30.06 Sign

[dicion]

I agree that I don't see where adding to the required language makes the sign invalid. However, I disagree about not carrying in a government building if there is NOT a meeting going on. I don't care if they don't want me carrying in there, it's public property just like the city sidewalk, and I'm going to carry there absent a valid 30.06 notice AND a meeting going on.

If a store or other private property wants to bar me from carrying, then they can darn well figure out the proper 30.06 notice and post it. I'm not responsible to divine the intention of every piece of paper/sticker/poster that has a frowny face and a gun on it.

[bdickens]

There is nothing in the statute that requires solely the required language. The statute does not even put a period at the end of the required language, so it is not a full sentence yet. The law requires the sign to have "written language identical to" and the sign does have that. Since there is nothing forbidding additional language and anything not forbidden is permissible, I would say the sign would be valid (given all other requirements met of course).

I was thinking the same thing. The statute does not say it can't be added to. Only that it must include certain wording. The way I look at it is even if the sign is not valid by legal definition, it is obvious they don't want guns in their board room, store, or whatever. Why take a chance on stirring up a big mess and potentially giving CHL holders a black eye by carrying in places that have a sign, valid or not? And if the media ever got hold of something like this they would twist it into CHL holders ignoring posted signs. Just not worth the potential bad publicity for CHL holders.

I suppose I'll just stay at the back of the bus and use the appropriately marked water fountain. I sure wouldn't want to stir up a big mess.