Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive
http://twincitiescarry.com/forum/

MOA
http://twincitiescarry.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=7619		 Page 6 of 6
Author:  Moby Clarke [ Mon Sep 14, 2009 10:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: MOA
a911scanner wrote:
gyrfalcon wrote:
IncaKola wrote:
I thought this one was pretty...
[IMG]
In between the double doors, on the left wall.


Hah, it's not exactly "in accordance" of Minnesota State law. :lol: That's definitely not black Arial font, and those signs are not at all of the entrances.


And.. while I may have had a firearm on my person while visiting there this weekend (I can't remember), the sign pictured above is more than wrong aesthetically.

It is also wrong in it's wording. While those of us familiar with the law know what they may be trying to communicate, to the uneducated visitor from another land, it reads as though the State of MN bans guns in places like the MOA.

That kind of signage could lead to many quick 911 calls by a sheeple type person that spots one of us (accidentally).

Am I wrong?


MM


To meet your statement, the wording would have to be "In accordance...guns are banned... As it is, I think it is clear the MOA is the banning authority.
Author:  twelve_eight [ Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: MOA
Andrew Rothman wrote:
624.714, Subsection 17(e) wrote:
(e) A landlord may not restrict the lawful carry or
possession of firearms by tenants or their guests.

twelve_eight wrote:
I would tend to agree that they cannot restrict carry within the confines of their rented store spaces, but I would think that in the mall proper, or the areas of the malls that are considered MOA property-such as hallways, restrooms and the like would fall under their business space, and therefore they would be allowed to post a ban for those areas.

This could explain why people report seeing posters at entrances to the mall from stores, and not at the outside store entrances.


Nope. Since we don't have Star-Trek-style transporter beams, landlord being allowed to ban in the public hallways would render 17(e) meaningless. The Minnesota rules of statutory interpretation require that judges cannot read the law so as to render any part of it meaningless.

see MN Stat. 645.16 and 645.17


HAHA. Ok, so my post was unclear, but I was merely pointing out why signs may be posted in such a way (people will read the law as they wish and for their own benefit, not as it actually is). As in-the MOA doesn't care if you have guns in your establishment, but you'll have to bring them in an outside entrance. And so it will stand, because nobody has challenged it effectively. It doesn't have to be legal or logical, it just has to make sense in their eyes.
Author:  Andrew Rothman [ Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: MOA
Well, not really, I carried there Monday. :P
Author:  a911scanner [ Fri Sep 18, 2009 12:13 am ]
Post subject:  Re: MOA
Andrew Rothman wrote:
Well, not really, I carried there Monday. :P


I'm sure openly too, you Rabble Rouser.
Author:  mrokern [ Fri Sep 18, 2009 9:11 am ]
Post subject:  Re: MOA
a911scanner wrote:
Andrew Rothman wrote:
Well, not really, I carried there Monday. :P


I'm sure openly too, you Rabble Rouser.


I think only viking axe murderers do that. :mrgreen:
Page 6 of 6 All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/