Simon property

[rmabrey]

No its not what you think.

In Evansville, we have a Simon mall and we all know their stance on guns. My question is, there are several business located on the property, that to my knowledge is all leased property from SIMON. Business include a Grandys, Wendys, Olive garden, Chilis, and a Fifth Third bank, as well as another closed restaurant. Can mall security ask you to leave these establishments? These business are independent from the mall in every way, except that the land is leased.

 

[abrumlev]

I would venture to say yes as usually those businesses are held accountable for following the renter's policies.

 

[Hammerhead]

No. It's a rental property, and rental properties are "owned" by the renter until the lease is up. Same with an apartment or house you might rent. It's your property in the eyes of the law. The business owner/management is responsible for their own "property".

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I would venture to say yes as usually those businesses are held accountable for following the renter's policies.

No. It's a rental property, and rental properties are "owned" by the renter until the lease is up. Same with an apartment or house you might rent. It's your property in the eyes of the law. The business owner/management is responsible for their own "property".

No cookie for either of you.

It depends on the lease terms. You should contact the respective stores to see if the lease terms preclude firearms on the premises.

 

[Hammerhead]

No cookie for either of you.

It depends on the lease terms. You should contact the respective stores to see if the lease terms preclude firearms on the premises.

No you shouldn't. The lease terms would only define if the mall security has the job of providing security to the businesses on the land leased from the property owner. If they say that no firearms are allowed in the lease terms, that's the same as 1) company policy (and company policy isn't law, nor does it trump the law) and 2) posting a no firearms sign, which hold no weight of law.

The business owner/management dictates what happens in their businesses. That'd be like Simon Properties dictating the dress code for employees, or the food the restaurant is allowed to sell. When you legally lease/rent/borrow property, you are responsible for that property until you are no longer leasing/renting/borrowing, meaning you set the rules.

 

[JoshuaW]

No cookie for either of you.

It depends on the lease terms. You should contact the respective stores to see if the lease terms preclude firearms on the premises.

The mall cops will tell you they are serving as agents of the ENTIRE complex, as per the terms of their lease. Even if the store is fine with it, security can tell you to leave.

I had this conversation with University Park Mall recently. I OCd in there two or three times a week for four months, no one said a thing. It turned out they were giving my fiance a hard time about it though (she is employed by a store in the mall). Eventually one of her managers said something about it to me, since security had also talked to him and told him he was to report me the next time I came in so they could ban me.

I told him thanks for the heads up, and thanks for not asking me to leave. I CC in there, but they still try to hassle me, since they KNOW I am carrying. We talked to a manger, and to a guard, and they both said the same thing. Basically the agreement we came to (me and the manager) was that I would not OC, and they wouldnt "look for it" so they can plead ignorance. Outside of that, the "consequences" are on me. My fiance's store is the only one I will spend any money at in the mall, and I only go in there if I am dropping something off or need to help boost sales. If I just want to shop, I will go to a different location.

Now, this could be different for stores that have their own entrance at different Simon locations. At University Park Mall, it is the same for stores with their own entrance (the managers talk, and the guards were clear).

Something to keep in mind is that many (most?) guards at Simon locations will ask you to leave if they see you put a gun in your glove box. No joke. Carrying on the parking lot would certainly be within their privilege to ask you to leave, so unless you have a jet pack, you are SOL.

 

[grimor]

The lease can pretty much say and cover anything they feel they want to put into it. Much like a HOA agreement, the leasee(sp) can accept those terms or go some place else. While it wouldn't be illegal on your part, they would contractually be required to ask you to leave or otherwise remove your firearm from the property at which point it would be a trespass issue

EDIT: I'm not saying this is the case with Simon Property leases as I've never reviewed one, just saying that yes a lease could say that on tuesdays you must paint your windows purple and on friday wear pink hats.

 

[Eddie]

No you shouldn't. The lease terms would only define if the mall security has the job of providing security to the businesses on the land leased from the property owner. If they say that no firearms are allowed in the lease terms, that's the same as 1) company policy (and company policy isn't law, nor does it trump the law) and 2) posting a no firearms sign, which hold no weight of law.

The business owner/management dictates what happens in their businesses. That'd be like Simon Properties dictating the dress code for employees, or the food the restaurant is allowed to sell. When you legally lease/rent/borrow property, you are responsible for that property until you are no longer leasing/renting/borrowing, meaning you set the rules.

I would be careful about assuming that a "no firearms" sign has no force of law. Look at how the tresspassing statute is written:

Title 35. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE
Article 43. OFFENSES AGAINST PROPERTY
Chapter 2. BURGLARY AND TRESPASS

