Index  •  FAQ  •  Search  

It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 2:24 pm

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 40 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 Maplewood Mall Letter - feedback requested 
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 4:15 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 10:02 am
Posts: 817
Location: Eagan, MN
Most of the places that remain posted do so to make a POLITICAL statement, not a LEGAL statement. Public libraries and business like PBS fall under this category. Since they don't post for legal reasons, I think the verbiage about the particulars of the law may not be as interesting or as compelling as we hope. But, it has to be mentioned.

I think the sentences about the numbers of people who legally carry, and the numbers of very prominent businesses that DON'T post should not be left out as a business's politics will often fold before the almighty dollar.

Since this thread was started last December, how did it turn out?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 10:06 pm 
Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 8:11 am
Posts: 40
Location: Saint Paul
Papa Woody wrote:
I realize its been a few months since the last post on this subject, but was there any response back from either the Simon Group or Maplewood mall itself on this matter?

If so...do you have a PDF or .DOC of their response?

Thanks much.


Howdy,

Unfortunately I received no response - not even a canned letter that was irrelevent to letter's content.

In the ballpark for what I expected...although I figured at a minimum we'd get a "we appreciate your feedback."

_________________
MADFI Instructor #16, Minnesota Personal Protection Instructors (MNPPI) Instructor #1


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:50 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 10:41 am
Posts: 4468
Thanks to everyone for the template. I want to include the picture of the permit holder and the process even though they are not legally posted. I want them to see us a sreasonable and realize that their competitors have not posted. I also added some flavor text so it didn't come off like a canned letter.

I would appreciate any feedback or advice that you may have to offer.

Here's the letter I am thinking of sending:

Quote:
Dear Jad Murphy and Rob Springman,

As a frequent customer of your mall my family and I have enjoyed the mix of tenants there and the atmosphere. There would seem to be something for everyone there. We've eaten in the food court, enjoyed the carousel, and shopped at several of the stores. We were excited when the Barnes and Nobles went in.

On a recent trip when I used the common mall entrance, I was disturbed to notice the “Maplewood Mall Bans Guns on these Premises.” signs. I commented on the signs to a security guard on them and he directed me to the head of security with the comment that it was not his decision and he didn't realy know anything specific about it.

These signs, which say “Maplewood Mall Bans Guns on these Premises.” violate Minnesota Statute 624.714, Sub 17, (e ) which states:

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


These signs restrict Mall patrons from carrying firearms while in the Mall common areas, and also restrict tenants and their patrons from carrying firearms to and from their places of business.

Because the Maplewood Mall is the landlord of the tenants operating business within, signs of this nature cannot be posted at the entrances of the Maplewood Mall or in the common areas of any of the Maplewood Mall owned and/or operated buildings or properties. Only the tenants of the shopping center have the right to post their private businesses, not the shopping mall itself.

Because the signs are not in compliance with 624.714, please note that they are also not enforceable by local, county, or state law enforcement agencies; citizens who possess a Minnesota Permit to Carry a Pistol cannot be prosecuted for not acknowledging the sign.

Please also note that the more than 30,000 Minnesota carry permit holders are an overwhelmingly law-abiding group.

Each has passed an extensive background check by a Minnesota county sheriff, ensuring that each has no criminal, mental health or drug use record. Each has received state-approved, hands-on training in the practical, legal and mechanical aspects of carrying a firearm.

What do you know about your other customers?

Look at the Twin Cities businesses that have chosen NOT to post:

* Cub, Rainbow, Byerly's and Lund's;
* Target, Kmart and WalMart;
* Sears, J. C. Penny's and Marshall Fields;
* Starbuck's and Caribou;
* Rosedale, Southdale and North Town malls;
* Chili's, TGI Friday's and Bennigan's; and
* Holiday, Tom Thumb, Marathon and Freedom station stores.

Your signs may be driving away thousands of potential customers: Almost half of the 30,000 Minnesota carry permit holders live in the seven-county metro area.

In a recent interview on MPR, Interim Chief Dolan and Chief Harrington both defended Permit holding Minnesotans as law abiding.

And finally, consider this fundamental question: if someone comes to your business to commit an act of violence, would a sign stop him?

