shtf? MOA attack?

[jshuberg]

Do you dispute the content?

[Hmac]

Do you dispute the content?

It's one opinion.

[jshuberg]

Do you dispute the content?

It's one opinion.

Yes, that's true. But it's the opinion of the lawyers that wrote the law, including a law professor, as well as the representative that introduced the bill. It's my understanding that representatives of the mall were present at the hearings in 2003, and participated in arguments over the landlord exclusion. They were well aware back then, as they are now, that they cannot legally prohibit carry of guests of the mall. Yet they post the signs anyway.

Note that the mall has remained silent despite Rep Cornish's claims. If they believed him wrong, given the current circumstances, they would make a statement to the press. When contacted, the mall has been silent on this issue. They are trying to make the sheep feel safe with their signs, that's all.

[s4oak]

Do you dispute the content?

It's one opinion.

Yes, that's true. But it's the opinion of the lawyers that wrote the law, including a law professor, as well as the representative that introduced the bill. It's my understanding that representatives of the mall were present at the hearings in 2003, and participated in arguments over the landlord exclusion. They were well aware back then, as they are now, that they cannot legally prohibit carry of guests of the mall. Yet they post the signs anyway.

Note that the mall has remained silent despite Rep Cornish's claims. If they believed him wrong, given the current circumstances, they would make a statement to the press. When contacted, the mall has been silent on this issue. They are trying to make the sheep feel safe with their signs, that's all.

/s

[Hmac]

Note that the mall has remained silent despite Rep Cornish's claims. If they believed him wrong, given the current circumstances, they would make a statement to the press.

I don't think that at all. I think it would be colossally stupid for MOA to publically enter the debate . I don't know how much they would have to lose by doing so, but they have absolutely nothing to gain.

They are trying to make the sheep feel safe with their signs, that's all.

Of course. That's the entire point of all "no gun" signs.

[20mm]

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

I'm going to disagree with this, somewhat.

Here is the provision.

I'm waiting until the Bloomington Port Authority gets brought up. They own the land the Mall is built on.

[20mm]

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.

You should try leasing space at the MoA sometime. Maybe with bigger stores it's different, but they can basically terminate your lease overnight.

[jshuberg]

I'm waiting until the Bloomington Port Authority gets brought up. They own the land the Mall is built on.

Is that true, they actually own the land? I thought they were simply involved in promoting commerce, taxing, permitting, etc. Do you have a cite that they actually own the land?

I don't think that it would change anything regarding the signs, I'm just personally curious.

[Randygmn]

I'm waiting until the Bloomington Port Authority gets brought up. They own the land the Mall is built on.

Is that true, they actually own the land? I thought they were simply involved in promoting commerce, taxing, permitting, etc. Do you have a cite that they actually own the land?

I don't think that it would change anything regarding the signs, I'm just personally curious.

It certainly might change things, since we've subsidized them and are collectively part of their business ventures (the BPA). If they own the land, the MOA is a tenant as well, regardless of how long the land lease may be for.

[xd9]

I'm waiting until the Bloomington Port Authority gets brought up. They own the land the Mall is built on.

Is that true, they actually own the land? I thought they were simply involved in promoting commerce, taxing, permitting, etc. Do you have a cite that they actually own the land?

I don't think that it would change anything regarding the signs, I'm just personally curious.

I don't know the answer to the original question. But I did find this...

The Metropolitan Airports Commission executed an exchange agreement in July of 1999 to “swap” the MAC-owned Met Center site for the Mall of
America-owned Adjoining Lands site. (Development plans for the Met Center site are contingent upon the agreement being finalized.) This swap allowed the Mall of America Company to pursue
development plans for expanding on the Met Center Site.

So MOA owns the Met Site. It would make sense that they own the land their building is on too. But that may not be the case.

