... I always ignored the signs, ...

Aren't you an upstanding example of a Minnesota permit holder.

but do you really think that tepin ignoring the sign reflects badly on all permit holders?

Yes, he is basically ignoring the wishes and rights of the property owner.

I blew $70 there today on Snake Bites

Maybe I am getting older and overly cautious, ...

Yes, I do think it reflects badly on all permit holders when a permit holder purposely ignores the posting and then put it out on the internet for all to see.

... but doesn't it also violate our right to carry?

:roll: Oh my. I guess my additional comments left too much room for making assumptions and we all know what that leads to...

1. My gun was at home and has been (mostly) for some time now (I didnt drink all $~70 either nor was I driving).
2. The few times in the last few years that my gun did leave the house, the gun remained in my car (mostly), sometimes loaded and sometimes unloaded in a secure case specifically designed for gun storage. I do know the difference between carry and transporting.
3. I generally try not to frequent places that 'post' but on the rare occasion that I did have a gun on me, I saw the sign, the sign was legal and compliant and I deliberately ignored the sign, I would have been happy and willing to leave the establishment when asked to do so in order to avoid a $25 ticket and or be charged with trespass.
4. Cobb, I believe your analogy between concealed carry in a posted establishment in MN and killing a deer on posted land is flawed. My opinion.

Has the big debate been settled? Sign only? or sign plus a verbal? and only when refusing to leave is it a crime (petty at that)?

In the 2005 version of the law, a business can notify that guns are banned EITHER with a compliant sign, OR verbally.

But in both the 2003 and 2005 versions, the business must "demand compliance" -- a separate action from the sign or the verbal notification.

IF that demand is ignored, and IF the cops are called, and IF the permit holder is still there when they arrive, the cops may issue a $25 petty misdemeanor ticket.

To the best of anyone's knowledge, no such ticket has ever been issued.

What does this mean? It means that carrying past a "proper" sign is COMPLETELY LEGAL.

Refusing to leave AFTER a demand for compliance is the only time an infraction occurs.

Every permit holder should understand this. If your carry instructor didn't make this clear, it's time to look for another class.

Debate? Other than whether or not it's a good idea (which is currently running in at least a couple of other threads at this very moment), no debate here.

The signs mean what the law says they mean. I'll leave it at that.

-Mark

Yes, he is basically ignoring the wishes and rights of the property owner.
Same as a person that ignores a posting of property and hunts it anyway, he is violating the property owner's rights. It doesn't matter if the property owner doesn't want guns or hunting on his property, it does reflect badly on permit holders, as it does on hunters that ignore postings.

Sorry, but your analogy is badly flawed. Hunting on posted property is illegal trespass. Carrying past the sign is perfectly legal.

The property owner DOES NOT HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT or expectation that no one will carry just because there is a sign. As the law says, he must both demand compliance and insist that the carrier leave, and no offense has occurred until the carrier refuses.

Whether there is a moral right of business owners to keep blacks, Jews or permit holders out of public accommodations is a separate issue.

he is basically ignoring the wishes and rights of the property owner

Cobb, I believe your analogy between concealed carry in a posted establishment in MN and killing a deer on posted land is flawed.

Please go back and reread. I never mentioned killing a deer or killing anything for that fact, when ignoring a posting, not even close. I wrote about ignoring a posting on purpose and how that looks negative, especially when opening proclaiming such on a public forum. For a person to ignore that posting, they are violating the property owners rights, period.