(MN) Gun owner tests megamall policy

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Drizzt

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
2,647
Location
Moscow on the Colorado, TX
Gun owner tests megamall policy

Bruce Krafft went to the Mall of America on Wednesday shopping for a little attention.

He got what he bargained for.

Just after noon, the 41-year-old Maplewood man walked into the megamall with a 9mm semiautomatic pistol tucked into a shoulder holster, both in plain view. Customers and shopkeepers at the mall began phoning police about the man; the mall bans guns and posted signs after the state passed a law in May making it easier for Minnesotans to carry a handgun in public.

Krafft was handcuffed and taken to the Bloomington police's substation in the mall. He was released after authorities verified he had a gun permit, and mall officials instructed him not to return with a gun, said Sgt. Jeff Schwiesow.

Krafft was not cited, something authorities have the discretion to do. But Krafft said he wasn't violating the law. He maintains that the signs posted at the mall do not conform to the 2-month-old law, and that landlords like the mall don't have a right to forbid guns on the premises. Mall officials said the posting conforms with the law.

Krafft, who obtained his new permit after the state passed the more liberal handgun law, said he has used the same tactic at other locations and will likely do so again in the name of exercising his right to carry a gun.

http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/news/local/6369776.htm
 
what do you think? Is he going to cause more problems or get them to follow the law?
 
Antics like that are what will get the law revised with more severe limitations, or worse yet, repealed.
I just don't see what these idiots are trying to prove, it's legal, so lets push it to the limit?
I have been doing NRA courses for carry permits in S. Minnesota and do not get the feeling from any of my students that they would pull such crap just because they can.
I really see doom and gloom on the horizon with this new law if a few dirt bags keep pulling these stunts.
 
Uncalled for. We already got what we asked for in MN. A reasonable method of obtaining a CCW permit. This is drawing attention to an issue that is, untill next years legislative session, resolved.

I 'test the law' at the Mall about once evey other day. I CCW (concealed) at the Mall of America. In MN, to be breaking the law, you must be personally ASKED to leave the premisis before you can be cited. And, even if you are cited, its a petty mis. with a $25 fine.

Diesle
 
Last edited:
From : http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/936743/posts (orig. St. Paul Pionier Press) Dated 6-27-2003

You team this up with this guys other schtick and you get a great liberal whipping boy. he is clearly stating that he intends to break, or at the very least stretch the law as a rule.

BTW, you can email Bruce at [email protected]

_________________________________________________________

Bruce Krafft, of Maplewood, showed up at the Ramsey County's Sheriff's Department on May 28, the day the law took effect, to apply for his permit. He should learn his fate as soon as today.

"I wouldn't say I'm excited, but I am looking forward to exercising my constitutional right" to bear arms, Krafft said when asked about the prospects of obtaining a permit.

In fact, he has been rehearsing for this day.

"I've got a holster, I've been wearing it around the house for the last month or so, making sure that it's comfortable, that it fits, that my gun doesn't fall out," Krafft said.

He owns several handguns but will likely sport a 9 mm semiautomatic called a Baby Eagle made by Magnum Research.

"Basically, I'll be wearing it everywhere I go, unless I'm going out with the intention to get drunk, at which point I'll arrange for a designated driver and I'll arrange to leave my gun somewhere else."
 
Last edited:
Well, I will see what kind of e-mail response I get from Mr. Krafft, because I wasn't exactly polite in my e-mail to him on this topic.
 
From the sound of it, they haven't seen too many law-abiding American citizens openly keeping and bearing arms.
Click to expand...
Well, I'm not an expert on MN carry laws, there is a decent possibility that they didn't see one that day, either.

Mike
 
Well, he responded, and much kinder than the e-mail that I sent to him.
________________________________________________________________________________

"Get arrested, so that a court will be forced to read the plain language
of the bill and tell the Mega-Sprawl (and all the other maills in the
state) that they can't ignore the law. Then sue the sh*t out of the
Mega-Mall and the city of Bloomington for violating my civil rights
(the MPAA does, after all, recognize the 2nd Amendment, which would
make their actions a classic rights violation) then take that money and
use it as seed money to start nuisance lawsuits in every jurisdiction
in the state that is trying to say that they don't have to listen to
what the Legislature says, they can ban guns in their
courthouse/parks/libraries etc.. Plus, if it hasn't gotten to the
court yet, support the Silveira v. Lockyer case, which is awaiting cert
from the Supreme Court, because THAT is the case that I want the
Supremes to hear (a bunch of guys who play rugby who are suing CA AG
Lockyer for the CA AWB) instead of some crackhead crying that his 2nd
Amendment rights were violated."

Any other questions?

Peace,

Bruce

"Thank-you for having the courtesy to sign your letter. The other two
incoherent rants I got signed themselves MPLS permit holder and Gun
oner (and no, I didn't mispell his signature)."
________________________________________________________________________________

I still don't agree with his method.
 
Thanks for posting that... I sent him a note too and he hasnt responded.

Sounds like his heart is in the right place. Too bad he has to be a public nousance to stake his claim. I dont think its very good PR.


Diesle
 
IT sounds like verythign went the way it should have. He didnt get into legal trouble and the mall used their discression as property owners to not allow someone on their property who chose to ignore their wishes. Sounds fine to me. If he does it again he is at the very least tresspasing.
 
I dont see what the big deal is. This guy has every right in the world to walk into ANY mall while packing. I dont care who gets upset over the sight of a firearm, they had better get used to it. A lot of people "talk the talk" but when someone actually "walks the walk" everyone gets on his case. What part of "shall not be infringed" dont you understand?
 
From what I've read, the hysteria over this law is far greater in Minnesota than it has been for other states passing shall-issue laws. This guy is not helping the cause by being in-your-face. Best thing for the folks there to do , IMO, is to lay low, let a year go by where there are no shootouts over parking spaces, no one killed for taking the last can of peaches in the supermarket, etc.

UNLESS of course, the leftists get some sort of legislation introduced to repeal shall-issue. Then the gloves are off.

I also think if this guy keeps doing this eventually he's not just going to be let go, and is going to be charged with a lot of things.
 
I've read somewhere that rights are like muscles; if they're not exercised, they atrophy.

Why is it that we're afraid of "hurthing the antis' feelings"? Are we afraid of having our rights taken away by Elmer? I've got news for you. Elmer cannot take away your rights. You have them; they are yours. They are protected by the Constitution. The more we live our lives in accordance with lesser laws that, according to Marbury vs. Madison, 1803, are null and void if repugnant to the Constitution, the more we send a message that the real issue is about peoples' perceptions rather than an indesputable fact of rights.

I give this guy credit for having the balls to live his life in accordance with the highest law of our land. I think this is what Patrick Henry meant when he said, "Give me liberty or give me death."

I highly recommend Jeff Snyder's book, "Nation of Cowards", which does a great job of getting below the symptoms to the roots of this issue.

Minuteman
 
There is a difference between exercising your rights and flaunting your rights and this guy is flaunting. This is a very new and touchy subject in Minnesota, and we should maybe practice to walk softly, and carry a big stick, instead of slapping people in the face with the change in the law. I am sick of all of this blow that is a right, yes it is in my view, but we have to work the system to keep the few rights we still have. Many a war has been won with good strategy, or lost with a show of power.
 
Last edited:
Minuteman is absolutely correct.

I wish more gun owners had the fire and guts that Krafft is demonstrating. If they did, we wouldn't be in the pickle we are now.

pax

If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. --Samuel Adams
 
Fire and guts in a state like Arizona or Virginia is one thing, the public supports RKBA there. Fire and guts in a state that elects people like Paul Wellstone who believe that there is no reason to keep and bear arms whatsoever is likely to get people's rights burnt and gutted by the judiciary, who will invariably side with the will of the people.
I'd wager that given the record of Minnesota's elections, a vast number of it's current citizens don't believe in the RKBA, with possible exceptions for hunting only.
The "right" only exists now in codified law due to the activism of a vocal minority. That applies to most states with CCW laws. Check the numbers of CCW permit holders vs. total population. I believe they uphold my statements.
 
Poodleshooter,

It sure sounds to me as if you are saying that activism only works in places you don't need activism.

Interestingly, these are all the same arguments the civil-rights people had back in the 60's. Rosa Parks should have realized that her activism would only have worked somewhere besides the deep south. </slight sarcasm>

I dunno. I do know that it's pathetic that we are only willing to articulate that bearing arms is a RIGHT as long as we are surrounded by people who already agree with us.

If they are only "sheeple," why are we so afraid of their teeth?

pax

Mourn not the dead that in the cool earth lie,
but rather mourn the apathetic throng
the coward and the meek
who see the world's great anguish and its wrong,
and dare not speak.
-- Ralph Chaplin
 
Interestingly, these are all the same arguments the civil-rights people had back in the 60's. Rosa Parks should have realized that her activism would only have worked somewhere besides the deep south. </slight sarcasm>
Click to expand...
Civil rights had to be implemented at a federal level. The majority of the individuals in states it affected were not in favor of it at the time. It succeeded because the rest of the United States outside of the deep south wanted it to succeed, and because the Supreme Court at the time was in favor of it.
I dunno. I do know that it's pathetic that we are only willing to articulate that bearing arms is a RIGHT as long as we are surrounded by people who already agree with us.
Click to expand...
If all of the United States was agreed that the RKBA was a right that should not be infringed, and somehow thought the citizens of Minnesota to be backward fascists for their anti-2nd amendment beliefs, I would agree that this kind of activism stood a chance.
As a matter of practicality, a right may exist theoretically, but only the freedom to practice it without it being infringed upon matters.
If they are only "sheeple," why are we so afraid of their teeth?
Click to expand...
They're not "only sheeple". They're voters who can become quite angry and motivated if stirred by fear and who are willing to trample any right if they feel that their safety is infringed upon (examples of this principle in action include: all automobile safety laws, fireworks laws,gun laws et.al.)
Push them, and they will respond by trampling our rights.
I believe that the way to change people, is to change their beliefs one person at a time. Proper marketing of our cause is needed, not tomfoolery that pisses off Joe and Jane Minnesotan.
 
I know that this probably have been beaten to death, but...

Where do our rights as gun owners let up and the rights of property owners pick up? The Mega-Mall is a private enterprise. Yes, it is open and free for use by the public, but it is still private property. Do you not reserve the right to regulate what you want going on in your house or business?

I applaud what Kraft pulled on one hand. On the other I question his abuse of the same right IF the mall doesn't want fire arms within thier walls, so be it. Then I would simply go shop somewhere else. There are always alternatives. Voting with your wallet always works. As several business here in Tucson learned that went "gun free".

In closing, when someone takes an extreme action, without an alternative plan for the politicians to save face, those politicians usually hit back hard. So, if his behavior forces a debat on the gun vrs mall issue, the result may very well be even more oppressive ordinances.

I do wish him luck.
 
Lets fight for our rights... but lets do it smart.

Diesle

Edited out of respect...
 
Last edited:
Carrying at the Mall of America

My version of the story can be seen at https://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=2795

In brief, this was not civil disobedience, this was trying to raise the awareness that, under the new MN law, malls are not allowed to ban firearms. The specific section of the law reads “A landlord may not restrict the lawful carry or possession of firearms by tenants or their guests.â€

I was not trying to push anything to its limit, I was trying to get arrested so that the court would rule that the plain language of the law means exactly what it says.

By the way, a letter that I wrote for the papers got published today, you can find it at http://www.startribune.com/stories/563/4006155.html

Basically, this is a civil rights issue, and we should be treating it as such.

However, my Safety Course instructor has convinced me that we need to lay low for a little while, and I am willing to defer to his judgement on the timing issue.

Peace,

Bruce
 
However, my Safety Course instructor has convinced me...
Click to expand...


I had a feeling you'd find your way out here... Welcome.

Why does he feel that way?

Also, cant the Mall Commons be considered its own business entitiy and therfore elligable to post?


Diesle
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
Activists' focus is undoing work of last session. (Repeal CCW laws, for one)
Replies
5
Views
728
Andrew Rothman
A
P
  • Locked
(MN) MABS can claim huge numbers; repeal effort can't
Replies
6
Views
820
cobb
C
Q
  • Locked
Ohio - Elyria's Midway Mall Removes "No Guns" Signs
Replies
14
Views
1K
qlajlu
Q
J
  • Locked
Minnesota based Target will continue to allow CCW
Replies
7
Views
647
dandean316
D
H
  • Locked
MN: Security guard can't get permit to carry
Replies
9
Views
901
ckyllo
C
Back
Top