> Someone thinks the mall’s rules supersede rights enumerated in the Constitution and recently clarified and affirmed by SCOTUS? <
Yes, the mall’s rules do supersede the rights enumerated in the Constitution. Here’s why. The Bill of Rights protects you against government overreach. It does not protect you when you are on private property.
Here’s an example. The 1A confirms your right to free speech. So you could stand in a public park all day long, and tell passersby how terrible Ford cars are. No government agent can interfere with you.
But you cannot do the same thing while at a Ford dealership. That’s private property, and Ford can make it own rules there. No bashing of Ford products! If you don’t like those rules, don’t go to the dealership.
> Yes, the mall’s rules do supersede the rights enumerated in the Constitution. Here’s why. The Bill of Rights protects you against government overreach. It does not protect you when you are on private property.
I don’t think you have that quite right. I can go to the dealership and say whatever I want to say. Their sign isn’t a gag order. If the don’t like me they can ask me to leave. However the dealership is a business open to the public and they’re on shaky ground if they set a conduct standard and apply it arbitrarily. It might even be a proxy for some illegal discrimination prohibited by law ( notice I didn’t frame it as a rights issue).
A prominent Indiana gun rights attorney representing this young man has said property rules are decided by the States. In Indiana, property rules are not laws and have no legal weight unless the property owner asks a person to leave or obey and the person refuses.
Simon malls did not do that, so in Indiana, the people most likely to get sued is Simon malls for not enforcing their rules. They don’t enforce those rules because it would cost them a lot of money. They might get sued over this.