Index  •  FAQ  •  Search  

It is currently Sun Nov 18, 2018 9:56 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 1, 2, 3  Next
 Maplewood Mall Letter - feedback requested 
Author Message
 Post subject: Maplewood Mall Letter - feedback requested
PostPosted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 8:57 pm 
Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 8:11 am
Posts: 40
Location: Saint Paul
Hi all,

Here's a letter I want to send to the management of the Maplewood Mall. They're not legally posted; frankly, it bothered me today when I was there.

Jerry Durbin - I used your letter to the Hutchinson Mall as the template. If you would rather I don't do that, please PM me.

If anyone else wants to contact them, this is the information:

Mall website

Permanent lease contacts:

Jad Murphy, General Manager, Phone: (651) 770-3863, Email: jmurphy@simon.com
Rob Springman, Phone: (317) 263-7078, Email: rspringm@simon.com

Here's the letter, let me know what you think.

Dear Jad Murphy and Rob Springman,

Your attention is required on a matter to insure the Maplewood Mall becomes compliant with Minnesota State law. This letter is being sent to you

regarding signs banning guns that are posted at the entrances to the Maplewood Mall in Maplewood, MN, which houses American Eagle Outfitters, Charlotte Russe, Old Navy, Sam Goody, Marshall Fields, and others.

The signs in question, which say “Maplewood Mall Bans Guns on these Premises” (hereinafter referred to as “the signs”) are not in compliance with MN State 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.

The posting of these sign(s) places the Maplewood Mall in non-compliance of Minnesota Statute 624.714, Sub 17, (e) by restricting Mall patrons from carrying firearms while in the Mall common areas, and also restricts Tenants and their patrons from carrying firearms to and from their place of business. The signs are posted just inside the public access doors to the mall, as well as the mall entrances coming from Marshall Fields, Barnes and Noble book store, and other anchor stores. The signs appear to be done in black text on a white background.

The signs in question also do not have the correct verbiage printed on them, which also makes them not compliant under MN Statute 624.714, Sub 17, (i) which states:

(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."

Because the Maplewood Mall is a public shopping center, and the shopping center itself 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 business, not the shopping mall itself.

The signs banning guns that are posted at the Maplewood Mall must be taken down immediately. If there are other signs banning guns on other entrances not listed in this request you must remove these signs as well for the same reasons of law listed above. Because the sign is not in compliance with MN Statute 624.714, please note that it is also not enforceable by local, county, or state law enforcement agencies; citizens who possess a Minnesota Permit to Carry a Pistol shall not be prosecuted for not acknowledging the sign.

Please also note that Minnesota residents that have a permit to carry are some of the most upright, respectful citizens you'll ever meet. They have never been convicted of a felony, drug offense, and are confirmed to have no mental defects of disabilities. They have passes a criminal history background check, and have been given the right to carry a firearm by their local County Sheriff. These permits are not handed out to anyone who crosses the Sheriff's door. Your signs may drive away thousands of potential customers, who, may be legally carrying a firearm to protect themselves and others, and are unable to enter your property. Large businesses that operate stores outside of the Maplewood Mall, such as Marshall Fields and Barnes and Noble, have elected not to post the signs at any of their other Minnesota locations.

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,
Mark (contact information to follow)


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 12:01 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2005 5:40 am
Posts: 3752
Location: East Suburbs
Looks very good! Send it off and copy the Maplewood Police and Ramsey County Sheriff.

I was there a couple of weeks ago and did not see any signs. But, I will go some place else if they don't take down the signs. :x

_________________
Srigs

Side Guard Holsters
"If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking" - George S. Patton


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 10:45 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:24 am
Posts: 6767
Location: Twin Cities
Good letter! You may want to quantify "thousands" of permit holders by pointing out that over 30,000 law-abiding Minnesota citizens hold carry permits.

_________________
* 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: Mon Dec 19, 2005 8:48 am 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 8:37 am
Posts: 198
Location: Oak Grove, MN
The word you really want to use is "ensure", not "insure".

Can you tell that my mother was an English teacher? I've been perfectly happy just reading this forum, until the chance came up to make a grammar correction. Then all of a sudden I'm registering...


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:57 am 
1911 tainted
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 2:47 pm
Posts: 3045
ChillyW wrote:
The word you really want to use is "ensure", not "insure".

Can you tell that my mother was an English teacher? I've been perfectly happy just reading this forum, until the chance came up to make a grammar correction. Then all of a sudden I'm registering...


Welcome anyway. :D


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 10:33 am 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
ChillyW wrote:
The word you really want to use is "ensure", not "insure".

Can you tell that my mother was an English teacher? I've been perfectly happy just reading this forum, until the chance came up to make a grammar correction. Then all of a sudden I'm registering...


In that case, a particularly loud, "Welcome Aboard."

Good grammar is, well, a good thing. Nobody's perfect, but one particularly well-known activist in the community is fairly famous for bad grammar and bad spelling. I don't think that serves us well.

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 10:38 am 
on probation
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 6:50 am
Posts: 544
Location: minneapolis
joelr wrote:
Good grammar is, well, a good thing. Nobody's perfect, but one particularly well-known activist in the community is fairly famous for bad grammar and bad spelling. I don't think that serves us well.
Well it must be I or Me uh! :shock:

_________________
On time out until at least May 2006. PM unavailable; contact this user via email.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 1:03 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:24 am
Posts: 6767
Location: Twin Cities
On second read, it strikes me that it could be shorter, which would give it more punch.

