Article: MALL REACTS TO TERROR THREAT BY DEMANDING SHOPPERS REMAIN UNARMED

Do these dipshits consider the correlation that CRIMINALS choose these places as targets because they can rest assured that no one will be armed to stop them?

And people are still going to the mall? unarmed? Such tragic, epic idiocy!
 
It's better than I thought - according the Minnesota Bar, the binding nature of the sign (and the potential $25 fine) does not come into effect until one is personally notified:

1) have a conspicuous sign posted at every entrance to the establishment that states, "[name of the company] bans guns in these premises." The sign(s) must be in black Arial typeface at lease 11/2 inches in height against a bright contrasting background that is at least 187 square inches in area (which translates to an 11x17 sign). The sign(s) must be readily visible and within four feet laterally of each entrance with the bottom of each sign at a height of four to six feet above the floor;

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]and

[/FONT]

2) personally inform the person of the posted request and demand his or her compliance.
 
this is right out of brave new world. We're literally living in a huxley novel. I refuse to live in the fantasy world they're fabricating or trying to protect.

But obviously, it exists, and people are living in it. Otherwise, they'd just tell the truth.
 
Last edited:
I have no idea why people think this is a good idea. I guess they don't want Law Abiding American Citizens defending themselves against murderous terrorist in The Mall of America.

I guess two things I would suggest is that people no longer shop there and that the mall ownership group change the name of the mall to The Mall of Sheep.
 
I have no idea why people think this is a good idea. I guess they don't want Law Abiding American Citizens defending themselves against murderous terrorist in The Mall of America.

I guess two things I would suggest is that people no longer shop there and that the mall ownership group change the name of the mall to The Mall of Sheep.

I'm actually kinda surprised they still are:
http://www.businessinsider.com/shopping-malls-in-crisis-2015-1
 
As if I needed another reason to stay away from a mall. Don't really GAF about the threat of terrorism, care more about having to disarm.
 
MOA issued this reminder in response to a citizen named Sarah, who reacted to al-Shabaab’s threat by suggesting shoppers should “bust out the concealed carry permits” and go about their day as usual.

And in response to MOA, I'd attach the clip from Suzanna Hupp, the woman from the Luby's shooting in Texas, that had left her handgun in the car to comply with Texas state law. 23 people died due to a mad man, including her parents, and she was left wishing she had ignored the law.
 
I last attempted shopping in a mall in 2006. I was looking for something specific - a braided rug - and not exercising my better judgment that day, tried the mall.

I didn't find a rug (which I ultimately bought online). I did see people... most of whom were on promenade and not buying anything.

(I've been back to that mall exactly once since: to visit the BoA branch there for what was the first futile attempt to get put on as an organization's signer - see the BoA thread for details.)
 
"MOA reminded shoppers that law-abiding citizens with concealed carry handgun permits are barred from carrying guns on their premises for self-defense" while armed terrorists might face a $25 fine after they unload a few mags.
 
I'll assume the actual board of directors doesn't spend any time in there.
If they were made to , you bet your ass there would be someone with a gun every ten feet.
 
As if I needed another reason to stay away from a mall. Don't really GAF about the threat of terrorism, care more about having to disarm.

Unless they put up checkpoints or something there is no "having to disarm". At all. I ignore stupid ****ing signs, binding or not. Unless there's a metal detector or a felony beyond it, its meaningless to me.

-Mike
 
Just the way they like it. Herds of sheep lined up for the slaughter. Then once the carnage is over, the blame will go directly to the evil guns not the "those who cannot be named by race, religion, or group afiliation". And the event will be heavily politicized, and the March will continue towards the "give up some of your freedom for our guaranteed security". we are so screwed as a society.
 
Just the way they like it. Herds of sheep lined up for the slaughter. Then once the carnage is over, the blame will go directly to the evil guns not the "those who cannot be named by race, religion, or group afiliation". And the event will be heavily politicized, and the March will continue towards the "give up some of your freedom for our guaranteed security". we are so screwed as a society.

Exactly what I was thinking.
 
Lawyers at work, guaranteed. Say some terrorists shoot the place up. Nobody is going to win a civil suit against the mall because they were told they couldn't carry. A suit against the mall for improper security might have a chance, but that chance isn't mitigated by allowing customers to carry. A suit against the mall for "allowing" carry by someone hit by return fire from a concealed carry customer is a much better bet.
 
A suit against the mall for "allowing" carry by someone hit by return fire from a concealed carry customer is a much better bet.
Especially with all the experts who would crawl out of the woodwork to testify that the prevailing mall standard is "helpless is safest". With "on the job carry" it's even worse, because of the implied obligation to maintain training for all the staff.
 
Back
Top Bottom