Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Simon Property Group puts you in danger (LONG)

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    36

    Post imported post

    Below is a letter to David Simon, CEO of Simon Property Group, regarding my recent experience carrying in a mall in Charlotte, NC. Copies also sent to the mall manager, CEOs and managers of the stores mentioned.

    Thoughts and opinions are welcome. Bottom-line: I can't wait to get my CCW !!

    ========

    Dear Mr. Simon:

    I am writing to let you know of an event that occurred yesterday, July 11, 2008, at one of your properties (Southpark Mall in Charlotte, NC) during which I was approached by two security guards while in Frontgate and “asked” to leave the mall.

    This letter is to explain to you the events that occurred, but more importantly to illustrate that, regardless of why they approached me, your associates erred in their enforcement of mall policies, essentially making the rules up as they saw fit. My intent here is not to argue mall policy, but to present a case where perhaps better communication or training is needed so as to improve the customer’s experience and safety while at your properties. Or, as is my case as of today, to inform a potential customer that they would be better suited to spend their money elsewhere based on such policies.

    My wife and I have been loyal customers of Southpark for over fifteen years, and were excited to find “that special gown” for her to wear to an upcoming wedding. Our plan was to visit several stores, including Nordstrom, Neiman Marcus, Ralph Lauren, Ann Taylor Loft and Ann Taylor in hopes of finding such a dress. Unfortunately, our plans were interrupted, and we ended up purchasing a dress at a location outside of the mall.

    At the point of altercation we had spent roughly forty-minutes leisurely enjoying shopping in the mall, having visited each of the stores mentioned above except Ann Taylor. During this time we spoke with several sales associates at the various stores, all with no issue or outward concern by any party. Upon leaving Ann Taylor Loft, we decided to stop by Frontgate to ask if they carried a particular item.

    As I do regularly, for self-defense reasons, per Federal and State law I was lawfully and peacefully carrying my .45 semi-automatic firearm holstered in plain view on my right hip. Additionally, I was under the impression I was allowed to do so while at Southpark mall for the following reasons:

    • There is nothing posted regarding firearms on the entryway of Nordstrom’s second story when entering from the third level of the Fairview Road parking deck. This is where we entered the mall.
    • There is nothing posted regarding firearms on the main Mall entrance across from Dick’s Sporting Goods, where we normally enter the mall (as such, I would assume other Mall entrances would be the same though I didn’t check).
    • There is no mention of any firearms policy on any Simon or Southpark corporate or retail website.
    • There is no mention of any firearms policy on any corporate or retail website for the various stores mentioned above, nor at the entrances of the stores we visited.
    • There is, in fact, no mention of any policy regarding customer behavior, dress, expectation or otherwise at any of these locations or websites.

    Therefore, any reasonable person, having done their due diligence in an effort to comply with your company policies, could only conclude that no policy exists regarding lawful carry of firearms while on Simon property or in the individual stores mentioned.

    As I was talking with the sales associate in Frontgate I noticed a security guard approach and stop outside the entrance to the store. Shortly thereafter, a second guard appeared. At this point I had my back partially turned to the entrance and was discussing my purchase with the sales associate while standing at the checkout counter. The associate was very friendly and either did not notice I was armed, or was unconcerned if she did. Upon determining that Frontgate does not carry the item I was inquiring about, I expressed my thanks and started to look at a chair my wife said she liked. I never got a chance to see the chair.

    At this point, the two guards entered the store and flanked me on either side. Their last names are Gainey and Kidd. The three Frontgate associates, or my wife – all whom were standing within five feet of myself and the two security guards - can corroborate what follows.

    Guard Gainey excused himself for interrupting and informed me I was not allowed to carry my weapon in the mall and that I needed to leave immediately. I stated that I was lawfully carrying per NC law, and that no such policy stating otherwise was posted on the Nordstrom entrance through which we came. He then stated that the mall was private property and not bound by NC law (this is incorrect). He further stated Nordstorm was a privately owned store and may have their own policy allowing firearms. To which I questioned, “Does this mean I can enter into and shop at Nordstrom, but am not allowed to enter the mall?” He couldn’t answer this question and repeated that I was not allowed to carry in the mall, and that there are round brown stickers on the main mall entrances stating as such. I told the guard I was not aware of any such postings, and that it is my understanding that such postings are to be placed conspicuously on all public entranceways, or otherwise made available to patrons. Again he repeated that I was wrong and that I must leave now. I then requested to see a mall Manager, and a copy of the firearms policy in writing. At this point his voice became more urgent and he moved slightly toward me, stating that he did not have a copy of the policy, that I could not see the mall Manager, and again repeated that we needed to leave, as he gestured for me to go. At this point I turned to Guard Kidd and stated that I would leave and that my only intent was to understand the rules, as we had spent a good amount of time in the mall with no one mentioning this policy, and that we enjoyed shopping there. He said he understood, though again simply repeated that we needed to leave. For some reason, at this point Gainey informed me that someone in Neiman Marcus had called security and they had more or less followed us from there. Based now on Gainey’s body language and verbal tone, I knew this was going nowhere and agreed to leave. I asked him if we would be allowed to go back the way we came through the mall and Nordstrom, to which he said yes. As we all exited the store together, Gainey and Kidd appeared to go about their business as my wife and I proceeded to leave as requested. After leaving the mall through Nordstrom’s, I stopped by the mall entrance by Dick’s Sporting Goods to verify what I already knew – there is nothing posted regarding firearms at that entrance.