Current through 2010 Legislative Session

§ 35-43-2-2. Criminal trespass; denial of entry; permission to enter; exceptions

(a) A person who:
(1) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally enters the real property of another person after having been denied entry by the other person or that person's agent;
(2) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally refuses to leave the real property of another person after having been asked to leave by the other person or that person's agent;
(3) accompanies another person in a vehicle, with knowledge that the other person knowingly or intentionally is exerting unauthorized control over the vehicle;
(4) knowingly or intentionally interferes with the possession or use of the property of another person without the person's consent;
(5) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally enters the dwelling of another person without the person's consent;
(6) knowingly or intentionally:
(A) travels by train without lawful authority or the railroad carrier's consent; and
(B) rides on the outside of a train or inside a passenger car, locomotive, or freight car, including a boxcar, flatbed, or container without lawful authority or the railroad carrier's consent;
(7) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally enters or refuses to leave the property of another person after having been prohibited from entering or asked to leave the property by a law enforcement officer when the property is:
(A) vacant or designated by a municipality or county enforcement authority to be abandoned property; and
(B) subject to abatement under IC 32-30-6, IC 32-30-7, IC 32-30-8, IC 36-7-9, or IC 36-7-36 ; or
(8) knowingly or intentionally enters the property of another person after being denied entry by a court order that has been issued to the person or issued to the general public by conspicuous posting on or around the premises in areas where a person can observe the order when the property:
(A) has been designated by a municipality or county enforcement authority to be a vacant property or an abandoned property; and
(B) is subject to an abatement order under IC 32-30-6, IC 32-30-7, IC 32-30-8, IC 36-7-9, or IC 36-7-36 ;
commits criminal trespass, a Class A misdemeanor. However, the offense is a Class D felony if it is committed on a scientific research facility, on a key facility, on a facility belonging to a public utility (as defined in IC 32-24-1-5.9(a) ), on school property, or on a school bus or the person has a prior unrelated conviction for an offense under this section concerning the same property.
(b) A person has been denied entry under subdivision (a)(1) of this section when the person has been denied entry by means of:
(1) personal communication, oral or written;
(2) posting or exhibiting a notice at the main entrance in a manner that is either prescribed by law or likely to come to the attention of the public; or
(3) a hearing authority or court order under IC 32-30-6, IC 32-30-7, IC 32-30-8, IC 36-7-9, or IC 36-7-36.
(c) A law enforcement officer may not deny entry to property or ask a person to leave a property under subsection (a)(7) unless there is reasonable suspicion that criminal activity has occurred or is occurring.
(d) A person described in subsection (a)(7) violates subsection (a)(7) unless the person has the written permission of the owner, owner's agent, enforcement authority, or court to come onto the property for purposes of performing maintenance, repair, or demolition.
(e) A person described in subsection (a)(8) violates subsection (a)(8) unless the court that issued the order denying the person entry grants permission for the person to come onto the property.
(f) Subsections (a), (b), and (e) do not apply to the following:
(1) A passenger on a train.
(2) An employee of a railroad carrier while engaged in the performance of official duties.
(3) A law enforcement officer, firefighter, or emergency response personnel while engaged in the performance of official duties.
(4) A person going on railroad property in an emergency to rescue a person or animal from harm's way or to remove an object that the person reasonably believes poses an imminent threat to life or limb.
(5) A person on the station grounds or in the depot of a railroad carrier:
(A) as a passenger; or
(B) for the purpose of transacting lawful business.
(6) A:
(A) person; or
(B) person's:
(i) family member;
(ii) invitee;
(iii) employee;
(iv) agent; or
(v) independent contractor;
going on a railroad's right-of-way for the purpose of crossing at a private crossing site approved by the railroad carrier to obtain access to land that the person owns, leases, or operates.
(7) A person having written permission from the railroad carrier to go on specified railroad property.
(8) A representative of the Indiana department of transportation while engaged in the performance of official duties.
(9) A representative of the federal Railroad Administration while engaged in the performance of official duties.
(10) A representative of the National Transportation Safety Board while engaged in the performance of official duties.

I think that under the right set of circumstances an OCer that ignores a "no guns" sign could be charged with tresspassing.

 

[Sailor]

Conceal Carry everywhere allowed by law regardless of signs or store policy. If by chance you are made just leave if asked to.

 

[cosermann]

The Simon mall in Bloomington has a Dick's sporting goods - compete with firearms.
So, the signs at the other entrances apparently don't apply to Dick's.

 

[eldirector]

The Simon mall in Bloomington has a Dick's sporting goods - compete with firearms.
So, the signs at the other entrances apparently don't apply to Dick's.

Yeah, I always thought that was odd. Castleton has guns as well.

I would guess that the lease has some wording in it about complying with Simon rules. I would also guess that mall security never sets foot on the outlots. If one of these business had an issue, they would not call mall security, they would call the cops.

And Eddie, I gave up on the trespass statute on here a while ago. If it isn't in our favor, we don't want to hear it

 

[Eddie]

Yeah, I always thought that was odd. Castleton has guns as well.

I would guess that the lease has some wording in it about complying with Simon rules. I would also guess that mall security never sets foot on the outlots. If one of these business had an issue, they would not call mall security, they would call the cops.

And Eddie, I gave up on the trespass statute on here a while ago. If it isn't in our favor, we don't want to hear it

Yeah, I've got dumped on for pointing it out more than a few times. I have noticed a few posts lately about signs having no force of law and I thought it would be a good reminder.

 

[Mr. Habib]

Many of the stores attached to Simon malls are owned by the stores themselves, especially ones with an outside entrance. That is why you don't see mall rules posted at the entrances to Macy's, Sears, Target, ect.

 

[JoshuaW]

I think that under the right set of circumstances an OCer that ignores a "no guns" sign could be charged with tresspassing.

[Snipped for space, if you want to see the post, scroll up and read it]

I think everyone's point is that the trespassing standard is weak. Im sure someone can post what defines "prescribed by law" but "likely to come to the attention of the general public" is lame. If it isnt plastered on EVERY entrance in a neon sign, there is a possibility that someone didnt see it. That tares down the entire concept.

Speaking specifically to the property at hand, have you seen their signs? It is buried in a list of like 15 "rules", and in small print. It is NOT reasonable to think someone would see that. So in short, sign? What sign?

 

[alliclaytor]

My wife used to work with them, and has read many leases. She doesn't remember anything specifically covering firearms in the lease called out, but she did say that she thought Simon's rules would likely over-rule any store rules in this instance.

 

[Hammerhead]

I think it would really depend on if the business was attached to the main mall building or not. I don't think Simon's rules apply to the Chili's that sits on the same property as the Greenwood Park Mall, even though the mall ninjas drive by patrolling the parking lot. Simon probably owns the land, but Chili's isn't a part of the mall. It might be different for Stir Crazy or TGIFriday's.