UPDATE: Minnesota Rep Challenges Mall of America’s No-Guns-Allowed Policy

rachelsb_1415404683_X021_25AF_9

“A Republican state lawmaker says the al-Shabaab threat against the Mall of America means gun holders with permits should be able to take their weapons into the mall,” minnesota.cbslocal.com reports. “It currently has a ‘no guns allowed’ policy, with mall officials claiming the entire facility is private property.” State Representative Tony Cornish, chair of the House Public Safety Committee reckons the Mall of America has misinterpreted The Gopher state’s conceal-and-carry law. Here’s what Tony had to say about that . . .

“This is completely ridiculous. The complete opposite of what they should be doing,” Cornish said. “If we’re threatened with an attack, the last thing you want to do is disarm citizens.”

Representative Cornish said the intent was to allow legal weapons in open areas, like malls and mall hallways, while giving individual stores the option to ban them.

Watch this space.

comments

  1. avatar Chrispy says:

    I’m sure this decision will be fought pretty hard, but it’s encouraging to read nonetheless.

    1. avatar borg says:

      This may get interesting.

    2. Yet people on this very blog claim there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans.

      1. avatar Wayne says:

        There is only a difference between the lip service of Rs & Ds. The Rs rarely stand up for freedom and then only when we force them too. Need proof? Open carry a pistol in TX !

        1. Yeah bring back Ann Richards and the Waco raid.

        2. avatar Grindstone says:

          Rs only “stand up for freedom” when it’ll get them votes. Or if they can convince their base that their anti-freedom moves are actually freedom moves. Such as establishing the DHS, passing the Patriot Act, etc.

    3. avatar BDub says:

      Does it really matter, if the original intent was to allow carry in the mall but NOT in the stores? Seems like arguing about what shiny metal they should plate the turd in.

  2. avatar Accur81 says:

    Damn these Republicans who keep fighting these anti-gun laws. Especially since there’s no difference between Republicans and Democrats.

    /sarc

    1. avatar Chris In Texas says:

      On gun rights clearly there is. But over all Freedom? Nah both parties are the same. Only difference is what freedoms each party views as important. I don’t vote Republican I vote against Democrats. Lesser of two Evils.

      1. avatar Shaky says:

        “…Only difference is what freedoms each party views as important. I don’t vote Republican I vote against Democrats.”

        Well stated! I would curb it a little, I vote for whichever is promoting the freedoms I feel that society needs the most.

        There are some pro-firearm Democrats, and we shouldn’t verbally slap them into not supporting us. We need all the help we can get. There are a handful of Democrats in the Senate that actually support the “Pro-Gun” agenda. Encourage them, and eviscerate the “Anti-Gun” platform instead.

      2. avatar AllAmerican says:

        I dunno… there are very few “pro gun” dems who are truly “pro gun”. And most of them will tow the party line when pressed. The GOP certainly has its statists and RINO’s but this whole “they’re both the same!” argument is BS. Democrats are far worse and can get away with far more than any republican can. Remember, anytime a republican does anything remotely controversial they are hounded in the media and are somehow instantly magically labeled a racist, sexist, bigot, (see, Rudy Gulliani vs Bloomberg’s recent statements). Whenever a democrat actually commits a real crime it doesnt even make most MSM news orgs… I’ll take the party thats more pro freedom and has a harder time getting away with stuff.

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          You are correct in many respects.

          That said, keep in mind that Republicans support the National Defense Authorization Act*, monitoring all e-mails and phone call data, as well as no-knock warrants for anything and everything to name just a few.

          * The National Defense Authorization Act unconstitutionally eliminates any requirement for government to follow due process for arresting and indefinitely imprisoning anyone that the government, in its sole discretion, deems a “terrorist”.

        2. avatar AllAmerican says:

          Indeed. Point well taken.

        3. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

          @uncommon sense:

          Good points, though snooping is one issue on which you will see significant splits that cross party lines.

    2. avatar Art out West says:

      The Republicans suck somewhat less than the Democrats, especially in regard to gun control. I do however understand that very few Republicans actually believe in the right to bear arms. Many others just suck less than the Democrats in regard to the issue.

