Lawmaker Challenging Mall Of America’s Gun Policy

View · by **Hmac** on Wed Feb 25, 2015 9:10 am

What does it matter whether the sign meets the statute or not? The whole point is moot. Stores can ask anyone to leave at any time for any reason.A non-statutory sign does not mean that they can't ask you to leave.

View · by **steve4102** on Wed Feb 25, 2015 9:31 am

s4oak wrote:
steve4102 wrote:
jshuberg wrote: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.

This indicates that the MOA sign is "Non-Compliant" with MN Statute. Show me where it is Illegal?

View · by **jshuberg** on Wed Feb 25, 2015 9:35 am

steve4102 wrote:
jshuberg wrote: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.

The sign is unlawful, as it doesn't conform to the posting requirements in the law, nor can the mall ban firearms as defined under the law.

The sign is not illegal, as there is no law that states that the posting of a sign banning firearms where firearms cannot be banned is a crime.

Unlawful means not in accordance with the law. Illegal means a crime. The terms are often used interchangeably, but they have different meanings.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

View · by **steve4102** on Wed Feb 25, 2015 9:41 am

jshuberg wrote:
steve4102 wrote:
jshuberg wrote: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.

The sign is unlawful, as it doesn't conform to the posting requirements in the law, nor can the mall ban firearms as defined under the law.

The sign is not illegal, as there is no law that states that the posting of a sign banning firearms where firearms cannot be banned is a crime.

Unlawful means not in accordance with the law. Illegal means a crime. The terms are often used interchangeably, but they have different meanings.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nope.

Full Definition of ILLEGAL

: not according to or authorized by law : unlawful, illicit;

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/illegal

View · by **Ghost** on Wed Feb 25, 2015 9:48 am

steve4102 wrote:Nope.

Full Definition of ILLEGAL

: not according to or authorized by law : unlawful, illicit;

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/illegal

Merriam-webster may not be the best source for this situation.
http://thelawdictionary.org/unlawful/

That which is contrary to law. “Unlawful” and “illegal” are frequently used as synonymous terms, but, in the proper sense of the word, “unlawful,” as applied to promises, agreements, considerations, and the like, denotes that they are ineffectual in law because they involve acts which, although not illegal, i. e., positively forbidden, are disapproved of by the law, and are therefore not recognized as the ground of legal rights, either because they are immoral or because they are against public policy.

Law Dictionary: What is UNLAWFUL? definition of UNLAWFUL (Black's Law Dictionary)

View · by **jshuberg** on Wed Feb 25, 2015 9:49 am

Hmac wrote:What does it matter whether the sign meets the statute or not? The whole point is moot. Stores can ask anyone to leave at any time for any reason.A non-statutory sign does not mean that they can't ask you to leave.

A store can ask you to leave, but management (mall security) cannot trespass a person who has permission to be there. If a store owner, manager or employee were to tell security that you are their guest, you cannot be trespassed. Unless of course they relinquished that right in their lease agreement.

In practice mall security can trespass a person for any reason at any time, but if a test case were crafted with one of the tenants claiming you as a guest, they cannot compel you to leave. Tenants have the right to authorize a person to be on the premises. See my earlier post on this.

Legally, the mall cannot throw anyone out for any reason. If they could, they could simply trespass every person just as they're about to walk into a store that management wants evicted. If you are a legitimate and welcomed guest of a tenant, if they throw you out, you should hire a lawyer and press charges.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

View · by **s4oak** on Wed Feb 25, 2015 9:49 am

steve4102 wrote:Nope.

Full Definition of ILLEGAL

: not according to or authorized by law : unlawful, illicit;

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/illegal

Nope.

Definition of unlawful in English:
adjective
Not conforming to, permitted by, or recognized by law or rules

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/de ... h/unlawful

View · by **jshuberg** on Wed Feb 25, 2015 9:54 am

steve4102 wrote:
jshuberg wrote:
steve4102 wrote:[quote="jshuberg"]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.

The sign is unlawful, as it doesn't conform to the posting requirements in the law, nor can the mall ban firearms as defined under the law.

The sign is not illegal, as there is no law that states that the posting of a sign banning firearms where firearms cannot be banned is a crime.

Unlawful means not in accordance with the law. Illegal means a crime. The terms are often used interchangeably, but they have different meanings.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nope.

Full Definition of ILLEGAL

: not according to or authorized by law : unlawful, illicit;

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/illegal[/quote]

Your chasing yourself down a rabbit hole. Take a carry class by a qualified instructor. They will explain this all to you. If you already have, I suggest a refresher course as Understanding who can ban and under what circumstances is essential when carrying a pistol in public.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

View · by **Hmac** on Wed Feb 25, 2015 10:01 am

jshuberg wrote:
Hmac wrote:What does it matter whether the sign meets the statute or not? The whole point is moot. Stores can ask anyone to leave at any time for any reason.A non-statutory sign does not mean that they can't ask you to leave.

A store can ask you to leave, but management (mall security) cannot trespass a person who has permission to be there. If a store owner, manager or employee were to tell security that you are their guest, you cannot be trespassed. Unless of course they relinquished that right in their lease agreement.

