Index  •  FAQ  •  Search  

It is currently Wed Jan 19, 2022 5:44 pm

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 45 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
 Hutchinson Mall in Hutchinson, MN 
Author Message
 Post subject: Hutchinson Mall in Hutchinson, MN
PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 7:49 pm 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 4:34 pm
Posts: 216
Location: Hutchinson, MN
I have delivered the following letter to the Hutchinson Mall manager and am awaiting the response of there corperate office.

Dear Ms. Forcier,

Your immediate attention is required on this matter to insure the Hutchinson Mall becomes compliant with Minnesota State law. This letter is being sent to you regarding signs banning guns that are posted at the entrances to the Hutchinson Mall in Hutchinson, MN which houses Hennen's, JC Penny, Jo-Ann Fabric, Maurice’s, Radio Shack, and others.

The signs in question (see picture attached) which say “Minnesota Statute Bans Guns on these Premises” (hereinafter referred to as “the signs”) are not in compliance with MN State Statute 624.714, Sub 17, (e ) which states:

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

The posting of these sign(s) places the Hutchinson Mall in non-compliance of Minnesota Statute 624.714, Sub 17, (e) by restricting Mall patrons from carrying firearms while in the Mall common areas and also restricts Tenants and their patrons from carrying firearms to and from their place of business. The sign measuring 17” X 22” is posted on the main front entrance of the Hutchinson Mall and four other entrances to the Hutchinson Mall building and is done in black text and graphics on a white background.

The signs in question also do not have the correct verbiage printed on them which also makes them not compliant under MN Statute 624.714, Sub 17, (i) which states:

(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."

Because the Hutchinson Mall is a public shopping center and the shopping center itself is the Landlord of the Tenants operating business within, signs of this nature cannot be posted at the entrances of the Hutchinson Mall or in the common areas of any of the Hutchinson Mall owned and/or operated buildings or properties. Only the Tenants of the shopping center have the right to post their private business, not the shopping mall itself.

The signs banning guns that are posted at the Hutchinson Mall must be taken down immediately. If there are other signs banning guns on other entrances not listed in this request you must remove these signs as well for the same reasons of law listed above. Because the sign is not in compliance with MN Statute 624.714 it is also not enforceable by local, county, or state law enforcement agencies and citizens who possess a Minnesota Permit to Carry a Pistol shall not be prosecuted for not acknowledging the sign.

I have discussed the topic of the improperly posted signs with McLeod County Sheriff Wayne Vinkemeier and Hutchinson Police Chief Dan Hatten and Chief Hatten indicated he would send a Sergeant to discuss the improper sign posting with you personally. Sheriff Vinkemeir is also aware that the posting of signs banning guns on shopping mall entrances and common areas is not permissible under Minnesota State Law.

I have been advised by my attorney, who is well versed in MN 624.714, on this issue and he has indicated that the Hutchinson Mall needs to comply with MN Statute 624.714 or they could be subject to suit and that I should also notify Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch and SAC Jeff Luther of the BCA of the improper sign posting if we can’t resolve this problem in a timely manner.

It has now been more than eight weeks since I made my initial request to Chief Dan Hatten of the Hutchinson Police Department to inform you that the signs need to be removed so your attention to this matter should be most definitely urgent. If you have any questions of me regarding this request please contact me at the numbers or email address below. I want to thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Jerry & Tina Durbin
Durbin’s Defensive Handgun Training
(612) 703-1472 days
(320) 328-5240 evenings
durbin@LL.net

_________________
JD
DDHT

Occam's Razor:
one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.
Visit us at www.ddht.us


Last edited by durbin6 on Fri Oct 07, 2005 12:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 8:11 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2005 5:40 am
Posts: 3752
Location: East Suburbs
Great letter!

Very professional and to the point. :)

_________________
Srigs

Side Guard Holsters
"If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking" - George S. Patton


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 9:03 pm 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 4:34 pm
Posts: 216
Location: Hutchinson, MN
Thanks, my legaleese is getting better :)

_________________
JD
DDHT

Occam's Razor:
one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.
Visit us at www.ddht.us


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 7:35 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 4:00 am
Posts: 1094
Location: Duluth
What is the purpose of asking for names? I'm no expert on corporate law but I'm not sure that there is any reason for that request unless a suit is filed. If I were to recieve a letter with that request I would certainly take a defensive stand and would consult council.

