jbarn wrote:Keith B wrote:jbarn wrote:Wait, are you saying that if a 30.06 compliant sign is posted a conviction requires the state prove you saw the sign?
That would be my argument in this case if I had not seen it so I never received notice the location was off limits; wouldn't it be yours? We are not clairvoyant, so unless you see it how do you know?
No. My argument would be that the sign was not conspicuous; therefore, it was not reasonable for me to have seen it. Again, if it's at eye level right by or on the door; claiming you didn't see it would likely not be accepted as a defense. You'd have a tough time there even establishing reasonable doubt that it was not conspicuous.
Or I'll just close my eyes from now on when I enter a business.
I remember this exact conversation with my law professor brother. His take on the situation is the jury would evaluate the evidence presented for a "reasonable person" scenario. When considering if the sign was 30.06 compliant, including the requirement "
displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public", either the prosecution could introduce evidence asserting it was conspicuous enough, or the defense could introduce evidence that it was not conspicuous. Then the jury would evaluate the evidence presented to determine if a "reasonable person" would find it to be conspicuous.
If I was the one charged, the legal standard would not be what
I thought, but what a hypothetical "reasonable person" would think.