Try keeping only the bold parts below. My additions are in red:

Quote:
Dear Jad Murphy and Rob Springman,

Your attention is required on a matter to insure the Maplewood Mall becomes compliant with Minnesota State law. This letter is being sent to you regarding signs banning guns that are posted at the entrances to the Maplewood Mall in Maplewood, MN, which houses American Eagle Outfitters, Charlotte Russe, Old Navy, Sam Goody, Marshall Fields, and others.

The signs in question, which say “Maplewood Mall Bans Guns on these Premises” (hereinafter referred to as “the signs”) are not in compliance with MN violate Minnesota State 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.


The posting of these sign(s) places the Maplewood Mall in non-compliance of Minnesota Statute 624.714, Sub 17, (e) by restricting Mall patrons from carrying firearms while in the Mall common areas, and also restricts Ttenants and their patrons from carrying firearms to and from their places of business. The signs are posted just inside the public access doors to the mall, as well as the mall entrances coming from Marshall Fields, Barnes and Noble book store, and other anchor stores. The signs appear to be done in black text on a white background.

The signs in question also do not have the correct verbiage printed on them, which also makes them not compliant under MN Statute 624.714, Sub 17, (i) which states:

(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."

Because the Maplewood Mall is a public shopping center, and the shopping center itself is the Landlord of the Ttenants 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 Ttenants of the shopping center have the right to post their private businesses, not the shopping mall itself.

The signs banning guns that are posted at the Maplewood Mall must be taken down immediately. If there are other signs banning guns on other entrances not listed in this request you must remove these signs as well for the same reasons of law listed above. Because the sign is not in compliance with MN Statute 624.714, please note that it is also not enforceable by local, county, or state law enforcement agencies; citizens who possess a Minnesota Permit to Carry a Pistol shall cannot be prosecuted for not acknowledging the sign.

Please also note that Minnesota residents that have a permit to carry are some of the most upright, respectful citizens you'll ever meet. They have never been convicted of a felony, drug offense, and are confirmed to have no mental defects of disabilities. They have passes a criminal history background check, and have been given the right to carry a firearm by their local County Sheriff. These permits are not handed out to anyone who crosses the Sheriff's door. Your signs may drive away thousands of potential customers, who, may be legally carrying a firearm to protect themselves and others, and are unable to enter your property. Large businesses that operate stores outside of the Maplewood Mall, such as Marshall Fields and Barnes and Noble, have elected not to post the signs at any of their other Minnesota locations.

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,
Mark (contact information to follow)


The more I think about the "Please also note" paragraph, the more I think it weakens the argument: We don't have to convince them that they shouldn't post -- it's already against the law!

That said, for future letters, where the poster has a legal right to post, but we want to convince them otherwise:
for Next Time wrote:

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;
* 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.

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


The newly condensed letter now reads as follows:

Quote:
Dear Jad Murphy and Rob Springman,

This letter is being sent to you regarding signs banning guns that are 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, 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.

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,
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.


Last edited by Andrew Rothman on Mon Aug 21, 2006 1:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 1:24 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:24 am
Posts: 6767
Location: Twin Cities
Oh, hey, brain freeze.

Simon Property Group owns Maplewood Mall -- and Mall of America.

I doubt, somehow, they'll budge. But it's still worth sending the letter.

_________________
* 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: Mon Dec 19, 2005 10:34 pm 
Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 8:11 am
Posts: 40
Location: Saint Paul
Thank you for the critique, Andrew. I think you're condensed letter does pack more punch; may have to elaborate later on depending on their response.

Interesting find on the Maplewood owners' interest in the MoA...I suppose we already know what the outcome will be :roll:

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


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 5:32 pm 
Delicate Flower

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 11:20 am
Posts: 3311
Location: St. Paul, MN.
Andrew, I like the condensed version. We should consider utilizing it as a template for future communication.

Might be a good idea as a group (when we meet after the holidays) to discuss developing some standardized formats for people to work from. We have had several good examples on the forum already. I think durbin had one earlier.

I'll try and capture some of these so that we can develop a data base for future use.

Thoughts anyone?

_________________
http://is.gd/37LKr


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 11:53 am 
Wise Elder
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:48 pm
Posts: 2782
Location: St. Paul
Mall of America and Maplewood Mall are operated by Simon Properties, an Indiana corporation, which DOES NOT post any of its several malls in Indianapolis.

They need to explain WHY they discriminate against their Minnesota customers? Are Minnesota carry permit holders (who have required training) more dangerous than Indiana permit holders (who have NO training at all)?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 12:18 pm 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
KimberMan wrote:
Mall of America and Maplewood Mall are operated by Simon Properties, an Indiana corporation, which DOES NOT post any of its several malls in Indianapolis.

They need to explain WHY they discriminate against their Minnesota customers? Are Minnesota carry permit holders (who have required training) more dangerous than Indiana permit holders (who have NO training at all)?
My own guess -- and it's just a guess, but it's not an uneducated one -- is that they've been successfully politicked to by one or more of our local antis. It's either that, or some difference in the Indiana carry laws, which I haven't studied terribly closely, but closely enough to know that they have some significant differences in their posting language.

Implicitly, of course, they're supporting my contention that requiring training shouldn't be all that big a deal. (For those who came in late, I'm in favor of training -- strongly in favor -- but am opposed to mandatory training, as I don't think there's any reason to believe that the reason that carry permit holders are so disproportionately law-abiding is anything but the self-selection process.)

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 12:04 pm 
Member

Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 2:50 pm
Posts: 37
Location: Duluth, MN
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.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 12:11 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 10:41 am
Posts: 4468
I would be interested in the outcome as well. I have considered sending my own letter. I rarely shop there but don't want the hassle of educating the security people there of the law and its application.


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 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 2 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