Simon Properties Letter

[ecocks]

Gordo suggested we put letters, articles and such in this forum area to give each other ideas or quotable items to help us express our support (or opposition) to 2A, CC, Seld-defense and other topics of interest.

This was the letter I sent to Simon Properties PR Spokeman, CEO and COO in the wake of the Omaha Mall shooting. I think HK also sent the first letter to their HQ asking if they were intending to reassess their policies after that event. Hope this helps.

++++++++++++++++++++

Dear Sir:

I was a bit surprised and, frankly, concerned, to read an excerpt
from a letter you sent recently (December 10th, 2007) reaffirming
Simon Properties' position prohibiting possession of firearms on your
premises. While this is certainly your right as a property owner in
most, if not all states, it is equally my right to wonder whether
your policy stems from a different source than a desire "...to
maintain a safe, secure and comfortable environment...and to avoid
any situation that could potentially place at risk the safety of our
shoppers and employees."

I would be curious as to whether your company actually has any
factual studies or even any sort of rational indication that
prohibiting lawful carrying of weapons on your properties has any
effect whatsoever in reducing gun fatalities in your facilities.
Please feel free to cite any instances where policies similar to
yours have in any way inhibited firearms-related violence. I can only
recall incidents such as have occurred at Virginia Tech University,
Appalachian School of Law, Trolley Square (a former Simon Property),
Tacoma Mall (Simon Property), the recent Westroad Mall shooting
(Simon Property) and several other gun-free zone locations such as
public schools. Are there per capita customer numbers somewhere
which indicate that similar policies have, in fact, slowed or reduced
these types of occurrences?

Your letter went on to state the following: "We recognize that
everyone does not endorse such a policy. However, it is the one our
company embraces and enforces at each of our properties and which we
believe is in the best interest of those who work and visit there."
At some point you might want to provide some proof that your
rationale has any substance and justify your claim as to a "safe,
secure and comfortable environment" because I would not feel any of
those three emotions given your lack of success in meeting this
objective.

Sincerely,

Edward Cocks

 

[gordo]

Thank you Ecocks, that is what I was talking about. However, I believe the idea came from Luke when he put in this category.

 

[Ektarr]

DUDE!! Great letter! It probably won't amount to anything from a policy-changing perspective, but it should sure make sense to anyone willing to take the effort to think it through! Good job!

 

[Ektarr]

You inspired me! Sent just now via e-mail...
-----------------------------------------------

Dear Sir:

I am recently made aware of the corporate policy of Simon Properties with respect to the lawful carry of concealed weapons for those licensed to do so. I am informed that Simon Properties specifically prohibits anyone, including a properly licensed, law-abiding citizen, from carrying a firearm for self defense on your corporate property.

I am of the opinion that such a policy is exactly at odds with your stated desire to create a safe, secure shopping environment. Such a rule will prevent a lawfully licensed shopper from carrying on your property, true, but will do nothing to inhibit a lawbreaker . . . a person who will carry a weapon onto your property with the specific intent of doing harm, in flagrant defiance of any law . . . and creates, in actual fact, a ”free-fire” zone wherein this individual can wreak his havoc without fear of being confronted by anyone with the wherewithal to stop him. Such was the case at your properties at Westroad Mall, the Tacoma Mall and Trolley Square, as well as at Virginia Tech — all properties and institutions which have at their root the prohibition of carrying weapons on the property.

If this satisfies your definition of a “safe, secure” shopping environment, I think I’ll pass.

At this time, here in New Jersey, we are not permitted to exercise our Rights under both the U.S. and New Jersey Constitutions, in that we are prohibited from carrying concealed weapons legally. However, my heart is with those who are limited by your rules in those States where legal concealed carry is permitted. As a result, until such time as your company finds the good sense to allow your patrons the choice of being able to defend themselves and their companions on your property, I will no longer shop at your Riverside Square Mall facility in Hackensack. While I sincerely like the property and the shopping options it offers, I feel I must make my statement and stand with those whom you deny the basic right of self defense while enabling an environment in which terror and mayhem can ensue unchallenged.