    At no time did Gainey or Kidd indicate I was doing anything illegal or otherwise to threaten the security or comfort of the associates or patrons of Southpark Mall. Their only repetitive and wholly unsupported argument was that I was not allowed to carry my firearm in the mall.

    It is an interesting side-note that they obviously felt I was not a threat based on Gainey’s comments as to when they were alerted of a “man with a gun.” Obviously they had followed and observed us from Neiman Marcus to Ralph Lauren to Ann Taylor Loft and then to Frontgate. Additionally, they courteously waited until my conversation with the sales associate at Frontgate was over before approaching me. Tactically speaking, with necessary precautions aside, you would think any threat assessment and apprehension should be accomplished before the “suspect” visited four additional stores, each spread widely across the mall. This in and of itself reinforces that the safety of my family, along with any such innocent associates or customers around me, and myself is largely in my own hands in the event of a life-threatening situation while at Southpark mall – hence the very reason I carry my weapon. Had my intent been less than honorable, I surely would have had ample time to execute my plan and escape before Gainey and Kidd took action. As the old saying goes, “When seconds count, help is only minutes away.”

    In any event, as I mentioned at the start of my letter, it is not my intent to argue mall policy or push my personal beliefs on anyone. However, it is merely my point to illustrate that there is obviously some confusion on the part of some of your associates regarding the mall’s stated policies, and perhaps, to bring to light that you have a safety issue on your hands.

    I do understand that guns in particular, more so perhaps than wearing inappropriate clothing or expressing oneself lewdly, etc., have a potential to make some people “uncomfortable.” However, regardless of what makes people uncomfortable, we are a nation of law and rules; we cannot simply make them up as we go in order to placate those we feel for some reason are more important or worthy of our attention than others. It is for this reason I am writing this letter, and as such, I appreciate your time in reading it and understanding that my position really has very little to do with guns specifically, but more with how we interact with one another for our mutual benefit, comfort and safety.

    As such, as an added precaution to others concerned as I am with personal safety in today’s world, I am posting this letter to http://www.opencarry.org, http://www.nra.org and http://www.1911forum.org, such that our four million plus members will be aware of the current situation at Simon properties. Of course, I will be happy to report back to them your reply and any clarification of your policies.

    In closing, barring that I am allowed to carry my weapon for my own protection while at Southpark mall (or other Simon properties), I will politely choose to take my business elsewhere.

    Thank you for your time and with regards,

    Dave

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    It will be interesting to hear the response. Good letter explaining your position without confronting or arguing.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    , Minnesota, USA
    Posts
    76

    Post imported post

    Simon Property Group is very anti-gun. Don't expect anything from them.

    In Minnesota, landlords such as owners of malls cannot legally ban guns on their property. Only tenants can. MN State Statute 624.714, Sub 17, (e) clearly states: (e) A landlord may not restrict the lawful carry or possession of firearms by tenants or their guests.

    With complete disregard of the law in MN, Simon still posts no-gun signseverywhere in there malls. And Simon's policy is to make you leave.





  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Virginia USA, ,
    Posts
    1,688

    Post imported post

    Want to put real pressure on them? Write each store manager and district manager you frequent and tell them you will not be shopping there anymore.

    Make sure you CC the mall management and the gent you just wrote. They care about money and the stores care about money. If the stores no you won't be coming, boy howdy will they be upset. ESPECIALLY in this slow economy!

