“It was business as usual at Minnesota’s Mall of America and Canada’s West Edmonton Mall on Sunday, with most people either oblivious to any threat to attack the shopping centers or confident that the risk was too small to worry about,” philly.com reports. This “despite news of a videotape attributed to al Shabaab, a Somali-based Islamist militant group behind a deadly 2013 attack on a Kenyan shopping center, that appeared to threaten the North American malls.” Both of the above malls are self-professed “gun-free zones.” And look likely to remain so. Go figure.

120 Responses to Wrong Answer

    • They just need to put the Arabic and Somali translations up. How can you expect terrorists to follow the rules if it’s not in their native language?

      • Some great comments.. I believe that anytime an event or establishment bars your right to legally carry a handhun thus preventing you from best protecting yourself, that they are taking full responsibility for your care and protection. Therefore, if anyone comes under attack by direct or indirect physical force with or without a weapon that the establishment is fully liable. Therefore any attack in such an establishment should result in millions of dollars in lawsuits for all the victims present and even more consideration to those who otherwise could have and would have been legally carrying. Likewise, I believe state and local governments with anti-gun laws are also responsible for every victim who has expressed willingness, interest or intent to exercise rights under the 2nd amendment.

        • Perhaps they think they’ll be protected by the fact the Islamo-terrorists will be likely to use cheap, elderly AKs with shot out barrels that can’t come even close to hitting MOA. Well, either that or they’re dumber than a box of hammers, and should have made the sign read: “Innocent American civilians conveniently disarmed for your extremist murdering pleasure.”

    • When A Muslim bombs, or open fires with several assault weapons in the Mall Of America, kills countless persons of all race, (or maybe a Christian) Obama will call it, “Work Place Violence”. Sorry but that Muslim Protecting, racist, Piece of Shit has violated Constitutional Procedures so many times, I can’t believe he hasn’t been arrested as a Traitor. About the only (Racist) White person on his entire staff, is Joe, and his is the token white guy, and a joke to boot.

      • Sorry Kids, Just Venting!! Lets try arming every law abiding citizen in the mall, that can legally carry a gun, make it be known, and wait for the Assholes to wonder if the person next to them might shoot their sorry asses. Would be interesting. BUT, they are all Pussy’s, wouldn’t want to deal with an armed person, only sheep that they can control and cut off heads!

  1. It’s just anti law abiding gun owner laws and signage. This sign has nothing to do with criminals, mass shooters, etc. They won’t look twice at it.

    • Wait what? Why are you lying? All the really smart people say that when a lone wolf terrorist or group of terrorists show up at the business, with AK style weapons, potential body armor, and other supplies; he/they will see the sign at say to himself/themselves, “oh, I guess I/we can’t attack here because guns are banned on the premise.” Maybe the sign comes with a Hogwart’s wizard that put a shield up with the sign that causes guns to evaporate when they come into contact with the barrier! Get Hermoine Granger to Minnesota, STAT!

      Yes, this is ridiculous as it sounds. I’ll take another dose of the sarcasm meds now.

    • Yep, they will no longer be able to take their AK’s in there. Whew, that’s a relief. Okay, now they can focus on “Wet Floor–Do Not Slip” signs that people can set out around any pools of blood.

    • “Well, that’ll stop any potential terrorists.”

      Not holding my breath on that one.

      In this day of people collecting (sometimes substantial) payouts from stores for slip-and-fall lawsuits, any chance a lawsuit could be won the next time a mass shooting happens in a mall (Or anywhere else a ‘No Guns’ sign is posted at a business.)?

      If businesses are held liable for a fall when a 5 year-old’s bladder cuts loose and someone slips in the puddle, imagine the payout for the victim’s families next-of kin. (Not to mention the ‘mental anguish” of anyone who witnessed the shooting.) After all, the mall callously endangered the public by not having airport level security at the entrances…

  2. I’m curious to know the applicable law in Minnesota. Does the sign carry force of law? If discovered is a person warned to leave the premises prior to arrest?

    After that last terrorist threat I wouldn’t set foot in Mall of America regardless…

    • +1 Even in Illinois, the signage statutes are rather strict. This certainly would not pass muster.