Your prompt attention is requested in this matter; if you have any further questions or concerns, or wish to speak with me directly regarding the resolution of this issue, please don't hesitate to use the contact information included with this letter.

Respectfully yours,
Paul (contact information to follow)


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 8:10 am 
Forum Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 11:37 pm
Posts: 1571
Location: Detroit Lakes, MN
I know I am in the small minority I suspect, but I see no upside to telling property owners that the signs are not compliant. The carrying public knows this (well, most should), and I cannot see any upside into management putting up a compliant sign.

I don't see any downside to a letter that states to the effect "no guns = no money", but to tell them that the signs are not compliant is just an invitation to either (a) make them compliant; and/or (b) contacting their legislator to add teeth to the sign portion of the MCPPA. And, I see no upside at all to either (a) or (b).

_________________
Paul Horvick
http://shootingsafely.com
---
Contact us to schedule a class for you and your friends, and check our website for more information http://shootingsafely.com


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 8:27 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 10:41 am
Posts: 4468
phorvick wrote:
I know I am in the small minority I suspect, but I see no upside to telling property owners that the signs are not compliant. The carrying public knows this (well, most should), and I cannot see any upside into management putting up a compliant sign.

I don't see any downside to a letter that states to the effect "no guns = no money", but to tell them that the signs are not compliant is just an invitation to either (a) make them compliant; and/or (b) contacting their legislator to add teeth to the sign portion of the MCPPA. And, I see no upside at all to either (a) or (b).


Well, In this case, I'd like to shop there. I know their posting is not legal. But with the signs and their security's lack of knowledge about the law, I run the risk of being asked to leave if noticed. Concealed is concealed and all that but I don't want to have to leave if the family is having fun and some rent a guard sees a print. Even though I'd be legal, I'm sure there would be a couple uncomfortble moments as theguard explained that I needed to leave and I explained to my wife / kids that we need to leave.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 8:33 am 
Forum Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 11:37 pm
Posts: 1571
Location: Detroit Lakes, MN
plblark wrote:
phorvick wrote:
I know I am in the small minority I suspect, but I see no upside to telling property owners that the signs are not compliant. The carrying public knows this (well, most should), and I cannot see any upside into management putting up a compliant sign.

I don't see any downside to a letter that states to the effect "no guns = no money", but to tell them that the signs are not compliant is just an invitation to either (a) make them compliant; and/or (b) contacting their legislator to add teeth to the sign portion of the MCPPA. And, I see no upside at all to either (a) or (b).


Well, In this case, I'd like to shop there. I know their posting is not legal. But with the signs and their security's lack of knowledge about the law, I run the risk of being asked to leave if noticed. Concealed is concealed and all that but I don't want to have to leave if the family is having fun and some rent a guard sees a print. Even though I'd be legal, I'm sure there would be a couple uncomfortble moments as theguard explained that I needed to leave and I explained to my wife / kids that we need to leave.
It makes no differnece if there is a sign or not. They can ask you to leave regardless of whether the sign is compliant or not. You gain nothing by having a compliant sign, nor does the landlord.

_________________
Paul Horvick
http://shootingsafely.com
---
Contact us to schedule a class for you and your friends, and check our website for more information http://shootingsafely.com


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:46 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:24 am
Posts: 6767
Location: Twin Cities
phorvick wrote:
I know I am in the small minority I suspect, but I see no upside to telling property owners that the signs are not compliant. The carrying public knows this (well, most should), and I cannot see any upside into management putting up a compliant sign.


There's no such thing as a compliant sign posted by a landlord.

_________________
* NRA, UT, MADFI certified Minnesota Permit to Carry instructor, and one of 66,513 law-abiding permit holders. Read my blog.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 11:13 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:24 am
Posts: 6767
Location: Twin Cities
plblark wrote:
I want to include the picture of the permit holder and the process even though they are not legally posted. I want them to see us a sreasonable and realize that their competitors have not posted. I also added some flavor text so it didn't come off like a canned letter.

I would appreciate any feedback or advice that you may have to offer.


It's way, way too long. You think it adds flavor, but THEY WON'T READ THE WHOLE THING.

A succinct, three- to four-paragraph letter has a chance of being read. Your does not.

Think of it like a letter to the editor: Make one point, quickly and cleanly, and it might get published (or in this case, read).

