shtf? MOA attack?

[Ghost]

But seriously, who among us actually goes to the mall or has a need to??

I do, easier to go to one mall than three plus it's closer than the others.

[smurfman]

I do much of my Christmas shopping at MOA. I get there first thing in the morning on a weekday and am done and out by noon. To me it is worth any extra expense to make one stop and get everything done.

The timing is such that I am out of the place before troublemakers are likely to be around, at least not in any number. In the light of the latest threat, it is during a rather low use time (even counting the pre-opening walkers) so again is unlikely to be a prime time for targeting by terrorists. I wouldn't go later in the day any less now than in the past as I am not a fan of crowds and I have other preferences for the restaurants that are there. Since the night clubs closed on the top floor, I have been there in the evening only twice and those were both due to my wife's job, not our choice.

[MaryB]

Last place on earth I want to be! I hate shopping, online is easier!

[Snakeman721]

I do much of my Christmas shopping at MOA. I get there first thing in the morning on a weekday and am done and out by noon. To me it is worth any extra expense to make one stop and get everything done.

The timing is such that I am out of the place before troublemakers are likely to be around, at least not in any number. In the light of the latest threat, it is during a rather low use time (even counting the pre-opening walkers) so again is unlikely to be a prime time for targeting by terrorists. I wouldn't go later in the day any less now than in the past as I am not a fan of crowds and I have other preferences for the restaurants that are there. Since the night clubs closed on the top floor, I have been there in the evening only twice and those were both due to my wife's job, not our choice.

THE NIGHT CLUBS CLOSED??? Dang! Been awhile since I've been there.

[John S.]

[steve4102]

The MN Gun Owners PAC was asked for comments for an upcoming Star Tribune story - here's what we told them:

"The Mall of America has long had a policy to prohibit lawful carry of firearms by Minnesotans, including posting signs throughout the mall and removing permit holders seen to be carrying firearms.

Minnesota law, however, prohibits a landlord from interfering with the carrying of firearms under MN statute 624.714 by tenants or their guests.

The Mall of America is well aware that as landlords they cannot ban lawful carry. Carrying at the Mall of America does not violate the law, only the mall's wishes.

The current threat environment makes it unconscionable to seek to prohibit self-defense by the mall's customers."

- Bryan Strawser, Executive Director, Minnesota Gun Owners Political Action Committee

I'm going to disagree with this, somewhat.

Here is the provision.

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

The next thing to clarify is what is a Tenant and where do the Tenants boundaries and rights begin and end.

IMO, the tenant's rights come into play inside the confines of the space they rent and not in the Common areas. That space is owned and managed by the Property owner, not the tenants and the Owners of the MOA have every right to post no guns signs in areas that are Common and not specific to any individual lease holder.

IMO, the MOA can ask you to leave and escort you out for carrying in the Common areas, but they cannot ask you to leave if you are inside a rented space, like Hooters(providing Hooters allows firearms carry). Once you leave a rented space like Hooters and enter the Commons, they can ask you to leave.

Now, if you rented a space that had it's own entrance from outside and you wished to allow carry, the MOA would not be allowed to post a sign on your door and prohibit carry.

[John S.]

SSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.....................................................

[s4oak]

The next thing to clarify is what is a Tenant and where do the Tenants boundaries and rights begin and end.

IMO, the tenant's rights come into play inside the confines of the space they rent and not in the Common areas. That space is owned and managed by the Property owner, not the tenants and the Owners of the MOA have every right to post no guns signs in areas that are Common and not specific to any individual lease holder.

IMO, the MOA can ask you to leave and escort you out for carrying in the Common areas, but they cannot ask you to leave if you are inside a rented space, like Hooters(providing Hooters allows firearms carry). Once you leave a rented space like Hooters and enter the Commons, they can ask you to leave.

Now, if you rented a space that had it's own entrance from outside and you wished to allow carry, the MOA would not be allowed to post a sign on your door and prohibit carry.