I am impressed with the rest of the letter but I would not respond to the name request unless forced to do so by law. If I were hesitent to respond to part of the letter I would probably not respond possitively to the rest of it. Just my opinion.

_________________
"I wish it to be remembered that I was the last man of my tribe to surrender my rifle" Sitting Bull


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 7:53 am 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 4:34 pm
Posts: 216
Location: Hutchinson, MN
gunflint wrote:
What is the purpose of asking for names? I'm no expert on corporate law but I'm not sure that there is any reason for that request unless a suit is filed. If I were to recieve a letter with that request I would certainly take a defensive stand and would consult council.

I am impressed with the rest of the letter but I would not respond to the name request unless forced to do so by law. If I were hesitent to respond to part of the letter I would probably not respond possitively to the rest of it. Just my opinion.


I request the names of the persons responsible for posting the signs so if they choose not to comply with my request then another letter will be mailed off to Mike Hatch's office and Jeff Luthers office and Commissioner Campion's office and they will be named as the persons responsible for the psoting of the signs. Also, if a suit is actually filed against them I need their names.

This worked great when I went after McLeod County but they have to provide information on County procedures and meetings because it's public information, a shopping center is a privately owned business so I don't actually think they will give me any names unless a lawyer tells them they have too. I actually want them to take a defensive stand. My goal is to try to shake them up enough to get a lawyer to read the statute for them and tell them they are not in compiance and to take the signs down. It might work, it might not. I figure it's worth a try, afterall the county Sheriff and the City Police Chief already agree with me so thats got to carry some weight.

_________________
JD
DDHT

Occam's Razor:
one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.
Visit us at www.ddht.us


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 8:09 am 
Forum Moderator/<br>AV Geek
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 11:56 am
Posts: 2422
Location: Hopkins, MN
Yea, great letter. It does get a little intense towards the end there... Seems like you merged a first notice letter (nice) and a second notice letter (more force).

_________________
Minnesota Permit to Carry Instructor; Utah Certified CFP Instructor


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Yup
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 8:12 am 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 4:34 pm
Posts: 216
Location: Hutchinson, MN
Pakrat wrote:
Yea, great letter. It does get a little intense towards the end there... Seems like you merged a first notice letter (nice) and a second notice letter (more force).


No second notice, straight to the offices listed if they don't comply. I think just like State Parks, we need an official ruling on this. It's written very straight forward in the law.

_________________
JD
DDHT

Occam's Razor:
one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.
Visit us at www.ddht.us


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 11:48 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:24 am
Posts: 6767
Location: Twin Cities
Jerry, you really need to cut this part:

Quote:
I am formally requesting all information and documentation (in writing) that you have including agenda(s) for meetings discussing the posting of the signs, meeting(s) minutes discussing the posting of the sign, and the names of the persons who were involved in the decision making process regarding the posting of the signs and any other documentation regarding the posting of the signs that you can provide me with. Please send all requested information to me by certified mail to the address below in the closing of this letter.


That's something you can legally demand of a government agency, but not of a private business.

Demanding something that they know darn well they can refuse weakens your letter. Skip it. The rest of the letter is stronger without it.

_________________
* NRA, UT, MADFI certified Minnesota Permit to Carry instructor, and one of 66,513 law-abiding permit holders. Read my blog.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 12:05 pm 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 4:34 pm
Posts: 216
Location: Hutchinson, MN
Andrew Rothman wrote:
Jerry, you really need to cut this part:


That's something you can legally demand of a government agency, but not of a private business.

Demanding something that they know darn well they can refuse weakens your letter. Skip it. The rest of the letter is stronger without it.


Thanks for the input Andrew, Point taken. I have ammended the letter. There isn't really anything wrong with ASKING politely for that information but the way my letter is written it sounds more like I am demanding it.

_________________
JD
DDHT

Occam's Razor:
one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.
Visit us at www.ddht.us


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 4:00 pm 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 4:42 pm
Posts: 270
Location: Waconia,Mn.
Maybe it's just me, but couldn't this result in the mall lobbying their tenants to legally post,resulting in a negative outcome? It seems to me another option would be to disregard the incorrect posting and go about my business.I know there are places that post incorrectly to try to play both sides of the issue,ie: placate the gun banners,and trust that the permit holders[who have had training and are supposed to know what constitutes a legal posting]will ignore the signs.I just don't see the upside in going to battle with a mall over an incorrect posting.

_________________
David ,Molon Labe!
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." --Col. Jeff Cooper


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 4:05 pm 
Forum Moderator/<br>AV Geek
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 11:56 am
Posts: 2422
Location: Hopkins, MN
Certainly a possibility. Maybe that's why I point out when a letter is harsh.

_________________
Minnesota Permit to Carry Instructor; Utah Certified CFP Instructor


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 4:28 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 8:37 am
Posts: 935
Location: Victoria
dcwn.45 wrote:
disregard the incorrect posting and go about my business.I know there are places that post incorrectly to try to play both sides of the issue .I just don't see the upside in going to battle with a mall over an incorrect posting.


Ok, so we quietly go about our business with our collective tail between our legs.
Let’s not make any “noise” or someone might get upset. Don’t tell anyone. Just follow the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

Tell me exactly, what good does that do for our cause?

Come on, give me a break. The only we (actually other people) got the law passed in the first place is by making a LOT of noise.

I think confronting (pleasantly) establishments that try to have it both ways is a good thing. They might actually find out that we are a large group of law-abiding consumers that they might want spending money in their establishments. It gives each one of us an opportunity to educate these owners/managers/owners, etc. We can educate them that that telling honest, law-abiding customers that they are not welcome, has some adverse consequences for them. Besides Malls are not allowed to post.

Since Handgun Control has a package that they give to retailers telling then the advantage of posting, How about we take up a collection and create one ourselves that show the reasonableness of our position?

Lets do something!

_________________
"To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 4:43 pm 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 4:42 pm
Posts: 270
Location: Waconia,Mn.
I guess I should have gone into more detail.When I have wanted to do business in an establishment that is posted,I ask to see the manager,and give them a no guns=no money card,the ones that say on the back:permit holders pass background checks have training,blah blah,what do you know about your other customers? Then I ask them if they think a sign will keep out a person who has already decided to commit a crime,and maybe they have it backwards.I commend those who have the time and energy to fight the battles,but make sure we don'end up worse off than we started,ie:with alegal posting.

_________________
David ,Molon Labe!
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." --Col. Jeff Cooper


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 7:40 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 4:00 am
Posts: 1094
Location: Duluth
I think that there are valid points on both sides of the issue. That being said I believe that to allow the businesses to post anti gun signs that are not legal keeps the issue in the forefront. Requireing these landlords to follow the law may initialy be uncomfortable but what better way to fold 2nd amendment rights into the mainstream then to remove as many signs as possible, legal or not?

_________________
"I wish it to be remembered that I was the last man of my tribe to surrender my rifle" Sitting Bull


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:39 am 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 4:34 pm
Posts: 216
Location: Hutchinson, MN
gunflint wrote:
I think that there are valid points on both sides of the issue. That being said I believe that to allow the businesses to post anti gun signs that are not legal keeps the issue in the forefront. Requireing these landlords to follow the law may initialy be uncomfortable but what better way to fold 2nd amendment rights into the mainstream then to remove as many signs as possible, legal or not?


We as permit holders have to abide by the law or we get are permits taken away or even go to jail in some cases. Those that oppose MPPA have to abide by the law as well, the problem is there is no defined penalties for them. By posting signs that are not in compliance with the law they are limiting our rights as permit holders and the rights of the business owners that may be permit holders and the also the rights of their patrons.

_________________
JD
DDHT

Occam's Razor:
one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.
Visit us at www.ddht.us


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 45 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours


 Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron


 
Index  |  FAQ  |  Search

phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group