I am just wondering since the MN Statue clearly states that a Landlord may not limit a tenent or their guests right to carry a lawful firearm is their any recourse after notifying them and asking them to take the sign down or change it. I mean what would happen if a bunch of us open carried at the Mall of America? Shouldn't there be something we can do to get these places to follow the Law just as we are expected to do?
Sorry if this seems ranty, but it just sort of pisses me off.
Thanks,
Mike

We could add a penalty to Joel's proposal for 2007(?).

Since one of the items had started controversy, there hasn't been any discussion on the proposal in a while.

I don't know exactly how it works, but in Texas, there is a unit that improper signage can be reported to. I don't know if there is a penalty in Texas, but this unit works with them to get the correct signage or they ask that it to be removed.

The First Amendment gives them (any "them") the right to post whatever signs they want; the signs are not illegal.

MN law specifies that only certain signs carry the force of law behind them.

This discussion begs the question, so what if we did open carry at the MOA? As their signs do not carry the weight of law, can we get in trouble if they ask us to leave? As a landlord, I would guess no; However if we were in a specific store in the MOA and were asked to leave, sign or no sign, then we could be sited. Thoughts?

This comes up again and again -- like at last month's CCRN meeting.

(Hint: You really oughta be at the next one, on Tuesday, February 7 at 7:30 at Hamline Law. Joel is speaking there.)

A non-compliant sign is just a piece of paper (and so is a compliant sign, mostly, but more on that in a second).

The sign portion of the law was a great win (thanks, Pat and Joe) -- and about the weakest private posting provision in all of the the carry states. Remember that carrying past a proper posting is not an offense until they notice you carrying, demand compliance, and you refuse to honor that demand by leaving.

Then it's necessary to be enough of a jerk to hang around for a cop to be called to issue your $25 petty misdemeanor ticket.

Because we-with-permits are a mostly peacable lot, to my knowledge not one such ticket has been issued in 2-1/2 years.

The law has nothing to say about non-compliant signs, except by exclusion: only compliant signs (or verbal notification) could, in the above scenario, lead to the hypothetical ticket.

That's a good thing. It lets businesses who would mostly rather avoid dealing with the whole issue post a clearly non-compliant sign, placating the blissninnies and placing no burden on us.

If we make a stink about this (non-)issue, it raises discussion about how toothless the current posting requirement is, and may lead to tighter rules.

No, I say with great firmness, let's let this particularly peacefully sleeping dog lie.

What he said.

Yeah, I can see the logic behind all that, its just a bit frustrating when we as a group are so closely scrutinized and made to jump through artificial hoops and then the Anti's are allowed to just do about whatever they want. Its as if we have to walk on eggshells otherwise we could lose our right to carry or face stricter guidelines by which we are allowed to carry, but they are allowed to play dirty and never face the idea of loosening restrictions or being hassled by the Government or police. Doesn't seem fair, but I guess as I tell my kids life isn't always fair.
Thanks for listening,
Mike

I wonder what you're getting at...


Great points. Still stinks a little, but it still may be the best system in the US (in regards to postings).

Some states don't have any provisions for a business to post, but the penalty for trespassing is higher.

Strong agreement. The only downside of it is that it kinda vaguely encourages some business owners to put up signs to placate the antis. In return for having a law that, basically, makes the posting simply a request with, explicitly, no penalty for violating it unless you also violate a request for compliance (and then only $25), I think that's a terrific tradeoff.

And, as I'll probably suggest a time or twelve on February 7, that happened precisely because the proponents asked for a loaf and a half, rather than a "reasonable" half loaf.

Maybe we do need to have an open carry night at the Mall of America. I know for sure it would be a hoot to see reactions and such, but probobly not the safest route to take. Oh well I guess I'll have to wait indefinately for my response to the letter I sent to the Mall.
Have a great weekend,
Mike

An open carry night at MOA could very easily turn a lot of people (civilians not in the fight) against carry and guns in general.

Let alone the field day that the media would have as you know that they will present a picture of their "vision" of the typical uneducated, greasy, BDU wearing, beer slobbering, red-neck, with an AK47....

.............regardless of the facts, truth, or that we may all be dressed in Brooks Bros suits and ties...........

(ETA) Let's not go there.......................

Just go ahead and carry concealled! They still have to ask you to leave just like if they are not posted.

I can just picture the (insert bleeding heart's name here) column in the Strib if we were to do this. The media would be all over it, and probably not in a positive way.
Not that the idea isn't intriguing. Maybe we could get them to change the name of the theme park from Camp Snoopy to Camp Carry.

[ Not that the idea isn't intriguing. Maybe we could get them to change the name of the theme park from Camp Snoopy to Camp Carry. [/quote]

I believe there was shooting in the park within the last year

That's when they should have named it "Camp Shoot Me".