      1. avatar tdiinva says:

        That is why when Republican’s control state legislatures they immediately move to ban guns /Sarc

    3. avatar Grindstone says:

      Hm, who keeps passing government intrusion laws?

  3. avatar LarryinTX says:

    Good words! Do people in the state really dress like that? And the question is coming from TX!

    1. avatar Tim U says:

      Not most, but Tony does in every photo I’ve seen.

      He’s got some other pro gun charges coming later this year. Hopefully we can start to rollback the crap the minneapolis-stpaul liberals have enacted over the years.

    2. avatar Roscoe says:

      Cornish is a retired 32 year peace officer and extremely pro-gun; “Crime Control, Not Gun Control.”

    3. avatar beerwhisperer says:

      No, I have never seen that outfit before, nor anything like it in my 57 years, all spent here in my home state minus some college and military tours.

  4. avatar Scrubula says:

    Idiots at the mall gave the terrorists exactly what they wanted. Why do you think they openly announced threats on the malls? It’s either an empty threat or they wanted everyone else in the mall disarmed!

    1. avatar Anon in CT says:

      So Homeland Security Sec. Jeh Johnson (wtf kind of name is “Jeh”) tells folks that it’s fine to go to the mall, just “be careful”. And how do you do that? Disarmed? Unable to even describe the threat due to insane amounts of political correctness?

      And then Jeh’s warning is disavowed by his own department. I know all politicians are slime, but Obama has a real knack for recruting the stupidest, slimiest of the bunch.

      1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

        Be careful in the mall boys and girls as you may slip on the floor. Islamic terrorists a threat? No, never! Take along a gun? Of course not! You will not need a gun if the threat is a slippery floor! Besides we have unarmed mall security! I feel safer already!

  5. avatar Mike Crognale says:

    Unless there are metal detectors at every entrance I’m willing to bet that there are any number of concealed weapons in that mall every day.

    1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

      And I would not bet against you.

    2. avatar Hannibal says:

      Which is how it should be. If you’re going to tell people they can’t defend themselves on your property, you should be liable to do it for them.

      Also I wouldn’t set foot in such a place unless absolutely necessary…

  6. avatar Blain Cooper says:

    “Threats” now trump private property rights in America.

    Pro-tip to 2A folks: just don’t shop there.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Pro-tip to pro-tryranny advocates. The mall is in violation of sate law. As a landlord, they have no standing to ban guns in common use areas.

      1. avatar Blain Cooper says:

        Respect for private property is now “tyranny”. LOL.

        By the way, what you’re saying is the legal interpretation of one non-lawyer, so it is meaningless. The courts will decide on its correctness. Don’t hold your breath though.

        1. avatar AllAmerican says:

          Just try and exclude any one for any other right on a business and its ruled in violation of one’s rights. Why not the right to keep and bear arms? If you have a business you can’t ban someone from being a gay, black, jewish democrat can you?

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          The statute is clear, it does not take a judge or a lawyer to read plain English. A landlord may not ban guns for tenants or their guests. By banning guns in public access areas they are, in fact, doing exactly that as no method exists to access most shops in a mall without passing through the ban areas. It’s black letter law.

          Publicly accessible property is no more “private” than a parking lot. Hanging out a shingle and inviting people in, requires you to waive several commonly expected property rights that exist in (for example) a private residence or any other private property deliberately inaccessible to the public. Want to keep your “property rights”? Don’t invite every Tom, Dick, and Harry to enter at their leisure and browse your wares. (Might make your retail business a bit more difficult to run though.)

        3. avatar Blain Cooper says:

          Then explain the difference between a shop (which this guy deemed as the line between public access and private property) and the mall itself? After all, any customer can waltz into any shop. Why aren’t you demanding all shop-owners surrender their right to control access to their property as they see fit?

          Nice landlord analogy, because customers are now “renting” space at Mall of America. Heh.

          Funny how certain 2A “advocates” gripe about the over-reach of the Civil Rights Act giving special treatment to “the gheys” even as they use it against business owners in the exact same way as “the gheys”.