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Arlington, Texas, USA
    Posts
    234

    Post imported post

    Excellent framing of the issues involved. Given the very real threats that exist in our society (nut cases), the developingCIVIL RIGHTS context of citizens lawfully armed in public OC or CC, the PUBLIC VENUE nature of merchandisers soliciting the trade & commerce of the GENERAL PUBLIC - there exist a strong case for tort liability against proprietorships that PREVENT OR HINDER the free excercise of a civil right . When that civil right violationcontributes to the death, injury, or unreasonable endangerment of a person's safety on controlled premises - some level of responsibility is assumed by the proprietor. It may be time for a come-back of the "town square" soleproprietorships that were put out of business by themega-merchandisers. I think we saw this coming back in the mid to late '70 's with the onslaught of Mall merchandising and Wal-Mart, Home Depot , etc. I figured as soon as they put the competition out of business - they would start dictating to consumers. With the OC movement in full-court press, this forum, and others, will be playing "host" to the legal departmentsof these dictatorial corporations. Fine - they should get an education. When a violent predatory criminal follows a customer out the mall exit into the parking lot and attemptsa robbery, car-jacking, kidnapping,homocide, etc. - these civil rights violators can and will be prosecuted under civil rights violation (Title 18 US Code Part 1> Chapter 113 > sec. 241), plus civil actions.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    36

    Post imported post

    This is an interesting take, and perhaps bears some merit. Though I think you meant to cite Chapter 13, not 113.



    SANDCREEK wrote
    Excellent framing of the issues involved. Given the very real threats that exist in our society (nut cases), the developingCIVIL RIGHTS context of citizens lawfully armed in public OC or CC, the PUBLIC VENUE nature of merchandisers soliciting the trade & commerce of the GENERAL PUBLIC - there exist a strong case for tort liability against proprietorships that PREVENT OR HINDER the free excercise of a civil right . When that civil right violationcontributes to the death, injury, or unreasonable endangerment of a person's safety on controlled premises - some level of responsibility is assumed by the proprietor. It may be time for a come-back of the "town square" soleproprietorships that were put out of business by themega-merchandisers. I think we saw this coming back in the mid to late '70 's with the onslaught of Mall merchandising and Wal-Mart, Home Depot , etc. I figured as soon as they put the competition out of business - they would start dictating to consumers. With the OC movement in full-court press, this forum, and others, will be playing "host" to the legal departmentsof these dictatorial corporations. Fine - they should get an education. When a violent predatory criminal follows a customer out the mall exit into the parking lot and attemptsa robbery, car-jacking, kidnapping,homocide, etc. - these civil rights violators can and will be prosecuted under civil rights violation (Title 18 US Code Part 1> Chapter 113 > sec. 241), plus civil actions.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    36

    Post imported post

    Most definitely. I am copying the mall management, mall security manager, the CEO of each store I was in, and the onsite manager of each store I was in.

    Heck, I may decide to write a different letter to each onsite manager in the mall explaining what danger Simon is putting them in, and as is mentioned below, may be violating their civil rights.


    hsmith wrote:
    Want to put real pressure on them? Write each store manager and district manager you frequent and tell them you will not be shopping there anymore.

    Make sure you CC the mall management and the gent you just wrote. They care about money and the stores care about money. If the stores no you won't be coming, boy howdy will they be upset. ESPECIALLY in this slow economy!

  8. #8
    Regular Member AZkopper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    673

    Post imported post

    Here in AZ, we are trying to rectify that. A bill was submitted that would make property owners who ban firearms on thier property liable for your safety, and open to lawsuit if it can be proven that having your firearm with you might have protected you.

    The bill didn't pass this session, but it should be reintroduced next time.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    36

    Post imported post

    AZkopper wrote:
    Here in AZ, we are trying to rectify that. A bill was submitted that would make property owners who ban firearms on thier property liable for your safety, and open to lawsuit if it can be proven that having your firearm with you might have protected you.

    The bill didn't pass this session, but it should be reintroduced next time.
    I have been searching the Interent all afternoon (yet to no avail) for some type of law refering to owner's liability in such instances.

    With all the lawsuits won over people slipping on wet surfaces or spilling hot coffee on themselves, etc., it would seem there would be some law providing either a) that the business provide for your safety, or b) the business allow you to do so yourself.

  10. #10
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291

    Post imported post

    Tacoma Mall shooting November 2005. It is owned by Simon Property Group.
    Every mall complex out here from Everett to Olympia is noted as a "Gun Free Zone"
    I DO NOT go into the mall unarmed.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    St Paul, Minnesota, USA
    Posts
    44

    Post imported post

    Several of the Malls here in Minnesota are Simon owned; Maplewood, Rosedale, etc.

    Not being much of a shopper I tend to avoid them anyways, but I still think posting signs on a Mall entrance prohibiting Guns is calling the wrong kind of attention to itself; do they think they are making Malls safer??

    Do they think that a criminal, with intent to commit violence is going to go someplace where the patrons will be able to defend themselves??

    Of course not.....criminals will seek out the most defensless targets availiable.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •