With terrorist threats, the Mall of America is another gun-free zone

22 Feb , 2015  


The news is filled with a new Somali terror group threat against the Mall of America.  With a large number of Somalis living in the twin city area, this threat carries real significance.  Indeed, all three targets listed by the terrorists are gun-free zones.  Does anyone really believe that the terrorists will see the above sign and thus decide not to take their guns inside.

. . .According to Fox 9, the mall is one of three similar targets the terror group specifically names, including West Edmonton Mall in Canada and the Oxford Street shopping area in London.

The video purportedly shows 6 minutes of graphic images and the terrorists celebrating the 2013 Westgate Mall attack in Nairobi, Kenya, that killed more than 60 people.

The narrator, his face wrapped in a black-and-white kaffiyeh-type scarf and wearing a camouflage jacket, spoke with a British accent and appeared to be of Somali origin. He accused Kenyan troops in Somalia of committing abuses against Somali Muslims. . . .

A long list of mall shootings that had posted gun-free zone signs is available here.Note that all the mass public shootings at malls where at least four people have been killed that took place at a mall that banned permitted concealed handguns.



13 Responses

  1. ezkl2230 says:

    When the sign say, “in accordance with MN law…,” does that mean MN law bans carry at malls, or that MN law allows malls to declare themselves “gun free”?

  2. MPLS resident. says:

    The Lutheran do-gooders are responsible for flooding the Twin Cities with economic refugees from NE Africa. Apparently giving Muslims the best welfare in America and jobs as well, doesn’t stop ISIS recruiting or threats. Pres. Obama should fake note.

  3. I teach Permit to Carry courses in Minnesota. This signage at the Mall of America carries no legal weight. Minnesota law prohibits a landlord from interfering with the carrying of firearms under MN statute 624.714 by tenants or their guests. The sign is simply a ruse by the Mall of America to try and lawful firearm carriers from exercising their rights.

  4. johnrlott says:

    Thanks, Crucible Arms. The posting law in Minnesota is very complicated and doesn’t literally follow the posting rules. But that said, my guess is that the rules were followed closely enough that a lot permit holders, if not almost all, will obey the rules. The size of the sign must be 11 x 17, black ariel typeface 1.5″ high, on bright contrasting background, readily visible w/in 4-6 feet above ground, w/in 4 feet of EVERY enterance, and contain the words “(tenent) BANS GUNS IN THESE PREMISES. 624.714, subd. 17(b). A landlord, the Mall, cannot post against a tenent or it’s guests. Subd. 17(e). They appear to have changed the language but, I am told, still miss the font, font size, and overall size reguirements. Also, not all enterances are posted. If any enterance is not properly posted, the “posting” is non compliant in it’s entirety. Subd. 17(b)(1).

  5. armedgopher says:

    If you don’t know what the Westgate Mall terrorist attack in Nairobi Kenya is, you might want to educate yourself. The Somali islamo-terrorist group al-Shabaab that perpetrated the attack (60 dead, scores wounded) is the SAME GROUP that is threatening the Minnesota Mall of America now. There is a sobering documentary about the Westgate attack available at HBO On Demand or HBO Go. As an aside, the official government response was uncoordinated and ultimately ineffective. Dozens of people were saved by the actions of an off duty police officer and a handful of lawfully armed citizens


  6. […] to research from the Crime Prevention Research Center, all the mass public shootings at malls where at least […]

  7. […] through the Mideast and threatening to attack the Mall of America (not to worry, it’s a gun-free zone, at least for now), smug in the knowledge that low-information voters will blame Republicans […]

  8. Matt says:

    A landlord cannot prohibit carry by tenants or their guests, but my guess is that a court would construe this to mean within the premises rented by the tenant. With respect to common areas of the mall, the mall owners likely are not landlords; those areas likely remain under the direct control of the mall itself. So I would guess that the mall could in fact enforce its prohibition in many areas of the premises. I can find no evidence of a Minnesota court having decided this question, but the argument is at least a colorable one, and I’m certain Mall of America can afford competent counsel. Laws are seldom perfect.

  9. gjohn says:

    If the no gun signs doesn’t carry the weight of the law in Minn,then MOA is not a gun free zone.Just CC and keep on keeping on.

  10. Ross Bonny says:

    If Mall of the Americas is attempting to make the mall a gun-free zone by posting false signs, I would not shop there since the only people who will be gun-free are law-abiding, licensed to carry citizens. That just makes the mall a safer environment for terrorists or other attackers. Hasn’t this been obvious from all the school and mall shootings recently? The people who make these stupid decisions based on what evidence? should educate and inform themselves about what gun-free zones actually do.

  11. Matt says:

    Unless state law explicitly *prohibits* a private property owner from banning carry on his premises (I can’t immediatrly think of a state that does so, and I am skeptical that there are any), such restrictions generally are enforceable under state criminal trespass laws. Guests who ignore no-carry signs take a real risk. I much perfer to take my business elsewhere.

  12. […] to research from the Crime Prevention Research Center, all the mass public shootings at malls where at least […]

Leave a Reply

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