        4. avatar Chris Mallory says:

          “If you have a business you can’t ban someone from being a gay, black, jewish democrat can you?”

          No, but you should be perfectly able to. Private property is private property and any law that tramples the rights of the property owner is immoral and should be overturned.

          If the mall does not want weapons on it’s property, go to a retailer who does allow them.

        5. avatar AllAmerican says:

          No, I’m not taking your bait. Your trying to force an argument about abandoning property rights and no one in here is even remotely suggested that. The statement and law is pretty clear and well defined. You’re looking for an argument when there isn’t one.

        6. avatar Chris Mallory says:

          “Publicly accessible property is no more “private” than a parking lot. ”

          Parking lots are private property as well. Just because you support some freedom destroying laws does not mean they are moral. It is immoral to tell a business owner that they have no control over who they do business with or who they allow on their property. All civil rights laws as they apply to privately owned enterprises should be repealed.

        7. avatar Chris Mallory says:

          “The statement and law is pretty clear and well defined.”

          That doesn’t make them magically not trample the property owner’s rights. The law and the statement are immoral and should not be defended by any honest man.

        8. avatar pwrserge says:

          @Blain…

          No dipshit. The SHOPS are RENTING space at Mall of America. That’s how malls WORK. A SHOP may have the right to ban concealed carry (I may not like it, but they do, by statute, have that right.) a landlord CLEARLY BY STATUTE, DOES NOT.

          I’m not even going to dignify the morality of banning anything in a publicly accessible area. If you don’t understand the difference between a place where permission has to be explicitly granted (such as a home) and one where it is implicitly granted (such as a shop with an open door) and how that affects ” ‘muh proparta’h! rights” then we clearly have nothing more to discuss.

        9. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Okay, let’s review my example from the other day.
          (1) A predator incapacitates a victim, inflicts life threatening injuries, and drags them onto private property.
          (2) Without a prompt rescue, the victim will die.
          (3) The property owner hates strangers, paramedics, and vehicles and bans them on their property.

          Is it therefore “illegal” and improper for paramedics to go rescue the victim from the private property against the property owner’s wishes? Does the “social contract” even apply when a property owner who strictly applies their property rights will cause the death of guest or victim?

        10. avatar Christopher says:

          How come these folks don’t have a reply button?

        11. avatar Blain Cooper says:

          Seems like pwrserge is advocating the wholesale destruction of private property rights for business owners, since businesses are all publicly accessible.

          Such is the sorry state of 2A advocacy that they use the government to bludgeon private businesses, when 2A was written as a defense against government.

        12. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          pwserge,

          Blain Cooper has a good point that it is internally inconsistent if the mall owner may not ban firearms while the individual tenants can ban firearms.

          The correct answer, in my mind, is that neither can ban firearms. Why? Because prohibiting firearms means prohibiting someone from defending their lives. That is outside our social contract.

        13. avatar Model 31 says:

          Can someone please explain how a business owner’s property rights are violated by a concealed handgun being carried by a concealed weapon license holder? -you know, when the owner doesn’t know about it.
          Hint…the answer is not “cause guns” nor does it contain the phrase “support 2A rights but…”.
          Why not simply ban people who are licensed to carry handguns. The license itself will do as much to the business owner as the handgun covered by the license.

        14. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Model 31,

          A person who carries a concealed handgun causes no harm and no damages whatsoever to a property owner whether or not that property owner is operating a business.

          The entire point of the Social Contract and Common Law is this, “Do as you want as long as you don’t harm someone.” If you cause harm, then the property owner can sue you for damages. But having a concealed handgun doesn’t cause any damage, so suing about it or prohibiting it is off the table.

        15. avatar pwrserge says:

          @ uncommon_sense

          I’m not advocating anything other than enforcing the letter of the law. Do I think any exceptions to “shall not be infringed” are stupid? Yes, yes I do. However, one step at a time.

          As for Blain… The concept is called a balance of freedom. Your property rights do not trump my right to self defense. Me carrying a gun in your store does not harm you. You banning my ability to defend myself most certainly CAN harm me.

          … and yes, private property rights have been adjudicated under English common law since well before the Revolution.