Site
http://bloomingtonmn.gov/cityhall/dept/commdev/planning/longrang/enreview/moa/scope.pdf

EDIT:
I just found this. This is what Hennepin County has listed on their property info:

PID: 0102724310017
8100 24th Ave S
Bloomington, MN 55425
Owner/Taxpayer
Owner: Moac Mall Holdings Llc
Taxpayer: MOAC MALL HOLDINGS LLC
C/O B LARSON ACCT OFFICE
60 EAST BROADWAY
BLOOMINGTON MN 55425

[20mm]

I'm waiting until the Bloomington Port Authority gets brought up. They own the land the Mall is built on.

Is that true, they actually own the land? I thought they were simply involved in promoting commerce, taxing, permitting, etc. Do you have a cite that they actually own the land?

I don't think that it would change anything regarding the signs, I'm just personally curious.

I don't know the answer to the original question. But I did find this...

The Metropolitan Airports Commission executed an exchange agreement in July of 1999 to “swap” the MAC-owned Met Center site for the Mall of
America-owned Adjoining Lands site. (Development plans for the Met Center site are contingent upon the agreement being finalized.) This swap allowed the Mall of America Company to pursue
development plans for expanding on the Met Center Site.

So MOA owns the Met Site. It would make sense that they own the land their building is on too. But that may not be the case.

Site
http://bloomingtonmn.gov/cityhall/dept/commdev/planning/longrang/enreview/moa/scope.pdf

EDIT:
I just found this. This is what Hennepin County has listed on their property info:

PID: 0102724310017
8100 24th Ave S
Bloomington, MN 55425
Owner/Taxpayer
Owner: Moac Mall Holdings Llc
Taxpayer: MOAC MALL HOLDINGS LLC
C/O B LARSON ACCT OFFICE
60 EAST BROADWAY
BLOOMINGTON MN 55425

That's interesting, I'm not in commercial real estate but I'm guessing the port authority still retains title to the land in some capacity.

http://www.mallofamerica.com/about/moa/history

http://www.startribune.com/business/208425631.html

They're just like the St. Paul Port Authority... they don't give up land ownership.

[greenfarmer]

The mall should have security at every entrance. I don't care how big of a hassle people think it would be, it would be worth it. Just checking packages that are being carried in. There's nothing you can do about the parking ramp. But atleast it would keep something major from happening inside the mall.

Heck no. It's already ridiculous that they have metal detectors at pro sports games. The last thing we need is *more* metal detectors springing up at shopping malls, movie theaters, grocery stores, gatherings of more than 10 people, etc. I'd much rather get blown up by a terrorist at some point than spend my entire life being scanned & wanded & frisked & searched every time I go out in public.

Just gotta ask.....

But who said anything about metal detectors? Quite a few posts here talking about metal detectors. But I know I don't see any "metal detector" in my original post. Maybe i'm illiterate, but I sure don't see it. I do see the words security, and checking packages being brought in. But I don't see the term "metal detector"..

I do know this much. When a mall, or place of business is being threatened, where how many people go to everday, there's nothing wrong with 2 buffoons standing by every entrance, and when someone is carrying IN a bag, that it does get checked. But I never mentioned "metal detectors"... Never said everyone needs to be wanded.

Not that hard to have security stationed there. And someone walking in, carrying a "Victoria secret, sears, bloomingdales or whatever other stores there are" bag, claiming it's a "return"... I know I would question them! Be simple, and fast.

Think about it... It's February... Not black Friday, not a sporting event. You don't have a massive rush of 10,000 people trying to get in at one time, thru 4 entrances. You have people coming in and out, all day long. It's not like it's going to be a hassle to anyone. Even if they did choose to wand someone. Doesn't mean that YOU need to go. No different than if they would decide to wand someone anywhere else. Just don't go there. But being ignorant about it, saying it's ridiculous that they have metal detectors at pro sports games and things!

How many wack jobs came into the metrodome, and pulled out their AR or AK, and blew away 30 people in secion 103? Or carried in a bomb, and blew half the stadium apart, and infringed on our rights to carry? ABSOLUTELY NONE!

Now, if there was no security there. And you have some wack job carrying an AR in there, no security, no metal detector, nothing. And he walks in and blows away 50 people in section 103. Guess where that leaves us?........ In the same situation we were in following Sandy Hook.... Fighting, and hoping they don't take away our rights. Even though we have people like Obama, and Dayton and the likes of them in charge.

