I’m not sure if I understand the passion behind some posters talk about “compliant” signage. I’m talking about private property here and not government buildings or leased spaces like malls.

If the sign is compliant, you can break the law and carry into the store without penalty, correct? Now, if you don’t leave when they ask you to leave, then you are punished by a penalty. If the sign is non-compliant you can legally carry into the store but if they ask you to leave and you don’t, the same penalty would apply as above. Is that correct?

In a private property environment, if the owners don’t want guns (or dogs, large coffees, pink pants, pirate hats, etc.) in their store, what’s the big deal about respecting their wishes and spending your money someplace else? Just wondering.

That is what I believe.

If it is a place like MOA, or our local Madison East Mall, I ignore the signs. If it is private business and they have something to the effect of "PERMIT HOLDERS, KEEP YOUR DANG GUNS OUT OF HERE", I respect their wishes and spend my money elsewhere. I do this and suggest to my students to do the same. That business owner has rights, we should respect those rights and spend your money at a business that wants our cash.

It's not breaking the law to walk past those signs, 'compliant' or not. In fact, your statement is bias against permit holders. Use driving instead of permits: The law says you may drive, but if you speed you get fined. So therefore driving is illegal.

My take on your question- If a place is open to the public, they don't have the right to exclude anyone based on what they want. Famous words of Joe Dirt: "It's not what you like, it's the consumer."

Self defense trumps property [owner's rights]. <- Read as: property owner's rights are akin to property, which has little worth compared to safety, self defense, and a lot of other stuff. In Minnesota, property follows behind people.

From how the law works, I find it weird that a business has to have a "compliant" sign in order to enforce the law.

If a business has a sign up that clearly states they don't want guns on their property, why should they have to worry what the sign looks like?

I see both sides of this coin.

There are states in which the penalty for carrying onto posted premises are severe - where walking into a store and not seeing the sign can cost you thousands.

We didn't want that.

I've seen signs leaning up against a window on the floor. A strong sign standard makes it easy for permit holders to see them. A standard sign at a standard location keeps you from having to hunt to see it.

I don't think its illegal to walk past the sign. I think it becomes illegal once you refuse to leave. That said, I tend to be in the group that just doesn't spend my money there. There has to be a balance between my right to carry and their property rights. If they don't want me in their store, I don't want them having my money.

Most of the rest of us view that as a feature, not a bug!

YMMV.

It's not illegal in Minnesota, because Joe and the rest worked to avoid the problems that have bit permit holders in other states.

I guess you don't understand how the law works, though we've covered it a number of times.

To get a permit holder out of the store, the law requires the store to "demand compliance." They may do so whether there is a sign or not.

.... In other words, even with no sign and with or without a gun, if the store asks you to leave, you must or you are trespassing.

MP9, I don't know who your instructor was, but either he didn't cover this well enough, or you weren't listening. Either way, please refer to Rothman's post above.

I'm sorry, but it's late, and this question is geting old.

Flame on.

ETA: And Tepin's.

dead horse................search the data already out there in previous threads.

.02

So in your world, your right to self defense trumps my right to tell you to leave my privately owned store/shop/house? I always thought that, by definition, one "right" can not infringe on another "right". Your right to self-defense is absolute. As is the store owners right to their property.

Maybe I’m not understanding your point. My point is if private property has a sign that says “no trespassing” or “no guns”, other people who wish to use that private property should/must comply with the owner’s request. While we can debate the finer points of compliant signage, if the wishes of the private property owner are made clear, don’t be a dick just to be a dick. Shop elsewhere.

I believe in my right to carry and I exercise that right. I also believe that private property is just that, private.

Nope; that's not the law, or the reality. Nah. There are no absolute rights. You do have the First Amendment right to, say, be a Thug -- but you don't have the right to strangle strangers, no matter how sincerely you believed that it was morally requisite. You have the right to free speech, but not in my living room, if I ask you to leave. You do have the First Amendment right to, say, convert to Judaism (I'd recommend against it) and not eat unkosher food; you don't have the right to require anybody else to do the same. Should? I think so, generally. Must? Nah; that's not what the law says. Owners/operators of places of public accommodation don't have the same rights -- either in law or, IMHO, morally -- as private property owners do. Oh, absolutely. There's very few places I'll shop that have any signs up. Sure. But how about a hotel that puts up a sign that says, "No dogs, Jews, or Blacks"? It's the property of the owner; do you think that their right should be respected, by law or by, well, anybody?

I think that the law should be changed so that anybody who carries past the signs should have to pay a fine of twice what it is now. That said, I think the required signage should be much more prominent -- 4 x 6, say, lime green, and lighted, like the EXIT signs -- and that the operators of places of public accommodation who wish to post should assume strict liability for the safety of permit holders to and from the nearest place of secure storage.

That said, until and unless the law changes, we're all going to have to live with it as it is.

I like that.