        16. avatar Blain Cooper says:

          Property law has historical precedent. “Public access” is a recent invention.

          You are now fully using anti-gun arguments. Same as antis talk about how open carriers *might* harm them, ergo, guns should be banned, you are now saying property rights should be abolished, because harm *might* befall upon your unarmed self.

          Also your talk about “balance” stinks of anti-gun talk of “balance” between safety and freedom (i.e. no balance whatsoever).

        17. avatar pwrserge says:

          @Blane

          Wow… Wow…
          Let me break it down for you Barney style…
          1. We (aka rational people) know that a properly carried firearm is highly unlikely to cause harm.
          2. We (again, RATIONAL PEOPLE) know that if it does do harm, we are liable for the results.
          3. We know that being DISARMED, is far more likely to cause harm.
          4. We also know that the people who DISARMED us ARE NOT liable for the the results.

          Would you be OK with me suing you into poverty if I happen to be assaulted leaving your place of business and was unable to defend myself? Or do your property rights trump my right to self defense?

          AGAIN SMART ONE
          You DO have every right to ban people from bearing arms in your home. You DO NOT have a right to endanger others by forcibly disarming them when they enter your publicly open place of business.

          LET ME SIMPLE IT UP SOME MORE
          When you open up your property to public access, you waive some of the rights involved in property ownership.

          To put a not too fine a point on it… Your rights stop when they demonstrably cause probable harm to others.

        18. avatar Christopher Hall says:

          This isn’t directed at anyone. There was no reply button.

          However a business operates under a permit. If the business wants to ban any civil rights it should no longer have the state’s (read people’s) permission to operate. Is that clear?

        19. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

          What’s inside my pants is not their concern or their property.

        20. avatar Blain Cooper says:

          You stepped off the legal deep end when you state that private property owners are causing his guests harm by telling them to disarm on their property. That is like saying a homeowner is causing harm to a guest by telling him to leave after taking offense at one’s words. Heh.

          Please try to sue on such grounds, it would be amusing to see you get laughed out of court.

          LOL @ waiving rights. Spoken like a true anti.

        21. avatar pwrserge says:

          Blain… You just went full marmel. Your place of business does not have the same standing as your home. Oh… and you might want to pay attention to the wrongful death lawsuit pending against the owners of a certain Aurora, CO movie theater.

        22. avatar Blain Cooper says:

          Except the allegations of the lawsuits against the CO theater chain has nothing to do with random civilians carrying in the theater, but the lack of armed employees. By definition armed employees would have the full consent of the property owners. Which makes those lawsuits completely irrelevant in the context of this story.

          Try again. 🙂

        23. avatar Christopher Hall says:

          People sue all the time for hazards on commercial property. Not enough cameras or lightning, water on the floor or unsafe parking lots. It is just a matter of time before someone wins on a gun prohibition. I would look to the State Fair incident. Georgia I believe. They banned weapons at the fair and people were robbed in the parking lot. It was against state law and publicly debated in the papers. Meaning there was general notice. Just a matter of time. Attorneys don’t take those cases unless the person is squeaky clean with a permit.

    2. avatar Nicholas says:

      The Constitution trumps private property rights.

      1. avatar Yellow Devil says:

        @ Nicholas I…huh? I don’t think the third, fourth or even the fifth Amendment of the Constitution agree with that statement.

  7. avatar damarius ilion says:

    Now that is more like it!!!!!! What America as a whole has to understand is that this country was built on fighting against tyranny, threats of all sorts foreign or domestic…… To take that freedom away is the most unpatriotic act that exists…….

  8. avatar Gabe says:

    A few things…

    Tony rocks! He has been an awesome ally in our fight for our rights.

    The law is worded that landlords cannot post, only tennants can. (individual stores renting space) So it’s perfectly legal to carry there. The mall is fighting it by saying the entire mall is private property. Tony is very sharp and reminding them what the law is.

    Lastly, the mall doesn’t even post the signs anymore. I haven’t seen a sign there in years. I assumed they gave up since they can’t do it and everyone I know ignored the signs anyway.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      I don’t understand. Does Minnesota’s concealed carry law prohibit concealed carry in shopping malls and Mall of America is claiming that Minnesota law has tied their hands?

