Well, I can't speak to Rugers or Kimbers as I have none, but I know my Glock and it is not dangerous, so apparently the sign does not apply to me and my G19.

But, it also has the disclaimer exempting permit holders in the fine print at the bottom.

The one that gets me is Brookdale. They have absolutely no signs at all anymore.

Nor to me and my Ruger, as it is certainly not dangerous...

I know this is an old thread, but here's the Southdale Library sign in question:



It was still there last night. I had to stop by to pick up the copy of Vince Flynn's "Protect & Defend" that I had on reserve.

You can rest assured, I did not carry anything dangerous when I went in there.

"Dangerous Weapons" might seem a senseless redundancy at first glance, but surely our county officials would not post a sign which was senseless.

No, with a little thought it is obvious that they can only be referring to weapons falling under a manufacturer's safety recall notice. I checked with Ruger, mine is fine.

Henn County sign at HCMC yesterday WITH OUT the small font disclaimer.

The Southdale library has had three different versions of the sign up. They used to have the "court order" sign, claiming it was part of the neighboring court building. Then for a while they had the sign with the disclaimer at the bottom allowing permit holders to carry there. Now they have this sign which says nothing about the court order or permit holders.

I called the head of security about this a while ago. He says the county is of the opinion that the court ordered ban does apply to the library. He speculated that it was typical county employee incompetence that lead to the wrong sign being put up. I pointed out that amounted to being a trap for a permit holder, who would have reason to believe the court order didn't apply based on the now removed wording. He refused to follow my logic. He refused to have the sign changed, and even though he freely admited that his job was created as a result of the illegal signs at the Edina library, and Reaver's episode there, he didn't see any inconsistency with his stand.

He said the county attorney and the county board have authority over the sign (passing the buck, stonewalling). I've been meaning to pursue the issue with them, but have been busy.

I'm not 100% sure, but in order to be compliant isn't the verbiage of the sign part of the requirement to make it compliant?

It would be, if government entities weren't specifically forbidden from posting. They are, so the sign is meaningless.

Except when you are a radical judge who believes he is bigger and more important than us little people. And when you are that judge, and everyone around you grovels at your feet and heeds your every word (like the Hennepin Cnty Sheriff's Office) and puts up signs that force us little people to decide just how much justice we can afford, then a compliant sign is not really important.

When you get a round tuit -- and I'm not criticizing; I'm finding round tuits somewhat hard to find, m'self -- let me know what happens, please?

Brookdale?? I'm sure the signs were stolen.

Nope. The court area is signed, not the library. They seem to have smarter wards of the state than the other branches.

I saw that same sign when I went into the Maple Grove DMV building to renew my license this morning. It did have a little statement at the bottom about it not applying to those lawfully permitted to carry.

What a STUPID waste of government resources. I mean really, who needs a sign that says only legal things are allowed here. That pretty much goes without saying. It just irritates me that the government should be allowed to post such things.

You keep picking at a scab and eventually it'll bleed.
For God's sake. Leave it alone.