      Did some quick research. Two things wrong with this that I can see.

      1. I doubt that this sign is “four feet laterally from [an entrance]”
      2. “The bottom of the sign must be four to six feet above the floor.”

      • Is that like holding your mouth correctly while you pinky swear?

        I love all the arguments about the signs, when they are “legal,” etc. What a pile…

        Can’t imagine why anyone in their right minds would enter such a place, no matter how remote the potential of “terrists” or even ordinary criminals. But then, I hate all crowds, always have.

        You pays your money and you takes your chances.

        • Because in this case MOA is illegally making a decision for all their tenants. The way you fight anal retentive asshats like this is by beating them at their own game. Were I a bit more wealthy, I would walk into MOA, wait for them to call the cops, then sue them for harassment and slander.

    • 624.714, Subsection 17:

      (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.”; or

      (ii) the requester or the requester’s agent personally informs the person that guns are prohibited in the premises and demands compliance.

      (2) “Prominently” means readily visible and within four feet laterally of the entrance with the bottom of the sign at a height of four to six feet above the floor.

      (3) “Conspicuous” means lettering in black arial typeface at least 1-1/2 inches in height against a bright contrasting background that is at least 187 square inches in area.

      624.714, Subsection 17(e) :

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

      • That’s interesting. Since Mall of America is not a tenant, arguably they have no legal standing to ban guns as such bans would need to be put in place by the individual shops.

        • Presumably MOA could ban guns from the “common areas” of the mall. Since you mostly have to go through the common areas to get to the tenant shops, that might pretty well ban lawful carry in the mall. Again, not that it matters to the crooks or the crazies.

        • Except that no such exception to the landlord prohibition exists in the law. If that logic was upheld, an apartment landlord could ban guns from all common areas (such as hallways) and de-facto ban guns on the premises. Yeah… MOA has no leg to stand on. They might be able to ban guns in MAO exclusive use areas, but that’s about it.

      • This clearly no where near an entrance and therefore is not a legal sign as required by law. Also would the mall make an on-duty in uniform police officer leave like IKEA did or forcibly disarm them.

        • Hey, around here we piss and moan about cops on a regular basis. Still, I want a video of a mall employee attempting to forcibly disarm a uniformed police officer! I’ll even bring the popcorn!

      • 624.714, Subsection 17(e) :
        (e) A landlord may not restrict the lawful carry or possession of firearms by tenants or their guests.

        I guess as you enter through one of the entrances of an anchor store, casually ask a store employee if they consider you a “GUEST”. I assume the friendly Minnesot’n would say,
        “Why sure, you Betcha”
        Boom, your in.

    • As a Minnesotan, this does not have force of law unless they personally ask everyone coming through the door.
      My landlord also thinks he can have a no firearms clause in the lease, which violates state law.
      This state is full of progressive morons.

    • Funny. This sign itself is out of accordance with state law. Not only that there is no state law banning guns at that or any other shopping mall in this state to the best of my knowledge. The MOA used to have anti-gun signs posted that DID meet legal standards but removed them some time ago. I was just there Saturday and looked for any such posted signs.

      THANKFULLY these dumb signs don’t hold the force of law in this state anyhow. You have to be asked to leave and refuse to do so before it becomes a legal matter.

    • For context, most malls in MN do not ban carry. It’s only Simon Properties.

      As for the signs, it doesn’t matter whether they are compliant, or not. The MOA is a landlord, and landlords are specifically forbidden to interfere with lawful possession or carry by tenants and their guests.

  3. It is the answer. Three branches of government want you to be the victim, a dead citizen. Keeps them employed. What point do citizens just ignore nonsense thrust upon them…now would be a good time.

    • Actually they need you alive–to pay taxes. They would just rather have you alive as a sheep, not as a citizen. And although most sheep are just sheared, occasionally one gets slaughtered–just part of the business.

      • Wouldn’t surprise me if there was some actuarial calculation somewhere done by someone stating the number of “acceptable losses due to crime deaths vs lost Revenue.”

        Tin foil hat-ish? Perhaps. But I’ve long since stopped rejecting possibilities on that basis…too many things I once thought were beyond reasonable have come to pass.