At this time, some 40 States provide their citizens with legal concealed carry licensing. I am sure Simon Properties has many investments in those States. I hope you review your policy and consider the option of changing it.

Sincerely,

[Me]

 

[DrLewall]

Awesome letters guys! How do I go abt finding out what properties they own in which states? Simon properties dot com?..never mind, I found them..only one store in AR and thats in Little Rock..too far away for me to worry abt, but who knows, I do get to LR once in a while..may I borrow one of your letters? I'll doll it up to fit my needs, if thats okay that is..

 

[ecocks]

Feel free

- use it as a starter or template and have at it. Just trying to make things easier for everyone.

 

[Ektarr]

Fine with me, too. Use what you want. I'm glad you feel it's copy-worthy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NEWS FLASH!!

There's been a shooting at the Town Center Mall at Boca Raton, Florida. Report can be found Link Removed

And GUESS FREAKING WHAT!!?! It's another Simon Property!!

EDIT: Sorry...Link sux. Here...

Mother, daughter found dead in car in Florida mall parking lot

BOCA RATON, Fla. (CNN [Blecch!!]) -- Boca Raton police are calling the deaths of a mother and her 8-year-old daughter, found in their car in a mall parking lot, "a robbery-homicide."

The bodies of Nancy Bochicchio, 47, and her daughter, Joey Bochicchio-Hauser, were found early Thursday inside their Chrysler Aspen by a Boca Town Center Mall security guard who noticed the car's motor was running, police said.

"We are still investigating the circumstances of the crime," said Assistant Chief Edgar Morley.

The Palm Beach County medical examiner has not yet determined the cause of death. (Posted 11 a.m.)

 

[JC40]

It seems that simon properties owns and operates a good percentage of malls across the united states.

 

[ecocks]

I think

they have 347 of them if I remember correctly.

Simon continues on their mission "...to maintain a safe, secure and comfortable environment...and to avoid any situation that could potentially place at risk the safety of our shoppers and employees."

So many things I/we could say but...

BTW, I never heard anything back from my letter to the PR flack, CEO and COO. Guess their heads are so deep in the sand (come on...BE NICE...I know what you are thinking) they don't want to think about these things. Maybe they will expand their program and put up signs at the parking lot entrances saying:

"People who are mentally unstable or prone to irrational acts of violence are hereby prohibited from entering these premises."

Yeah, that would surely fix the problem.

Ed

 

[F1Frankie]

It's all about the tort...

Hello, ladies and gentlemen...first-time poster here. I thought I might add a thought to your thread on this subject, with all due respect.

I work as a paralegal/legal assistant at a law firm that does not only criminal defense work, but also personal injury work within the State of Florida. From behind glasses of those colors, I'm guessing that the sad reality here is that Simon will never overtly permit licensed concealed carry within their properties anywhere. To do so could possibly be construed as condoning the behavior of any licensed shooter while on their premises, and even in the instance of a totally justified shooting by a licensed shooter would bring Simon civil liability to aggrieved parties shot by a licensed shooter, e.g. innocent bystanders, mall employees, etc.

I'm guessing that the way this would have to go as far as for those of us that strongly believe in our rights as citizens licensed to carry concealed weapons would be along the lines of 'don't ask, don't tell.' Unless the sign on the door specifically prohibits carry, I would think it might be permissible to carry. Then again, I wouldn't count on any support from Simon in the unfortunate event of a shooting.

What a shame, no?

 

[ecocks]

Thanks for the input

Thanks, really. It is a shame that we are reduced to speculating, guessing, assuming and so on as to their rationale. What completely floors me is the building history of tragedies and their continuing silence in the face of questions.