The best part is... It's a free country. So if you don't want to go to a pro sports game because they wand you, or pat you down, you don't have to go. And if I don't want to go to the MOA because when there's a threat, and their security isn't stepped up to watch for something to the degree I feel safe at. I don't have to go.

But, from now on, please do me a favor and read my post, and don't put words in my mouth. As I never said "wand, or metal detectors" in my original post. But be thankful for the places that do. They are helping us to keep our rights in a round about way.

[Grayskies]

Sorry, but I do not get what a win would get us? Win or Lose MOA will probably trespass any permit holder caught carring.

Truly what do we gain by this?

[farmerj]

The mall should have security at every entrance. I don't care how big of a hassle people think it would be, it would be worth it. Just checking packages that are being carried in. There's nothing you can do about the parking ramp. But atleast it would keep something major from happening inside the mall.

Heck no. It's already ridiculous that they have metal detectors at pro sports games. The last thing we need is *more* metal detectors springing up at shopping malls, movie theaters, grocery stores, gatherings of more than 10 people, etc. I'd much rather get blown up by a terrorist at some point than spend my entire life being scanned & wanded & frisked & searched every time I go out in public.

Just gotta ask.....

But who said anything about metal detectors? Quite a few posts here talking about metal detectors. But I know I don't see any "metal detector" in my original post. Maybe i'm illiterate, but I sure don't see it. I do see the words security, and checking packages being brought in. But I don't see the term "metal detector"..

I do know this much. When a mall, or place of business is being threatened, where how many people go to everday, there's nothing wrong with 2 buffoons standing by every entrance, and when someone is carrying IN a bag, that it does get checked. But I never mentioned "metal detectors"... Never said everyone needs to be wanded.

Not that hard to have security stationed there. And someone walking in, carrying a "Victoria secret, sears, bloomingdales or whatever other stores there are" bag, claiming it's a "return"... I know I would question them! Be simple, and fast.

Think about it... It's February... Not black Friday, not a sporting event. You don't have a massive rush of 10,000 people trying to get in at one time, thru 4 entrances. You have people coming in and out, all day long. It's not like it's going to be a hassle to anyone. Even if they did choose to wand someone. Doesn't mean that YOU need to go. No different than if they would decide to wand someone anywhere else. Just don't go there. But being ignorant about it, saying it's ridiculous that they have metal detectors at pro sports games and things!

How many wack jobs came into the metrodome, and pulled out their AR or AK, and blew away 30 people in secion 103? Or carried in a bomb, and blew half the stadium apart, and infringed on our rights to carry? ABSOLUTELY NONE!

Now, if there was no security there. And you have some wack job carrying an AR in there, no security, no metal detector, nothing. And he walks in and blows away 50 people in section 103. Guess where that leaves us?........ In the same situation we were in following Sandy Hook.... Fighting, and hoping they don't take away our rights. Even though we have people like Obama, and Dayton and the likes of them in charge.

The best part is... It's a free country. So if you don't want to go to a pro sports game because they wand you, or pat you down, you don't have to go. And if I don't want to go to the MOA because when there's a threat, and their security isn't stepped up to watch for something to the degree I feel safe at. I don't have to go.

But, from now on, please do me a favor and read my post, and don't put words in my mouth. As I never said "wand, or metal detectors" in my original post. But be thankful for the places that do. They are helping us to keep our rights in a round about way.

There's this little thing.....Not that it would mean a **** thing to you. What's it called? The "constitution".
And a security guard has ZERO powers under the law.

unreasonable search and seizure

n. search of an individual or his/her premises (including an automobile) and/or seizure of evidence found in such a search by a law enforcement officer without a search warrant and without "probable cause" to believe evidence of a crime is present. Such a search and/or seizure is unconstitutional under the 4th Amendment (applied to the states by the 14th Amendment), and evidence obtained thereby may not be introduced in court.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-ri ... dment.html

[greenfarmer]

The mall should have security at every entrance. I don't care how big of a hassle people think it would be, it would be worth it. Just checking packages that are being carried in. There's nothing you can do about the parking ramp. But atleast it would keep something major from happening inside the mall.