        • Insurance companies have people who crunch numbers about death probablities as it pertains to profits and loses… Why would the G be any different?

        • If one looks closely, you’ll fine 3Branch incapable of finding their way out of a wet brown paper bag. Always late, claiming success not theirs or unmeasurable importance. Time & again, its the citizen & family who bares the cost of a loss.

        • I fully expect some bean-counters for the corporations have made those types of calculations.

  4. How come “ISIS” and the Department of Homeland Security both simultaneously announce a threat when the DHS budget is threatened? I think I see a connection.

    • Maybe you could hide behind the signs?

      Maybe you can throw the signs and give the shooter a wicked paper cut?

      Sorry…. that’s all I got.

      • There’s a law for you! All such signs must be at least 5 feet by 5 feet, 1/2 inch thick hardened steel, free standing and with multiple “panic buttons”.

  5. Maybe the idiots that put it up will reap the reward of a criminal they are inviting into their target rich environment. Just another place that clearly does not want my business.

  6. Good thing I stick with my areas malls that have no such restrictions and more than a few stores
    that post signs allowing firearms inside for legally permitted concealed carry holders.

  7. I’d like to know what is the thought process of the people who post these sings and pad themselves on the back thinking they’ve accomplished something. “Ah yes, the WE BAN GUNS sings have been posted, therefore no gun crime will ever happen here. These small warning labels will prevent any and all future attacks. Brilliant. Good job everybody!” Oh yeah, that’ll work.

    • They can’t really be that stupid. It’s gotta be some kind of liability thing, when the inevitable shooter shoots someone and the inevitable lawsuit follows, they say, “We did everything you could reasonably expect us to do”. I just can’t believe anyone short of a bona fide, medically-defined mental deficient seriously believes the sign will deter robbers and nut cases.

        • Not “all that we could”, rather “all that could reasonably be expected”. And from another perspective: Maybe they are figuring the chance of a lawful carrier, who would be deterred or, legally, should be deterred, by such a sign, having an accident and shooting someone, is greater than the chance of a crook or a crazy shooting someone, which arguably couldn’t be deterred anyway. At any rate, whatever the specific calculations, I’m sure it’s something like that rather than an actual belief that such a sign would really deter a robber, terrorist, or homicidal nut case.

        • State legislatures could remedy the liability issue if they wanted to. It is beyond me to justify making a private proprietor to prevent a NON-employee from carrying on his property. What would a proprietor have to do to demonstrate that he took reasonable precautions to prevent carry? Erect a metal detector at every entrance? How might this work at a mall? First, the mall would have to screen everyone entering the mall. Then, each store would have to do the same at each store in case someone slipped past the mall’s security.
          Employees are a different class. Employers could adopt and enforce rules on employees. I don’t think employers should be liable for misdeeds of their employees when acting in self-defense where defending themselves is not within the scope of their responsibilities.

        • @Another Robert: Exactly… Which means that the person or persons making the decision to post know full well that the sign won’t stop a criminal. They are posting only to deter law abiding people from being armed.

          Lawfully armed patrons, they only intend for the sign to stop you.

        • I’m a firm believer that if any property owner disarms people then that property owner ought to become liable for the reasonable safety of those individuals. If I would’ve likely been armed then the property owner has at least a moral obligation to reasonably protect me to that level.

  8. Take the time to let them know how we feel. Below is the comment I sent them.

    http://www.mallofamerica.com/about/contact
    Sirs,
    In light of recent online radical threats being made I would like to thank you for your heightened security posture. I would also like to ask that you reconsider your policy banning lawful permitted concealed weapon carriers from your premises. It is easy to say that you are concerned for the welfare of your patrons under the assumption that allowing permitted carriers would somehow be unsafe. But if you take the time to do some research, you will find that virtually without exception, all multiple victim shootings have occurred in gun free zones. The criminals, mentally unstable, and jihadists really don’t care much about your policy, other than to thank you for disarming everyone. You have an opportunity here to take the lead, to reevaluate your policy, and to stand up for what is right. The 14 million permitted weapons carriers in this country represent the group least likely to commit crimes; 10 times lower than the police themselves. I ask that you stand up for American freedom and the right to life of all your patrons.