Judging from this silence, it seems apparent that there is actually no basis for believing that this in any way inhibits violence of any kind. No statistics are offered. No actuarial numbers seem to be able to be produced. Neither do I buy that it has anything to do with liability. Simply, Simon is not that much smarter than all the businesses which have not posted. (Reference other threads on this subject.)

I debated about putting this on the site, but decided to do so because now it can be searched and at least one time/date stamp is available for reference in the wake of their next event. Their silence will speak for itself.

You might also take a look at the other thread relating to why businesses are posted and note the unanswered questions there regarding insurance, bonding and such.

 

[toreskha]

I'm guessing that the way this would have to go as far as for those of us that strongly believe in our rights as citizens licensed to carry concealed weapons would be along the lines of 'don't ask, don't tell.' Unless the sign on the door specifically prohibits carry, I would think it might be permissible to carry. Then again, I wouldn't count on any support from Simon in the unfortunate event of a shooting.

What a shame, no?

That's my policy, and honestly, I don't think that Simon could take any legal action based on their "no carry" policies, except for kicking you out of the store. Just be careful (as always).

 

[Statkowski]

Simon sez? Not in Pennsylvania!

Simon Properties owns approximately five malls in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Are they posted? I have no idea, but if so, it doesn't mean a thing. Here in the Commonwealth the signs have no legal standing and may be construed as advisory only.

So, for what it's worth, licensed concealed carry, or open carry with or without a license (except if Philadelphia), is okay in Simon Properties malls, unless they find out and ask you to leave. If, however, they try to get you arrested you'll be collecting a good chunk of change from them.

 

[toreskha]

There's only a few opportunities during a mall trip for someone else to notice that you're carrying - in the restroom, in the changing room, and maybe if you have an unfortunate "holster malfunction". Be aware of when there might be an issue, and try to limit your risk as much as possible. Make the holster "invisible" with something else while it would otherwise be exposed or use a holster that is made in such a way that it tends to be more resilient during such situations.

For example, an IWB might be visible to people in other stalls. However, if you have a Smartcarry, it's much easier to keep that up while allowing your shirt to overlap it. A holster that mounts somewhere on your abdomen would only be visible while changing shirts.

 

[krazyk]

leasantry:

 

[TnRebel]

Letters to Simon is good but why not follow up with a letter to the Stores in the mall's stating that for the same reason , you feel it not safe to shop their stores and will be shopping at target, Walmart and K-Mart Sears. for all you Christmas needs . and see if that has an effect.

Just my .02 worth

 

[ClearSightTactical]

Letters to Simon is good but why not follow up with a letter to the Stores in the mall's stating that for the same reason , you feel it not safe to shop their stores and will be shopping at target, Walmart and K-Mart Sears. for all you Christmas needs . and see if that has an effect.

Just my .02 worth

Its legal to boycott an establishment- it is illegal to boycott others for the simple fact of doing business with the original boycotee its in the "anti trust law"

 

[r4fthrs]

If you are boycotting establishments that are under direct control of a company (ie Simon) and it is their policy that dictates the source of the boycott, then that doesn't fall under the preview of `anti-trust'. It is a similar tactic used to boycott advertisers of objectionable programing to get networks to respond.

It is questionable that individual boycotts of any kind are actionable under anti-trust laws. It has historically been used against companies or organizations that show an `unfair advantage' in the market place. That is my two cents on the matter.

 

[AvidshooterTX]

Simon Properties and others who think like them are operating on the herd mentality. That is, like a herd of gazelles on the African plain they believe there is safety in numbers from the lions and that the odds are in their favor. If a few of the herd get culled every day life goes on for the rest and they all breathe a sigh of relief. It's a numbers game that our government and corporate officials are willing to play and we're the numbers. Once you've had the tragedy of criminal homicide strike close to home, as I have, it's a game changer and suddenly one of the fallen has a name.

 

[roho-amarillo]

Exactly right shooter!!!!!