In practice mall security can trespass a person for any reason at any time, but if a test case were crafted with one of the tenants claiming you as a guest, they cannot compel you to leave. Tenants have the right to authorize a person to be on the premises. See my earlier post on this.

Legally, the mall cannot throw anyone out for any reason. If they could, they could simply trespass every person just as they're about to walk into a store that management wants evicted. If you are a legitimate and welcomed guest of a tenant, if they throw you out, you should hire a lawyer and press charges.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

One of two things are going to happen regarding MOA's "no guns" policy...

-- nothing
-- someone will end up going to court to challenge the legality of the policy. Why haven't GOCRA or MNGOPAC arranged a test case yet?

View · by **steve4102** on Wed Feb 25, 2015 10:07 am

Hmac wrote:
jshuberg wrote:
Hmac wrote:What does it matter whether the sign meets the statute or not? The whole point is moot. Stores can ask anyone to leave at any time for any reason.A non-statutory sign does not mean that they can't ask you to leave.

A store can ask you to leave, but management (mall security) cannot trespass a person who has permission to be there. If a store owner, manager or employee were to tell security that you are their guest, you cannot be trespassed. Unless of course they relinquished that right in their lease agreement.

In practice mall security can trespass a person for any reason at any time, but if a test case were crafted with one of the tenants claiming you as a guest, they cannot compel you to leave. Tenants have the right to authorize a person to be on the premises. See my earlier post on this.

Legally, the mall cannot throw anyone out for any reason. If they could, they could simply trespass every person just as they're about to walk into a store that management wants evicted. If you are a legitimate and welcomed guest of a tenant, if they throw you out, you should hire a lawyer and press charges.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

One of two things are going to happen regarding MOA's "no guns" policy...

-- nothing
-- someone will end up going to court to challenge the legality of the policy. Why haven't GOCRA or MNGOPAC arranged a test case yet?

Better yet, if the signs are Illegal, why isn't Cornish claiming so and doing something about it. Something besides Political Posturing and blowing Smoke?

View · by **s4oak** on Wed Feb 25, 2015 10:12 am

steve4102 wrote:
Hmac wrote:One of two things are going to happen regarding MOA's "no guns" policy...

-- nothing
-- someone will end up going to court to challenge the legality of the policy. Why haven't GOCRA or MNGOPAC arranged a test case yet?

Better yet, if the signs are Illegal, why isn't Cornish claiming so and doing something about it. Something besides Political Posturing and blowing Smoke?

What else exactly do you suggest a member of the legislative branch should do in this situation?

View · by **steve4102** on Wed Feb 25, 2015 10:34 am

s4oak wrote:
steve4102 wrote:
Hmac wrote:One of two things are going to happen regarding MOA's "no guns" policy...

-- nothing
-- someone will end up going to court to challenge the legality of the policy. Why haven't GOCRA or MNGOPAC arranged a test case yet?

Better yet, if the signs are Illegal, why isn't Cornish claiming so and doing something about it. Something besides Political Posturing and blowing Smoke?

What else exactly do you suggest a member of the legislative branch should do in this situation?

Exactly!

Nothing, except blowing smoke, as their is nothing Illegal about the signs or the MOA asking people that carry to leave, the common area.

If banning firearms in the Common areas of the MOA was/is Illegal, where is the MN Attorney General, Ms Swanson on this?

She is the States Chief Legal Officer, yes. If the MOA is violation the Law and "tenants" rights, then give her a call and have her put a stop to these "law" breakers. NOT!

View · by **Hmac** on Wed Feb 25, 2015 10:39 am

steve4102 wrote:
Better yet, if the signs are Illegal, why isn't Cornish claiming so and doing something about it. Something besides Political Posturing and blowing Smoke?

I suspect it's because he knows that the signs are not illegal.

View · by **s4oak** on Wed Feb 25, 2015 10:56 am

Hmac wrote:
steve4102 wrote:
Better yet, if the signs are Illegal, why isn't Cornish claiming so and doing something about it. Something besides Political Posturing and blowing Smoke?

I suspect it's because he knows that the signs are not illegal.

I can see how you'd get that impression from his statements... :roll:

Cornish called the signs at the Mall of America "completely worthless" adding, "they have no standing" to prevent individuals with a permit to carry a handgun in public from doing so at the Mall of America.
[...]
Both Cornish and Strawser said Minnesota law prohibits a landlord, such as the Mall of America, from restricting the "lawful carry or possession of firearms by tenants or their guests."

http://www.startribune.com/local/yourvo ... 32801.html

View · by **Ghost** on Wed Feb 25, 2015 10:59 am

When it comes to politicians you generally need to follow the money. If you follow the money you may realize why a politician may not want to pick a fruitless fight with the MoA so that a handful of people can be happy the signs are removed.

The signs mean nothing, sucks for those that don't understand that but in the scheme of things the signs are very low on our priority list. Furthermore, many people bitching about them won't shop there anyway as evidenced by these threads.