      • Baby steps Tex, baby steps. Let’s not scare the sheeple too much. You Texans should be quite sensitive by now to the less than brilliant actions of a few open carry folk. Let’s git em’ to allow concealed and then back door them for open carry.

        • Sometimes that creates elephants instead of eating them. Once the pressures and mindset becomes concrete about privilege over rights, “concealed means concealed!” and “You’ll ruin it for the rest of us!”, usually exercise of the actual right is toast.

          I think some level of restraint is probably appropriate but if people are honestly concerned about a terrorist attack, a long gun slung over the back with a good sidearm, in the open or concealed, is probably more tactically sound. A handgun would be better than no firearm but a rifle would be better.

  9. If terrorists ever do attack the MoA, it wouldn’t surprise me if they snap a quick picture of themselves in front of that sign before they start their attack.

  10. I see no reason to shop there, but if I did, I’d be inclined to ignore the signs. Without metal detectors, I wouldn’t consider them to be serious in their anti-gun endeavors.

  11. The terrorists would be wise to stay away. A mall, especially that one, might be an awful place to die. However, unlikely, if ghost notions are true – that’d be a hellish place to spend eternity. Not worth the risk guys.

  12. The reason they put these signs up is to make the sheep who are buying all this overpriced crap think they are safe and the cash keeps flowing. Marketing, has nothing to do with safety.

  13. Problem: The sign is not big enough!!! The terrorists may walk past that tiny little sign without seeing it. Oh, and shouldn’t it be in multiple languages including Arabic? Seriously, what a stupid world we live in!!!!

  14. So, does Mall of America have such a prominent sign in front of every entrance? If a patron entered Macy’s or Sears, would there be a large sign facing patrons as they file out of Macy’s or Sears into the common area?

    • No, all entrances at MOA are not posted. Regardless, the landlord clause prohibits them from legally banning guns. From what I’ve heard, if you’re noticed carrying, you’ll be asked to leave. At that point, you need to leave, otherwise you’re trespassing. Signs in MN don’t have the force of law. You would have to be asked to leave and refuse in odr to get in minor legal trouble. (We have a very strong permit-to-carry law here) If you carry concealed, you’re fine. I don’t go there much, but the last time I carried my G19 and a spare G17 mag.

    • I was going to say the same thing but first I wanted to scroll through the comments. What better place to have an open carry demonstration than a place that has been named a target from terrorists and homeland fascists alike.
      Time for our freedom movement to get world wide coverage. This would be the perfect time and place. I am packed and ready to travel. Say when.
      After all, the DHS secretary said when visiting the mall, “be careful”. I don’t think he meant to watch for wet floors or overdraw your checking account. Carrying a Glock 19 with two backup mags and an AR 15 with four backup mags is how I would apply carefulness when defending myself against Islamic terrorists.

      • I heard that “be careful” shit and I was SCREAMING at the TV, the bride had to work to settle me down. “WTF does that MEAN? Be careful HOW?” Fox News “Outnumbered” this very morning had one of the ladies address exactly that, saying that rules prohibiting citizens from carrying firearms into the mall had to be dropped, otherwise what does “be careful” mean?

      • Hmm … interesting idea. That has a lot of appeal. It would be a huge opportunity to concretely demonstrate the tangible value of an armed citizenry.

        My only concern would be avoiding a “friendly fire” mistake during a terrorist attack: it could be hard to identify “friend or foe” during an attack if lots of people were armed. On the other hand it becomes pretty obvious pretty fast that the “foes” are the ones offensively shooting people — especially unarmed people.

  15. There are about 7 malls in the metro area where I live.
    There is only one mall that bans guns in its stores.
    In the parking lot of that mall is the greatest concentration of violence, including robberies in
    this metro area.
    I wonder why.

    • My wife and I walk the local malls for light exercise on the weekends. Both of us pack heat, and I won’t go without a full size pistol, reload, and BGU.

      Shady stuff goes down in malls and parking lots.

