Lawmaker Challenging Mall Of America’s Gun Policy

[Hmac]

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...

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

I think he's right, the signs are worthless other than as a courtesy reminder of the policy, just like all such signs at all businesses. But the signs themselves are not illegal and he hasn't said that they are. The policy that the signs represent may or may not be illegal. We don't know. It's never been challenged.

[steve4102]

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.

Exactly!


This thread was originally started about the MOA's "No Firearms" signs telegraphing terrorists/criminals as to it being a "Soft" target. GFZ and Soft targets are indeed a concern.

It has been stated several times that the MOA has NO Legal right, as per MN Statute to post these signs. Yes, they can ask you to leave at any time for anything, but trespassing is NOT what this is about, this is about the "Signs" and MOA creating a GFZ Soft target.

If Cornish is indeed concerned about the MOA being a "Soft" target and these signs were actually Illegal, they would have been gone a long time ago. As it stands now, Cornish,his colleagues and the AG are doing nothing to force the owners of the MOA to remove these signs as there is Nothing they can do as they are "Legal".

[jshuberg]

If Cornish is indeed concerned about the MOA being a "Soft" target and these signs were actually Illegal, they would have been gone a long time ago. As it stands now, Cornish,his colleagues and the AG are doing nothing to force the owners of the MOA to remove these signs as there is Nothing they can do as they are "Legal".

A quick search of this thread shows that you are the only person who has introduced the notion of the signs being illegal. Everyone else, myself included, has stated that they are in fact not illegal. No one at the mall can be charged with a crime for posting those signs. They are however unlawful, as the don't conform to the statutory requirements for the posting of signs, and whom by, and under what circumstances as codified in statute.

You are in fact arguing with no one other than yourself. Brings to mind images of Gollum....

GOCRA has published a statement on this, I posted it in the other thread discussing essentially the same issue:
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=53540&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=75#p534963

[mrp]

Yes, they can ask you to leave at any time for anything

No Blacks

No Women

No Unitarians

No Wheelchairs

No Guide Dogs

Could the Mall get away with putting up these signs as long as they don't enforce them? How about if they enforce them, but trespass people without saying why they're doing it? I don't think so*.

Yes, I know permit holders are not a protected class, but the issue -- whether or not it's OK to post signs which are illegal to enforce, is similar.

*Posting a "no blacks" sign would be illegal under:
Civil Rights Act (1964)
SEC. 203. No person shall (a) withhold, deny, or attempt to withhold or deny, or deprive or attempt to deprive, any person of any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202, or (b) intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person with the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202, or (c) punish or attempt to punish any person for exercising or attempting to exercise any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202.

[Hmac]

Yes, they can ask you to leave at any time for anything

No Blacks

No Women

No Unitarians

No Wheelchairs

No Guide Dogs

Could the Mall get away with putting up these signs as long as they don't enforce them? How about if they enforce them, but trespass people without saying why they're doing it? I don't think so*.

Yes, I know permit holders are not a protected class, but the issue -- whether or not it's OK to post signs which are illegal to enforce, is similar.

*Posting a "no blacks" sign would be illegal under:
Civil Rights Act (1964)
SEC. 203. No person shall (a) withhold, deny, or attempt to withhold or deny, or deprive or attempt to deprive, any person of any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202, or (b) intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person with the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202, or (c) punish or attempt to punish any person for exercising or attempting to exercise any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202.

Against Federal law to discriminate against any protected class. Gun owners don't fall into that category. Not similar at all.

[Lumpy]

So the MoA can't legally forbid carry in the Mall, but they can trespass you at will without explanation. The MoA can't legally forbid their tenants from allowing carry in their stores, but they can cancel their leases at will.

If it was my case to argue in court, I'd point out that both the letter of the Minnesota Citizens Personal Protection Act and the history of how it reached its final form makes it clear that its intent was to eliminate as far as possible a patchwork maze of restrictions, local exceptions, and special circumstances that would otherwise make the permit to carry a near- dead letter.

[steve4102]

More from Rep Tony Cornish.

http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story/28 ... terrorists

Rep. Tony Cornish (R-Good Thunder) argues that not only are signs like the following one illegal, but they're also not wise:

Cornish says when Minnesota's carry law was being discussed at the Capitol a decade ago, mall officials indicated during testimony that they understood people would be allowed to carry firearms in the mall's common areas, like the rotunda.

"They know they are not supposed to [ban guns] and it's a bad idea in general," Cornish tells Fox 9.

"I think what's needed is a test case," he says. "Someone to come in there carrying, but there are hundreds of people that carry through there every week anyway."

I have a suggestion for Representative Cornish.

Gather your press core and YOU head over to the MOA with your Open Carry gun, and YOU be the test case. After all you helped author this mess.

When they ask you to leave, tell them, NO, you have no legal right to ask me to leave just because I am Legally Carrying. Tell them you help legislate this Bill and they can pound sand.

Naw, tain't gunna happen. Political Posturing and blowing Feel-Good Smoke is much easier.

[jshuberg]

I'm sure he'll give your suggestions the attention that they deserve.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[steve4102]

I'm sure he'll give your suggestions the attention that they deserve.

I'm sure you are correct.

Typical Political posturing by Cornish, for sure.

Tell the world how he is going to "Call them" on it and how it is Illegal, then back down and say we need a test case. A test Case asking that one or more of his constituents step up to the plate and defy the LEO at the MOA and the owners of the MOA all the while sitting on his ass. Pitiful to say the least!

How about you there "shuburg", you man enough to put your money where your mouth is and be Cornish's Guinea pig and be his test case?

No?

Didn't think so.

[jshuberg]

You spelled my name wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tman]

...

Are you a Bloomington PD Officer who is assigned to MoA?

[2in2out]

I'm sure he'll give your suggestions the attention that they deserve.

I'm sure you are correct.

Typical Political posturing by Cornish, for sure.

Tell the world how he is going to "Call them" on it and how it is Illegal, then back down and say we need a test case. A test Case asking that one or more of his constituents step up to the plate and defy the LEO at the MOA and the owners of the MOA all the while sitting on his ass. Pitiful to say the least!

How about you there "shuburg", you man enough to put your money where your mouth is and be Cornish's Guinea pig and be his test case?

No?

Didn't think so.

Show us how it's done.

[steve4102]

I'm sure he'll give your suggestions the attention that they deserve.

I'm sure you are correct.

Typical Political posturing by Cornish, for sure.

Tell the world how he is going to "Call them" on it and how it is Illegal, then back down and say we need a test case. A test Case asking that one or more of his constituents step up to the plate and defy the LEO at the MOA and the owners of the MOA all the while sitting on his ass. Pitiful to say the least!

How about you there "shuburg", you man enough to put your money where your mouth is and be Cornish's Guinea pig and be his test case?

No?

Didn't think so.

Show us how it's done.

No thanks, I'll let big talkin Tony do that.

I will do as shurgerg suggested and give Ol' Tony's suggestion the attention it deserves.

[Ironbear]

How about you there "shuburg", you man enough to put your money where your mouth is and be Cornish's Guinea pig and be his test case?

You spelled my name wrong.

I will do as shurgerg suggested and give Ol' Tony's suggestion the attention it deserves.

What end does being juvenile about the discussion achieve?

[Ghost]