      1. avatar Chris. says:

        –I don’t understand. Does Minnesota’s concealed carry law prohibit concealed carry in shopping malls—

        Not at all.

        — and Mall of America is claiming that Minnesota law has tied their hands?—

        Mall of America is making shit up.

  9. avatar Another Robert says:

    Private property, you say? Well, it should be, but just try to exclude someone on the basis of skin color or, lately, sexual orientation and see how “private” it is. If we could just get the rights that actually are enumerated in the Constitution (like the right to bear arms, the right to free speech) the same deference that the “rights” that are nowhere found in it (like the “right” to abort your child in the womb) enjoy…

    1. avatar boardsnbikes says:

      Correct. If the Mall of America, its management and the businesses contained in it are exempt from discrimination, the American Disability Act and other laws then I’m willing to hear an argument against concealed carry on its premises. I’m inclined to disagree but I’m willing to hear the argument based on private property rights. But somehow I believe they want to be “private” (or “public”) when it benefits them.

      1. avatar Chris Mallory says:

        All private property should be exempt from those freedom trampling laws.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Privately owned property that you deliberately open to public access does not grant you the same rights as private property where access is deliberately not granted. This has been a core tenet of common law for centuries. If you have a problem with that, I suggest not opening your property to the public.

        2. avatar Blain Cooper says:

          Translation: in order to run a business, you have to abandon your property rights or else pwrserge will sic the government on you.

          Also LOL @ “public access” being part of common law for *centuries*. I hope you’re not a lawyer.

        3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Blain Cooper,

          The fundamental problem with your “private property rights are supreme” mindset is that a person has no inherent rights at all unless they are standing on their own private property. In other words he who has the gold makes the rules. While that is fine up to a point, it becomes a problem when property owners start dictating whether or not other people can survive.

          Imagine that you live in a region where you own no property (you rent) and all private property owners around you forbid men who are over 6 feet tall because those property owners see such a man as a threat to their happiness. That arrangement seems fine until the day that you grow past 6 feet tall. Suddenly, you have no rights, now way to extricate yourself, and the private property owners around can have their way with you now because you “willfully” violated their private property rights, correct?

        4. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Blain Cooper,

          By the way no one is advocating that a property owner has to abandon all of their rights when they operate a business open to the public. I am advocating that there is a limit to property rights when someone operates a business open to the public. And one of those limits is that a property owner cannot demand, as a condition of doing business, that people give up their right to defend their lives.

        5. avatar Blain Cooper says:

          You sound like an anti. They love talking about ‘reasonable limits’ to 2A.

          The notion that a property owner telling others to leave if they carry a gun is the same as condemning them to death is ludicrous hyperbole, one that is not even worth addressing.

        6. avatar Another Robert says:

          I go with Chris on that one. My property is my property, no matter how many people I invite onto it. If I want to denude myself of my ability to defend myself on my property, it’s my problem. If I want to denude anyone else on my property of that ability, that is my right. Their problem is to decide whether entrance onto my property is worth the risk. If you don’t think so, you don’t have to come onto my property. I realize that is no longer the case as a practical matter, if I use my property for commercial purposes. But that doesn’t make it right.

        7. avatar pwrserge says:

          Blaine… You have no constitutionally protected absolute property rights. All property rights are conditional and based on a balancing of reasonableness. A society could not function otherwise. To put not too fine a point on it. Barring criminal intervention, the right to life (and therefore self defense) will trump property rights… EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

        8. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Blain Cooper,

          “The notion that a property owner telling others to leave if they carry a gun is the same as condemning them to death is ludicrous hyperbole …”

          If all property owners in a region forbid guns, a person in that region who insists on being armed for self-defense will not be able to work or trade for goods or services. A person who cannot work or trade for goods or services is absolutely condemned to death. Where is the ludicrous hyperbole?

        9. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Blain Cooper,

          You never answered my scenario where a predator carries an incapacitated victim to private property. Can the private property owner forbid rescue?

