Lawmaker Challenging Mall Of America’s Gun Policy

[jshuberg]

I'm not a lawyer, and there may be case law that deals with this, or there may be language in the lease agreement that allows the management company the right to trespass their guests, etc. so I wouldn't advise doing this unless you have a lawyer work through all the potential gotchas.

Bottom line though - it's not a crime to carry a firearm at the mall, all they can do is ask you to leave.

[steve4102]

Read the law or take a carry class before posting.

My point is, "In accordance with MN Law" is misleading. It implies that MN Law (not private property owners wishes) requires them to post and ban firearms.

Show that sign to one of your friends or family that knows nothing about guns and/or carry laws in MN and ask them what they think it means. Odds are they will say that MN Law prohibits firearms in the MOA.

Besides, if I didn't post my comment, we wouldn't have all this wonderful dialog this fine February day.

[LarryP]

Don't give businesses your money if you disagree with their policies. Pretty simple

[jshuberg]

Show that sign to one of your friends or family that knows nothing about guns and/or carry laws in MN and ask them what they think it means. Odds are they will say that MN Law prohibits firearms in the MOA.

That's precisely the point. The sign is there to make the sheep feel better. It's wrong on a number of levels, besides it simply being an unlawful sign. It promotes the premise that by banning guns, that the mall is safer. As we all know, the opposite is actually true.

Legally the mall cannot ban guns, and they know it. Any bad guys that want to do harm in the mall are simply going to ignore the sign, and good guys that know the law (those with carry permits) are going to ignore the sign and carry there anyway. The sign means absolutely nothing, and doesn't change anyone's behavior in the slightest. It's presence is there only to continue the false premise that banning guns makes a place safer. It's nothing but false propaganda to soothe the worry of the sheep.

We the people have a constitutional charter to act in self defense, defense of others, and defense of state. Ironically, the dept of homeland security has no such constitutional charter, despite their claimed role of protecting the homeland, while simultaneously arguing that We the people don't need guns, and to leave the problem to them. They have it completely bass ackwards - the people are the first and most important defense against violence, not the feds. An armed population is necessary for the security of a free state. The mall and their signage are in fact promoting a false narrative that goes against the very core of the 2nd Amendment, and the intended role of firearms as the proper defense against violence. They should remove their signs immediately.

[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.

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.

Precisely. They aren't. They're restricting carry or possession on the property that they own and which has no tenants....ie, commons areas.

[Hmac]

Show that sign to one of your friends or family that knows nothing about guns and/or carry laws in MN and ask them what they think it means. Odds are they will say that MN Law prohibits firearms in the MOA.

Legally the mall cannot ban guns, and they know it.

Yeah, you keep saying that but all I've seen you or anyone else in this thread do is quote a statute that doesn't apply to private property. So...a smart attorney like you should be able to make your case for why you think that banning guns from non-leased commons areas...private property tht has no tenants... is illegal.

I'll give you a head start..."public conveyance" is probably the only argument you have. I strongly doubt that it applies, and even if it did, I strongly doubt that anyone, cops or courts, will support the argument.

[Hmac]

Bottom line though - it's not a crime to carry a firearm at the mall, all they can do is ask you to leave.

THAT...I agree with.

[mrp]

So...a smart attorney like you should be able to make your case for why you think that banning guns from non-leased commons areas...private property tht has no tenants... is illegal.

1) It's clear that the legislature does not object to prohibiting a ban in public, non-leased, common areas.

(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.

2) It's clear that the legislature intends to allow tenants and their guests to carry.

3) That section must be read as allowing carry in the common areas for it to make any sense.

Editing to add:

Before arguing this point further, I encourage you to read pages 73-74:

The Minnesota Citizen's Personal Protection Act of 2003: History and Commentary
Joseph Olson
Hamline University - School of Law
Hamline Journal of Public Law and Policy, Vol. 25, p. 21, 2003

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... id=2070938

[Lumpy]

Can/ Did the MoA try to make having their commercial tenants ban firearms a condition of lease?

[bstrawse]

Show that sign to one of your friends or family that knows nothing about guns and/or carry laws in MN and ask them what they think it means. Odds are they will say that MN Law prohibits firearms in the MOA.

Legally the mall cannot ban guns, and they know it.

Yeah, you keep saying that but all I've seen you or anyone else in this thread do is quote a statute that doesn't apply to private property. So...a smart attorney like you should be able to make your case for why you think that banning guns from non-leased commons areas...private property tht has no tenants... is illegal.

I'll give you a head start..."public conveyance" is probably the only argument you have. I strongly doubt that it applies, and even if it did, I strongly doubt that anyone, cops or courts, will support the argument.

Or you could ask the guy that wrote the statute in the first place what the intent of that section was... I believe you'll be reading that in tomorrow's Star Tribune.

[Grayskies]

Seems to me MOA can just trespass anyone they find carrying no matter what the law states or the out come of any litigation.

Given that... Concealed is Concealed.

I try not to spend money at places that ban guns anyway...

[steve4102]

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

So, if there is no law against posting the above sign, how did you come to this conclusion.

It's wrong on a number of levels, besides it simply being an unlawful sign.

Can you post the MN Statute that makes the above sign unlawful, therefore "Illegal". What are the penalties for posting an "Illegal" sign.

[Rip Van Winkle]

Don't give businesses your money if you disagree with their policies. Pretty simple

But this is the interweb, we can't keep it simple.

[Hmac]

Or you could ask the guy that wrote the statute in the first place what the intent of that section was... I believe you'll be reading that in tomorrow's Star Tribune.

Uh huh. Madison's intent for the 2nd amendment is clear too. Looks like ya'll are going to have to go to court to sell the concept. You know that MOA isn't going to backtrack on this publicly.

[s4oak]

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

So, if there is no law against posting the above sign, how did you come to this conclusion.

It's wrong on a number of levels, besides it simply being an unlawful sign.

Can you post the MN Statute that makes the above sign unlawful, therefore "Illegal". What are the penalties for posting an "Illegal" sign.

(1) "Reasonable request" means a request made under the following circumstances:

(i) the requester has prominently posted a conspicuous sign at every entrance to the establishment containing the following language: "(INDICATE IDENTITY OF OPERATOR) BANS GUNS IN THESE PREMISES."; or

(ii) the requester or the requester's agent personally informs the person that guns are prohibited in the premises and demands compliance.

(2) "Prominently" means readily visible and within four feet laterally of the entrance with the bottom of the sign at a height of four to six feet above the floor.

(3) "Conspicuous" means lettering in black arial typeface at least 1-1/2 inches in height against a bright contrasting background that is at least 187 square inches in area.

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

It's allll in the statute.