  16. Someone should put a sign next to it that reads “If you want to call this establishment the ‘Mall of America’, then you may want to pick up a history book and read up on a little document called the Constitution. Therein you would see a small amendment called the 2nd Amendment which states the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This natural civil right to be armed is the cornerstone of freedom in this country where you have the freedom to do your business. If you and any other misguided folks still wish to “ban” firearms in a counter-intuitive attempt to deter criminals (which it won’t — quite the opposite) and establish a target of opportunity for criminals and terrorists, that’s your prerogative. Again, free country. However, all that we (the law-abiding armed citizens of America) ask is don’t call this place the ‘Mall of America’, because that namesake and this sign are a travesty and an affront to the ideals by which this country was founded. Thank you.”

    • Or if you want to keep it short and sweet:

      “No. Because the US Constitution and the 2nd Amendment. Learn your history.”

  17. LOL @ people freaking out about “terrorists” when they are more likely to get shot by a cop.

    Anyone want to send MoA a letter telling them to ban armed government gangsters from their premises?

  18. So, MOA must have missed the part of the Kenyan massacre where 2 off duty cops and a CCW holder saved dozens of civilians as well as the CCW holder saving one of the police officers when he was shot. But, fvck you, because reasons.

  19. To hell with that sh!t. I’ll be juged by 12 long before I’m carried by 6. I would gladly go public if charged after the fact for protection of person and property.

  20. Seems like an opportune time to draw attention to http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/exclusive-westgate-interpol-chief-ponders-armed-citizenry/story?id=20637341

    Interpol Secretary General Ronald Noble said the democratic world is at a security crossroads after the al-Shabab attack at a shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya – and suggested an answer could be in arming civilians.

    Noble said there are really only two choices for protecting open societies from attacks like the one on Westgate mall where so-called “soft targets” are hit: either create secure perimeters around the locations or allow civilians to carry their own guns to protect themselves.

    “Ask yourself: If that was Denver, Col., if that was Texas, would those guys have been able to spend hours, days, shooting people randomly?”

  21. Isn’t this the perfect chance to offer the terrorists those job opportunities our State Dept. insists they’re longing for? Just put an application kiosk at every entrance. Problem solved.

    Allahu Akb… Oooh, look, they’re taking applications! I’ve always wanted to work at The Buckle! You go ahead, Abdullah, I’m going to take advantage of this opportunity to make my life really mean something.

  22. If I were a concealed-carrying Minnesotan and I saw that sign, I’d probably laugh and ignore it outright. Signs like that in Texas come with a slew of requirements regarding their size, font type, where in an establishment they’re displayed, etc. Get any of those wrong and they aren’t enforceable by law. I know it’s a different state, but my point is that they at least look official while this is nothing but an MS-Word print-up. But who am I kidding? In the minds of the folks running the Mall of America, ten robbers armed with AKMs, Tec-9s, and a couple of RPGs waltzing through their doors would see this sign and then immediately depart with dejected looks on their faces while saying, “Awwww sh!t guys, looks like they beat us to it!”

  23. Somewhere on the U.S. borders should be this sign.

    In accordance with United States Federal Law.

    There shall be no criminal acts or conduct enacted by any person on this land or anywhere the United States has interest.

    Let’s see how that sign would work out.

    • Speaking of signs that don’t cover all the bases, go to a High School gymnasium and read the sign that says: No Drugs
      No Weapons
      Now when I was in High School the sign on the gym door read:
      No Gum
      No Street Shoes Allowed On Gym Floor
      Remember the Sock Hops? My how times have changed.

  24. They should also post a sign that says:

    In accordance with
    Minnesota law,
    MALL OF AMERICA
    BANS RAPE, ROBBERY,
    ASSAULT & MURDER
    IN THESE PREMISES.

    It’ll do just as much good.

  25. Malls are so 80’s and 90’s.

    No need to go to victim zones when I can get everything I want online nor am I interested in the materialist BS that is sold at malls these days.

    • Gotta love the header that reads “Safe, Safe, Very Safe as a picture of a woman points the gun in the air turning her back on the range while displaying what could possibly be the worst grip on a revolver I have ever seen.

Leave a Reply

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