          My questions are not ludicrous nor hyperbole. They are forcing you to state whether human life is less or more relevant than property.

          Again, we come back to the Social Contract and Common Law: we are free to do whatever we want as long as we do not harm someone. And if we harm someone, we owe compensation to the victim for their damages. If a private property owner invites a guest onto their private property and the guest carries a concealed handgun, what damages has the private property owner suffered? How has the guest interfered with the property owner’s liberty? The answer to both questions is zero, zilch, nada. However, if the private property owner insists that the guest cannot possess a firearm, the property owner has interfered with the guest’s liberty both off and on the property and, if a predator attacks, the guest’s very life both off and on the property. (A prohibition of firearms on private property affects the guest off property because the guest would have to leave home without their firearm and the guest would be subject to much greater injuries when they are unarmed and attacked.)

        10. avatar Blain Cooper says:

          Apparently the liberty of not shopping at MoA or entering the homes of people who insist on disarmed guests has never crossed your mind.

          Feel free to point out a legal precedent for a home owner held liable after his guests were attacked by a third party. I’ll wait.

      2. avatar Christopher Hall says:

        After child’s injury, family sues mall for property liability

        On behalf of Coughlin & Gerhart, LLP, posted inPremises Liability on Saturday, October 11, 2014.

        When you or a loved one has been seriously injured on someone else’s property, you may be entitled to compensation. Property liability lawsuits generally focus on the property owner’s negligence or other factors that resulted in a hazardous condition.

        A recent lawsuit from New Jersey is a good example. Just over a year ago, a family was shopping at a Macy’s store when their 10-year-old child got her foot trapped in a dangerous escalator. The girl lost two toes as a result of her injuries.

        The family filed a lawsuit against Macy’s and ThyssenKrupp Elevator, the company responsible for maintenance and repair of the escalator. ThyssenKrupp is accused of negligent maintenance and repair, while Macy’s is accused of negligent supervision over ThyssenKrupp.

        According to the lawsuit, the girl was riding the escalator with her mother when her right foot and leg somehow became trapped. A passerby heard the commotion and managed to hit the “emergency stop” switch on the escalator, but freeing the girl’s foot and leg still proved difficult. Since the accident, the girl has reportedly undergone 13 surgeries and her smallest two toes on the right foot needed to be amputated.

        The accident occurred at an upscale mall. While this type of incident is somewhat unusual, injuries suffered at malls and other commercial properties are not. Common examples include:

        Slips, trips and falls on wet or uneven floorsInjuries suffered in parking garages and parking lots caused by poor traffic control or inadequate securityAccidents in the winter caused by snow and ice that have not been cleared properly or in a timely fashion

        Not all injuries and accidents that occur on someone else’s property will be eligible for a property liability claim. But if you or a loved one has been injured, it is worth looking into possible property owner negligence. An experienced personal injury attorney can help you determine if your injuries may be compensable.

        Source: Courthouse News Service, “Macy’s Escalator Injury Claims Move Forward,” Rose Bouboushian, Oct. 3, 2014

    2. avatar John in Ohio says:

      A public accommodation… When a business invites the public onto its private property there is a good argument that it can no longer disarm that public anymore than it can discriminate against people because of the color of their skin, religious preference, or sexual orientation.

  10. avatar racer88 says:

    According to my research (all 2 minutes), the “no guns” signs / policies in MN do not carry the weight of law.

    Soooooooo…. Minnesotans are free to ignore the mall’s “no guns” policy.

    That said… I’d like to see the “terrorists” try this in a Texas or Florida mall! 🙂

    1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

      My wife and I stopped by the local mall yesterday, her and I were both carrying…

      I don’t know how many other people were packing, but between us there were 3 guns.

      Might dip our SD ammo in bacon grease, you know, just as a lubricant.

  11. avatar Norman says:

    There is no way this terrorist group can attack the mall…they are not allowed to bring guns in. They are going to be forced to attack with something else. Thank goodness for common sense gun restrictions!!!

  12. avatar F.S. says:

    Given the numerous gang-related and other random events that have been featured on the nightly news as pretty commonplace occurrences at the MOA, I have concealed carried the two times I’ve patronized this facility. Honestly, it was nothing special, and was more of a circus than anything else. My wife and I have chosen not to go back.