I'm not an expert in real estate law, but I doubt this argument holds much weight. Pretty much all commercial lease agreements include a clause that explicitly grants tenants a nonexclusive right to use common areas. Part of a tenant's rent covers the use & upkeep of such areas.

[BigBlue]

I'm going to disagree with this, somewhat.

Here is the provision.

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

The next thing to clarify is what is a Tenant and where do the Tenants boundaries and rights begin and end.

IMO, the tenant's rights come into play inside the confines of the space they rent and not in the Common areas. That space is owned and managed by the Property owner, not the tenants and the Owners of the MOA have every right to post no guns signs in areas that are Common and not specific to any individual lease holder.

IMO, the MOA can ask you to leave and escort you out for carrying in the Common areas, but they cannot ask you to leave if you are inside a rented space, like Hooters(providing Hooters allows firearms carry). Once you leave a rented space like Hooters and enter the Commons, they can ask you to leave.

Now, if you rented a space that had it's own entrance from outside and you wished to allow carry, the MOA would not be allowed to post a sign on your door and prohibit carry.

Kind of defeats the ability for a tenant and their guests to carry if they can't carry in the hallway to get to the store. Just like in an apartment building... the landlord cannot prohibit carry in the halls. Or parking areas.

BB

[steve4102]

I'm going to disagree with this, somewhat.

Here is the provision.

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

The next thing to clarify is what is a Tenant and where do the Tenants boundaries and rights begin and end.

IMO, the tenant's rights come into play inside the confines of the space they rent and not in the Common areas. That space is owned and managed by the Property owner, not the tenants and the Owners of the MOA have every right to post no guns signs in areas that are Common and not specific to any individual lease holder.

IMO, the MOA can ask you to leave and escort you out for carrying in the Common areas, but they cannot ask you to leave if you are inside a rented space, like Hooters(providing Hooters allows firearms carry). Once you leave a rented space like Hooters and enter the Commons, they can ask you to leave.

Now, if you rented a space that had it's own entrance from outside and you wished to allow carry, the MOA would not be allowed to post a sign on your door and prohibit carry.

Kind of defeats the ability for a tenant and their guests to carry if they can't carry in the hallway to get to the store. Just like in an apartment building... the landlord cannot prohibit carry in the halls. Or parking areas.

BB

Yupper, but as for right now, I see no distinction or clarification in MN Statutes that forbid a Mall Owner from posting their own property (common area), only the property of tenants.

[mrp]

The next thing to clarify is what is a Tenant and where do the Tenants boundaries and rights begin and end.

IMO, the tenant's rights come into play inside the confines of the space they rent and not in the Common areas. That space is owned and managed by the Property owner, not the tenants and the Owners of the MOA have every right to post no guns signs in areas that are Common and not specific to any individual lease holder.

IMO, the MOA can ask you to leave and escort you out for carrying in the Common areas, but they cannot ask you to leave if you are inside a rented space, like Hooters(providing Hooters allows firearms carry). Once you leave a rented space like Hooters and enter the Commons, they can ask you to leave.

Now, if you rented a space that had it's own entrance from outside and you wished to allow carry, the MOA would not be allowed to post a sign on your door and prohibit carry.

See: viewtopic.php?f=55&t=53553&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=15#p534908

[s4oak]

Yupper, but as for right now, I see no distinction or clarification in MN Statutes that forbid a Mall Owner from posting their own property (common area), only the property of tenants.

I'm not an expert in real estate law, but I doubt this argument holds much weight. Pretty much all commercial lease agreements include a clause that explicitly grants tenants a nonexclusive right to use common areas. Part of a tenant's rent covers the use & upkeep of such areas.

