Does this meet the legal requirements ?

[slotsavegas]

Here are a couple of pictures I took a couple of days ago.

The close-up of the sign is to provide a clear look at the wording.
The second is a distance shot of the building. Hard to see all the detail, but the sign is posted to the left
of the far left door. This door is not for the general public. The middle two doors are about 20 feet from
the far left door. These are for the general public.
In addition, there is a driveway in front of the general public door. Foot access to the main doors
can only come from either the left or right side of the main doors. If a person was to enter
the building from the parking lot using the right side of the drive way, you would never be closer than
20-25 feet from the sign and at such an extreme angle I doubt it would be visible.

What are your opinions as to the legality of this posting.

Obviously, I am not looking for a confrontation, and as such would honor the business's request regardless.
But I have entered this building several times from the right side and never saw this sign.
I am primarily concerned with whether I broke the law the times I entered with my handgun prior to seeing
this notice.

[Captain Matt]

I can't see any pictures but if you noticed the signs that sounds like they're posted conspicuously.

[MoJo]

I try to avoid doing business with any business with any kind of No Guns Sign to include gunbusters. If you will get the pictures up then we may be able to help you. Oh, welcome aboard.

[WildBill]

Here are a couple of pictures I took a couple of days ago.

The close-up of the sign is to provide a clear look at the wording.

I am primarily concerned with whether I broke the law the times I entered with my handgun prior to seeing
this notice.

Welcome to the forum.

I cannot see any pictures, but in my opinion you did not break the law since you were not given notice.

Since you have now seen the signs, you been given notice and you cannot enter without breaking the law.

Of course that assumes that the sign meets the legal requirements of a 30.06.

IANAL

[jbarn]

Here are a couple of pictures I took a couple of days ago.

The close-up of the sign is to provide a clear look at the wording.

I am primarily concerned with whether I broke the law the times I entered with my handgun prior to seeing
this notice.

Welcome to the forum.

I cannot see any pictures, but in my opinion you did not break the law since you were not given notice.

Since you have now seen the signs, you been given notice and you cannot enter without breaking the law.

Of course that assumes that the sign meets the legal requirements of a 30.06.

IANAL

Wait, are you saying that if a 30.06 compliant sign is posted a conviction requires the state prove you saw the sign?

[srothstein]

Jbarn,

That is one of the legal questions that will need to be decided in a court. The law says:

(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.

It also defines the written communication as a conspicuously posted sign.

So, the actual law says that just posting the sign is enough. But I would bet that the court would look to define conspicuous as whether or not you actually saw the sign. Even if the judge did not do so, I would demand the jury trial if it was me and see if the jury bought into my claim that if I did not see it, the sign was not conspicuous enough. Of course, I don't think I could make that argument at someplace where the signs are like billboards on stands outside the building.

[Keith B]

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?

[cw3van]

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?

That would be my argument too sir.

[jbarn]

Jbarn,

That is one of the legal questions that will need to be decided in a court. The law says:

(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.

It also defines the written communication as a conspicuously posted sign.

So, the actual law says that just posting the sign is enough. But I would bet that the court would look to define conspicuous as whether or not you actually saw the sign. Even if the judge did not do so, I would demand the jury trial if it was me and see if the jury bought into my claim that if I did not see it, the sign was not conspicuous enough. Of course, I don't think I could make that argument at someplace where the signs are like billboards on stands outside the building.

I am well aware of the law.....

But I do not believe seeing the sign is an issue. One could argue, as a defense, that the sign was not conspicuous because of it's placement. However, If there is a sign that meets the requirements of section 30.06 and you claim you didn't see it, the location could come into question, but not whether or not you saw it. Observing the sign is not an element of the offense, being given the notice is an element,

If the sign is at....eye level just for argument's sake, I don't think that arguing that since you were texting you didn't see it would be one to envoke a not guilty. And it certainly does not eliminate the PC required for an officer to make an arrest.

At any rate, the statement that if you don't see it you can carry is a dangerous one.

So I can just stop looking for 30.06 signs and claim, "haahaa, to bad I didn't see it?"

Good luck with that in court, y'all

[jbarn]

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.

[Mike.B]

Who is volunteering to be the test case for the "I didn't see the sign" defense?

[C-dub]

If the sign is at....eye level just for argument's sake, I don't think that arguing that since you were texting you didn't see it would be one to envoke a not guilty. And it certainly does not eliminate the PC required for an officer to make an arrest.

Along those lines, Kansas changed their law on signs a few years ago to require them to be placed within a certain distance of entrances and within a certain height range so that they would be at eye level for an adult.

[srothstein]

One could argue, as a defense, that the sign was not conspicuous because of it's placement. However, If there is a sign that meets the requirements of section 30.06 and you claim you didn't see it, the location could come into question, but not whether or not you saw it. Observing the sign is not an element of the offense, being given the notice is an element,

I think you and I are in agreement on this. The defense would have to be the placement was not conspicuous, not that the person did not see the sign.

[Jumping Frog]

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.

[Keith B]

Who is volunteering to be the test case for the "I didn't see the sign" defense?

I will if I am arrested and didn't see it because it was not posted at the entrance I went in or it was way off away from the doors and so it was not noticeable. Hopefully I am never in the position to have to do that.