    PS – racer88 is correct, in MN, signs do not carry the force of law.

  13. avatar bboss says:

    I Don’ go to the moa often, but when I do, I carry. They called it camp shoot me for a reason.

  14. avatar Custodian says:

    Ah the political species.

    Republicans. There are many subspecies that wear the mask of the elephant. Simply put, there is no one type of Republican, just varieties: The statist RINO, which might have been once known as the Blue dog democrat, the savvy libertarian (classic liberal) who knows they won’t get elected under a two party system, the semi-constitutionalist, the tea partier, the moral majority member which can be often religious, and last the fiscal conservative. To be a Republican only means to share a limited banner or platform which may or may not be espoused by any candidate or incumbent person.

    Democrats. An extinct species, whose descendents who continue to masquerade under the guise of an ass (donkey). The only entities which use the mask or moniker of the Democrat are the: the statist, the communist, the facist, the progressive, the new liberal, and the socialist. Thus, in short, there are no real democrats, just those who use this brand to obscure their goals and objectives. The once Blue dog democrat, has long since transmutated and became the RINO.

    1. avatar AllAmerican says:

      Very well put.

    2. avatar Model 31 says:

      The real world application:

      Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton were walking down the street when they came to a homeless person. Romney gave the homeless person his business card and told him to come to his office for a job. He then took $20 out of his pocket and gave it to the homeless person.
      Hillary was very impressed, so when they came to another homeless person, she decided to help. She walked over to the homeless person and gave him directions to the welfare office. She then reached into Romney’s pocket and got out $20. She kept $15 for her administrative fees and gave the homeless person $5.

  15. avatar JustAdam says:

    My WI permit isn’t valid in MN. Still carried in MN and the mall.

  16. avatar I1uluz says:

    People still shop at malls? Is there something in a mall you can’t find at Wal-Mart, Tractor Supply, Lowes or Home Depot?

    1. avatar BlueBronco says:

      eeewwwwww, Walmart . . . yuck.

    2. avatar Scott P says:

      Like I said in another article, malls are so 80’s and 90’s. Get with the times!!

      I would add the internet makes it the easiest of all.

      1. I think the Democrats are proposing a gun free zone for online shopping.

  17. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    My solution is to not go to the mall. In my experience the nearby malls(south of Chicago) are extremely dangerous and filled with low-life gang members-let alone jihad johnnies. Go there if you want…

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      There you go. If terrorists really want to impress us, let’s see them go to malls filled with gang-bangers!

      1. avatar A Hill says:

        The West Edmonton certainly is with lots of cops as well and a gun store. Would certainly be an interesting case of good guys with guns (Well I think even the gang bangers want to kill turrerists, they could just decide to loot the place instead) Vs really bad guys with guns.

  18. avatar Col. ,Angus says:

    If I lived in Minnessoooooota and in the unlikely event that I went to the mall, I would just carry anyway. Is the mall cop going to pay attention to me or to the kids who are destroying the food court?

  19. avatar kenny says:

    MN SS 624.714 Subdiv 17 (e) states that a landlord cannot restrict its tenants or its tenants guests from possessing firearms. The Mall is violating Citizens rights. https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=624.714

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      More correctly, the mall is violating the law. Those posters have no legal standing.

  20. avatar Bob108 says:

    Although the worst that a minimum wages, lightly educated, unarmed security guard can legally do in most states is ask you to leave the premise, I just avoid malls with those policies. Even if armed, I do not want to be in some place that is a magnet for people with evil intent. I would not walk in their building if I knew it would be a fire trap during a fire, so why would I walk into a building that is essentially a free fire zone.

  21. avatar A Hill says:

    Welp, good thing we have a gun store / shooting range in the West Edmonton Mall! (If nothing else, it means the police will be there in “MAXIMUM” force)

    For those interested: Wild West shooting

  22. avatar PapaChop says:

    I know Rep. Cornish personally, and he’s not much of a politician. Meaning he does what he thinks is right, and not what’s popular.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email