shops are tenants, so the mall itself cannot ban guns per MN statute:

(e) A landlord may not restrict the lawful carry or possession of firearms by tenants or their guests.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=624.714

The mall has been granted leeway in the past to restrict 1A rights and can still ask people to leave for any reason at any time since it's private property, though. Ultimately it's a grey area and I think Cornish is doing a bit of both.

[Hmac]

None. Landlords can't ban firearms.
There's just no law against posting an invalid sign either.

Clearly, landlords can't ban firearms on the premises of their tenants. They surely can ban firearms on the parts of the property that they own and aren't leasing. They have a right to ban firearms in the commons areas, the private property that they own.

[xd ED]

Excuse my ignorance, but who owns the MOA?

Is there any government money like the Stadium involved?

If it is 100% private, what is Tony Cornish trying to do? Strong arm a Private business into allowing guns, or just blowing "Feel Good" political smoke?

It's 100% privately owned by a Canadian firm AFAIK. But, the MoA is a landlord and the individual shops are tenants, so the mall itself cannot ban guns per MN statute:

(e) A landlord may not restrict the lawful carry or possession of firearms by tenants or their guests.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=624.714

The mall has been granted leeway in the past to restrict 1A rights and can still ask people to leave for any reason at any time since it's private property, though. Ultimately it's a grey area and I think Cornish is doing a bit of both.

For better or worse, private property rights do not reign supreme in law regarding places viewed as public accommodations.

Could the owners of the MoA restrict/ eject people based on their ethnicity, or disability?

Personally, I think what Rep Cornish and MNGOPAC is doing is quite timely, given the publicity focused on MoA security.

Rest assured if there were a shooting at the mall, the antis would shamelessly position themselves between the TV cameras and the dead bodies.

[xd ED]

None. Landlords can't ban firearms.
There's just no law against posting an invalid sign either.

Clearly, landlords can't ban firearms on the premises of their tenants. They surely can ban firearms on the parts of the property that they own and aren't leasing. They have a right to ban firearms in the commons areas, the private property that they own.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=624.714

(e) A landlord may not restrict the lawful carry or possession of firearms by tenants or their guests.

[mrp]

None. Landlords can't ban firearms.
There's just no law against posting an invalid sign either.

Clearly, landlords can't ban firearms on the premises of their tenants. They surely can ban firearms on the parts of the property that they own and aren't leasing. They have a right to ban firearms in the commons areas, the private property that they own.

A ban on carrying in the common areas would effectively ban carry in the leased areas as well. I assume you're just stating what you think the law should be, rather than what it is. But just in case...

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=624.714

(c) The owner or operator of a private establishment may not prohibit the lawful carry or possession of firearms in a parking facility or parking area.
...
(e) A landlord may not restrict the lawful carry or possession of firearms by tenants or their guests.
...
Subd. 23.Exclusivity.

This section sets forth the complete and exclusive criteria and procedures for the issuance of permits to carry and establishes their nature and scope. No sheriff, police chief, governmental unit, government official, government employee, or other person or body acting under color of law or governmental authority may change, modify, or supplement these criteria or procedures, or limit the exercise of a permit to carry.

[jshuberg]

None. Landlords can't ban firearms.
There's just no law against posting an invalid sign either.

Clearly, landlords can't ban firearms on the premises of their tenants. They surely can ban firearms on the parts of the property that they own and aren't leasing. They have a right to ban firearms in the commons areas, the private property that they own.

The law says that landlords cannot ban firearms. There is no exception for common areas, nor should there be an exception to common areas. If there were, an apartment complex could ban carry in hallways. You could carry in your apartment, but then you would have to unload and case your firearm before entering the hallway, and then load and re-holster after leaving the property. That is absolutely ridiculous, and precisely why the law was written the way it was.

We've all heard that the mall can trespass a person for any reason, and while that is pretty much true in practice, it's not entirely correct:

trespasses on the premises of another and, without claim of right, refuses to depart from the premises on demand of the lawful possessor;

If you are a tenant of the mall, or an employee of a tenant of the mall, you have a claim of right to be there, and cannot be trespassed. You can be removed if you are arrested, or for violating a retraining order, etc. but being without rightful claim is an element of the crime of trespassing. Additionally, a management company cannot trespass a person who is an invited guest of a tenant, as a tenant has the right to give a person permission to be there. Unless the tenant waived this right in their lease agreement, they can grant permission for a person to be in their store and in the common areas to get to their store. If a person has been granted permission by a tenant, they cannot be trespassed.

Many years ago I lived in an apartment building where a guy was evicted for damaging property. He was a friend of another tenant in the building. When he showed up at his friends apartment, management wanted to trespass him, but legally couldn't because he was an invited guest of the other tenant. The management company had to get a restraining order to prevent him from coming back on the property. Because he was a guest of a tenant, he could not be trespassed.

Unless there is case law that states otherwise, the same is true of a commercial landlord as well. If you are a guest of a tenant, and the tenant doesn't want you trespassed, you cannot be trespassed by the landlord. In practice though, if they want you gone they'll simply toss you out. It would be interesting for someone to be a test case on this, but it won't be me

[s4oak]

It would be interesting for someone to be a test case on this, but it won't be me

Really good info. It would certainly be a low-stakes test case as far as most gun rights go, but still quite a hassle.