That single point you want them to read is this: Landlords can't ban tennants or their guests from carrying.

Keep it simple:

Quote:
Mr. Murphy and Mr. Springman,

I am writing to you regarding the signs posted at the entrances to the Maplewood Mall in Maplewood, MN.

The signs, which say “Maplewood Mall Bans Guns on these Premises,” violate Minnesota Statute 624.714, Subd. 17(e) which states:

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

Because the Maplewood Mall is the landlord of the tenants operating business within, Maplewood Mall may not ban carry in the common areas of the mall, nor in the tenants' stores. Only the stores themselves have the right to post their private businesses; the mall does not.

As the signs are not posted in compliance with 624.714, they are also not enforceable by local, county, or state law enforcement agencies; citizens who possess a Minnesota Permit to Carry a Pistol cannot be prosecuted for ignoring the signs.

In order for Maplewood Mall to obey the law, the signs must be removed. Your prompt attention is requested in this matter: May I expect to see the signs removed by September 1, 2006?

If you have any further questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to contact me.

Respectfully yours,
Mark (contact information to follow)

_________________
* NRA, UT, MADFI certified Minnesota Permit to Carry instructor, and one of 66,513 law-abiding permit holders. Read my blog.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 7:06 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 10:41 am
Posts: 4468
I see your point, Andrew but short of a lawsuit, I don't see beating them on the head with this as a productive tactic. So, I was trying to soften it a bit and play to the responsible, ethical, patron of their mall and potential lost customer angle.

If they won't read it, they won't read it anyway. If they start getting a lot of terse form letters, they might take note. My feeling is that if they get personalized letters on the same subject from people who are patrons of their mall, they MIGHT start to see the light.

That being my goal, any feedback to make my letter tighter for that purpose?
A less akward way to mention that I'm a patron?
Better transitions and flow?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 8:11 pm 
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 10:02 pm
Posts: 818
Location: downtown Mpls
I don't think telling them the sign is meaningless is useful.

I think telling them "There are 30,000 overwhelmingly law-abiding permit holders in Minnesota, many of whom would undoubtedly like to shop at your mall if you didn't have signs telling them that they aren't welcome" is more likely to get results.

If you know any store managers in the mall, getting them to complain about losing customers because of the sign could be even more effective.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 9:28 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 10:41 am
Posts: 4468
SethB wrote:
I don't think telling them the sign is meaningless is useful.

I think telling them "There are 30,000 overwhelmingly law-abiding permit holders in Minnesota, many of whom would undoubtedly like to shop at your mall if you didn't have signs telling them that they aren't welcome" is more likely to get results.

If you know any store managers in the mall, getting them to complain about losing customers because of the sign could be even more effective.


You may be right. I was trying for the carrot and the stick really. Their posting is in violation of the law. Not just improper but in direct violation by doing something specifically prohibited. Of course since there's no penalty attached there's no enforcement and no real idea who one would even report violations to. I wanted to point out that they'r enot legally allowed to post and that even if it's not enforcable, They're losing peacable customers.

Legal sign or not, their guard can ask me to leave as a representative of the mall and I'm going to go. They have more money for lawyers than I do.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:14 pm 
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 10:02 pm
Posts: 818
Location: downtown Mpls
plblark wrote:
You may be right. I was trying for the carrot and the stick really. Their posting is in violation of the law. Not just improper but in direct violation by doing something specifically prohibited.

No, it isn't. The First Amendment lets them post any damnfool sign they want. Minnesota law doesn't allow them to enforce what the sign says.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:22 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 10:41 am
Posts: 4468
SethB wrote:
plblark wrote:
You may be right. I was trying for the carrot and the stick really. Their posting is in violation of the law. Not just improper but in direct violation by doing something specifically prohibited.

No, it isn't. The First Amendment lets them post any damnfool sign they want. Minnesota law doesn't allow them to enforce what the sign says.


Aha! a good point / perspective I hadn't considered. I wonder... wether a bsiness is posted or not, they have the right to ask you to leave, right? So, wether they can post or not, can't they still ask you to leave mall property?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 9:26 am 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 8:37 am
Posts: 198
Location: Oak Grove, MN
plblark wrote:
Aha! a good point / perspective I hadn't considered. I wonder... wether a bsiness is posted or not, they have the right to ask you to leave, right? So, wether they can post or not, can't they still ask you to leave mall property?