Heck no. It's already ridiculous that they have metal detectors at pro sports games. The last thing we need is *more* metal detectors springing up at shopping malls, movie theaters, grocery stores, gatherings of more than 10 people, etc. I'd much rather get blown up by a terrorist at some point than spend my entire life being scanned & wanded & frisked & searched every time I go out in public.

Just gotta ask.....

But who said anything about metal detectors? Quite a few posts here talking about metal detectors. But I know I don't see any "metal detector" in my original post. Maybe i'm illiterate, but I sure don't see it. I do see the words security, and checking packages being brought in. But I don't see the term "metal detector"..

I do know this much. When a mall, or place of business is being threatened, where how many people go to everday, there's nothing wrong with 2 buffoons standing by every entrance, and when someone is carrying IN a bag, that it does get checked. But I never mentioned "metal detectors"... Never said everyone needs to be wanded.

Not that hard to have security stationed there. And someone walking in, carrying a "Victoria secret, sears, bloomingdales or whatever other stores there are" bag, claiming it's a "return"... I know I would question them! Be simple, and fast.

Think about it... It's February... Not black Friday, not a sporting event. You don't have a massive rush of 10,000 people trying to get in at one time, thru 4 entrances. You have people coming in and out, all day long. It's not like it's going to be a hassle to anyone. Even if they did choose to wand someone. Doesn't mean that YOU need to go. No different than if they would decide to wand someone anywhere else. Just don't go there. But being ignorant about it, saying it's ridiculous that they have metal detectors at pro sports games and things!

How many wack jobs came into the metrodome, and pulled out their AR or AK, and blew away 30 people in secion 103? Or carried in a bomb, and blew half the stadium apart, and infringed on our rights to carry? ABSOLUTELY NONE!

Now, if there was no security there. And you have some wack job carrying an AR in there, no security, no metal detector, nothing. And he walks in and blows away 50 people in section 103. Guess where that leaves us?........ In the same situation we were in following Sandy Hook.... Fighting, and hoping they don't take away our rights. Even though we have people like Obama, and Dayton and the likes of them in charge.

The best part is... It's a free country. So if you don't want to go to a pro sports game because they wand you, or pat you down, you don't have to go. And if I don't want to go to the MOA because when there's a threat, and their security isn't stepped up to watch for something to the degree I feel safe at. I don't have to go.

But, from now on, please do me a favor and read my post, and don't put words in my mouth. As I never said "wand, or metal detectors"


There's this little thing.....Not that it would mean a **** thing to you. What's it called? The "constitution".
And a security guard has ZERO powers under the law.

unreasonable search and seizure

n. search of an individual or his/her premises (including an automobile) and/or seizure of evidence found in such a search by a law enforcement officer without a search warrant and without "probable cause" to believe evidence of a crime is present. Such a search and/or seizure is unconstitutional under the 4th Amendment (applied to the states by the 14th Amendment), and evidence obtained thereby may not be introduced in court.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-ri ... dment.html[/quote]


Your talking about a completely different area. Sorry to say...

The unreasonable search and seizure your referring to... The 4th amendment.... Well, read it again. Here's a link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_and_seizure

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized


Also.... You might want to check your laws again. This is probably more for someone who is a lawyer or degree in law. But... Yes, mall security can search you. You can refuse to be searched. But if the mall has it posted, you can also leave if you won't allow them to search you.

Private security guards.

• Mall cops, bouncers and private security guards are not cops. They cannot give you a citation or arrest you.

• Private security guards can kick you off private property, and may be able to search your stuff if there is a posted building rule that says so.

• If you do not want a private security guard to search your stuff, you can leave private property.

• Security guards can hold you with a citizen’s arrest for a “reasonable amount of time” until police arrive if you break the law, but not one of their building rules.

Just sayin.....

But please, watch your language farmerj.... I'm sort of offended by it.