[jshuberg]

GOCRA Briefing:

The Mall of America has been in the news recently, after it was named as a possible target of an attack by al-Shabaab terrorists[1]. The group claimed responsibility for a 2013 attack on the Westgate Mall in Nairobi, Kenya, in which 63 shoppers were killed and over 175 more were injured by four terrorists armed with grenades and rifles.[2]

Mall management continues to insist that it retains the right to ban visitors from legally carrying pistols into the mall.[3] An analysis of Minnesota law reveals that they are mistaken: the law precludes the mall from banning legal carry.

Private Businesses Can Ban Carry – Sometimes

The Minnesota Citizens Personal Protection Act of 2003[4] allows certain types of private entities to remove individuals carrying under the terms of the law:

Subd. 17. Posting; trespass. (a) A person carrying a firearm on or about his or her person or clothes under a permit or otherwise who remains at a private establishment knowing that the operator of the establishment or its agent has made a reasonable request that firearms not be brought into the establishment may be ordered to leave the premises. A person who fails to leave when so requested is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.[5]

The statute goes on to define in great detail the form that the notification and request must take, including the placement and content of signs, means of verbal notification, and some special exclusions.

Landlords Can’t Ban Carry!

One of those exclusions relates directly to landlords, who are specifically barred from restricting lawful carry:

(e) A landlord may not restrict the lawful carry or possession of firearms by tenants or their guests.[6]

Landlords are also barred from attempting an end-run around the statute:

(f) Notwithstanding any inconsistent provisions in section 609.605, this subdivision sets forth the exclusive criteria to notify a permit holder when otherwise lawful firearm possession is not allowed in a private establishment and sets forth the exclusive penalty for such activity.

No Absurd Results

Minnesota law provides very clear instructions for interpretation of its various provisions:

645.17 PRESUMPTIONS IN ASCERTAINING LEGISLATIVE INTENT.
(1) the legislature does not intend a result that is absurd, impossible of execution, or unreasonable;
(2) the legislature intends the entire statute to be effective and certain;[7]
<…>

A prohibition on carry in common areas would effectively prevent tenants and their guests from reaching the tenant spaces. This is the quintessential definition of an “absurd, impossible of execution” result that renders a portion of the law meaningless, in contradiction of the Legislature’s intent for “…the entire statute to be effective….”

Because carry cannot be prohibited in the tenants’ private spaces, carry cannot be banned in the common areas required to reach those spaces.

This analysis is provided as general information, but it is not legal advice. Individual circumstances may result in different legal outcomes. If you plan to visit the Mall of America while carrying, given the mall’s repeated declarations that they have the power to ban guns in common areas of the mall, you should consult an attorney licensed in Minnesota.

1 Google News: “Mall of America” “Al-Shabaab” (https://www.google.com/search?q=”mall+of+america”+”al-shabaab”)
2 “Westgate shopping mall attack,” Wikipedia. Retrieved Feb. 24, 2015 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westgate_s ... all_attack)
3 “Security Information,” Mall of America Web site. Retrieved Feb. 24, 2015 (http://www.mallofamerica.com/guests/security)
4 2003 Minnesota Session Laws, Chapter 28-S.F.No. 842 (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/?id=28&year=2003&type=0)
5 Minnesota Statutes 2014, Chapter 624.714, Subd. 17 (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id ... 624.714.17)
6 Ibid, paragraph (e)
7 Ibid, paragraph (f)
8 Minnesota Statutes 2014, Chapter 645.17 (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=645.17)

[yuppiejr]

Wait, when did I join this debate?

I think the MOA is a relic of the golden age of pre-internet retail and haven't shopped there in over a decade. Malls in general have a degree of suck that lands somewhere between the DMV and a TSA checkpoint at the airport. Their stance on firearms is simply turning the dead horse of reasons not to shop there into a large wet mess on the sidewalk.

[Hmac]

This analysis is provided as general information, but it is not legal advice. Individual circumstances may result in different legal outcomes. If you plan to visit the Mall of America while carrying, given the mall’s repeated declarations that they have the power to ban guns in common areas of the mall, you should consult an attorney licensed in Minnesota.

Key point of the previous post...one side of the impending court case. If there ever is a court case.