Sure they can. They can ask you to leave for just about any reason they want to. And the thing to do if that happens is to complain to the stores that are losing your business because of it. If you called up the manager of the electronics department in Sears and explained that you had been on your way in to buy a $2,000 TV set from them when you were bullied and asked to leave by mall security, I think they would care and it would have a positive effect.

When you send mail to the mall management company, they just dismiss you as a crank. They don't care about you. But when one of the major foundation stores in the mall calls up the management company and complains about mall security driving away business, they'll likely listen.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:20 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 4:01 am
Posts: 586
Location: west suburb
plblark wrote:
Thanks to everyone for the template. I want to include the picture of the permit holder and the process even though they are not legally posted. I want them to see us a sreasonable and realize that their competitors have not posted. I also added some flavor text so it didn't come off like a canned letter.

I would appreciate any feedback or advice that you may have to offer.

Here's the letter I am thinking of sending:

Quote:
Dear Jad Murphy and Rob Springman,

As a frequent customer of your mall my family and I have enjoyed the mix of tenants there and the atmosphere. There would seem to be something for everyone there. We've eaten in the food court, enjoyed the carousel, and shopped at several of the stores. We were excited when the Barnes and Nobles went in.

On a recent trip when I used the common mall entrance, I was disturbed to notice the “Maplewood Mall Bans Guns on these Premises.” signs. I commented on the signs to a security guard on them and he directed me to the head of security with the comment that it was not his decision and he didn't realy know anything specific about it.

These signs, which say “Maplewood Mall Bans Guns on these Premises.” violate Minnesota Statute 624.714, Sub 17, (e ) which states:

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


These signs restrict Mall patrons from carrying firearms while in the Mall common areas, and also restrict tenants and their patrons from carrying firearms to and from their places of business.

Because the Maplewood Mall is the landlord of the tenants operating business within, signs of this nature cannot be posted at the entrances of the Maplewood Mall or in the common areas of any of the Maplewood Mall owned and/or operated buildings or properties. Only the tenants of the shopping center have the right to post their private businesses, not the shopping mall itself.

Because the signs are not in compliance with 624.714, please note that they are also not enforceable by local, county, or state law enforcement agencies; citizens who possess a Minnesota Permit to Carry a Pistol cannot be prosecuted for not acknowledging the sign.

Please also note that the more than 30,000 Minnesota carry permit holders are an overwhelmingly law-abiding group.

Each has passed an extensive background check by a Minnesota county sheriff, ensuring that each has no criminal, mental health or drug use record. Each has received state-approved, hands-on training in the practical, legal and mechanical aspects of carrying a firearm.

What do you know about your other customers?

Look at the Twin Cities businesses that have chosen NOT to post:

* Cub, Rainbow, Byerly's and Lund's;
* Target, Kmart and WalMart;
* Sears, J. C. Penny's and Marshall Fields;
* Starbuck's and Caribou;
* Rosedale, Southdale and North Town malls;
* Chili's, TGI Friday's and Bennigan's; and
* Holiday, Tom Thumb, Marathon and Freedom station stores.

Your signs may be driving away thousands of potential customers: Almost half of the 30,000 Minnesota carry permit holders live in the seven-county metro area.

In a recent interview on MPR, Interim Chief Dolan and Chief Harrington both defended Permit holding Minnesotans as law abiding.

And finally, consider this fundamental question: if someone comes to your business to commit an act of violence, would a sign stop him?

Your prompt attention is requested in this matter; if you have any further questions or concerns, or wish to speak with me directly regarding the resolution of this issue, please don't hesitate to use the contact information included with this letter.

Respectfully yours,
Paul (contact information to follow)

I like the look of this letter and don't believe it is too long,as for any business not taking time to read a letter this long just doesn't fly. They apparently are concerned about security any will read information concerning it. I think the list of companies that don't post is a great idea. I'm FOR sending it.

_________________
Just because you know your paranoid doesn't mean somebody's not out to get you.


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 40 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours


 Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron


 
Index  |  FAQ  |  Search

phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group