Completely legal. It is a petty misdemeanor to remain in a posted or notified location after an owner or his agent has notified you of the ban, demanded compliance, and asked you to leave.

This should have been covered in your carry class.

So you are saying....

If a store is legally posted.

You are legal to walk right past the sign with no regard to it?

The only time you need to not carry or leave then, is if you are verbally told by the owner or agent.

Guess now we get to decide on our own if it's the spirit or the letter of the law that someone wants to abide by.

I don't like to use the term "legally posted" as any sign can be "legal"; the issue is if the sign is in compliance with the statute as to size, font, color, location etc. If it is, then you can ignore them until asked to leave, assuming you are not ignoring a sign with potential bite (federal property for example).

Now, the caveat is that there are, to my knowledge, no MN court cases that define the essence of what it means to be notified.

The actual statute says:

---
(a) A person carrying a
firearm on or about his or her person or clothes under a permit
or otherwise who remains at a private establishment knowing that
the operator of the establishment or its agent has made a
reasonable request that firearms not be brought into the
establishment may be ordered to leave the premises. A person
who fails to leave when so requested is guilty of a petty
misdemeanor.
---

Clearly, if you had an overzealous prosecutor and property owner, it will be argued that the mere posting of the sign is in fact sufficient notice that the "operator of the establishment or its agent has made a
reasonable request that firearms not be brought into the
establishment " and that the sign in and of itself is the request to leave.

Since we have no cases on point, we are only guessing as to the outcome. It is a more than reasonable guess though that the signs have no bite. And any bite under this statute is a mere nip (Petty Misdemeanor) not a "crime" per se.

You have to be told to leave to be eligible to break the law. The sign is only a warning that the business might ask you to leave. Arguably, to a law abiding permit holder, the sign is simply a courtesy, to save embarassment.

But the signs also do give police the right to "stop" a "man with a gun" in a posted area. Police are supposed to supposed to be able to "articulate" a "reasonable suspicion of lawbreaking" to be able to approach somebody. A simple walking along in a public place with a gun, with no other facts, should not give rise to a reasonable suspicion, because there is no reason to believe the person would not be licensed.

An analogous case would be stopping a driver for no reason other than to see if he was licensed. Both are examples of illegal stops and any charges resulting from such a "stop" should be dismissed.

If someone is "stopped" for carrying past a sign and the officer then discovers a blood splatter from a murder victim, or a bunch of drugs, the sign could save the day for the prosecution.

I won't be able to articulate this as well as I'd like:

The intention of that part of the law was to require a sign AND a verbal notification, then demand compliance.

In 2005, the liberals wanted an easier way (less invasive) to keep people out. So they made it harder for permit holders to know which companies will ask you to leave. They crafted it so that signs do not have to conform to any standards.

The spirit of the law is to allow self-defense above business owner's baseless fear of guns. It allows the cry babies to remove someone from their business, but, still values permit holders rights by basically not making it a crime to "trespass".


I can see that happening, but I would (try) to disagree with the last part. Since the "demand compliance" is a seperate step in the law; a sign could act as a sign and notice, but not a personal demand for compliance.

Look at that, this thread turned into a productive discussion.

PakRat,

I don't think either of us are really explaining what we want to well.

I guess I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt.

So the signs are toothless. They don't mean a whole lot. But the spirit behind them is plain. Someone doesn't want me there while I am legally carrying.

Do I subscribe to the fact I am legal and still carry?

Of do I offer the courtesy of the spirit of the law and go somewhere else?

I keep seing discussions like this coming up. If someone doesn't want you in their store, why are you contemplating going there, spending money, and supporting a store that doesn't want you there?

I vote with my money when it comes to the signs. Even if they post non-compliant signs, I will do my best to not support them. I'm going with the "spirit" of the signs.

Exactly.

They have their "spirit" and I have mine. I chose by walking.

Did so a year ago when we had to choose a new bank. Walked in to one with a sign and had a discussion with them. Was ready to finance a new house construction with them. Imagine their surprise when I explained how they lost all that interest.

All over a stupid 3X4ft sign.

I'll put it this way: The law was written by a pro-carry person (or persons), a compromise was put in so it would pass. That compromise was still written in our favor.

The spirit of the law sides with us (except for schools).

If you want to go somewhere else, great. I like the idea of supporting or not supporting a business based on their views on guns. But, if you so choose to patronize a business that posts, you are within the law by carrying until asked to leave.

The spirit of the sign is that the owner doesn't want you there carrying. The spirit (actually, letter) of the law says that you have to leave if the owner asks you to.

You aren't violating the law, in letter or in spirit, by ignoring the sign. You violate the law by not leaving when asked to.

This is a good thread. I like it because its a refresher AND a gives some thoughts around the law.

Agree! And gaygoalie Wrote:



Are we going to be so monolithic that we base everything we do on this one issue? In the big picture, the decision by a business to post can do nothing positive for them in our view. They are guarenteed to loose business. Some of the time, they will get feedback like the recent episode of farmerj so they are aware that this posting involves real costs to them as well as their imagined benefits.
I guess what I'm saying is, the issue of 2A and RKBA is important to all of us. But, is it worth, for example, driving across town to get a package of screws because the hardware store up the street is posted? That's a line we all have to draw where we see fit. Personally, I use this as a criteria but I'm not ready to cut off my nose to spite my face.

So, conversely, if I am carrying openly with a permit in a non-posted area, and am wrongly "stopped", and during the course of the "stop" drugs, or blood spatter from a murder, et al., are found on me, none of that is admissable? Interesting....

Is the sign still there?

Unfortunately it is. Seems it is an "insurance requirement"