The whole signage issue in this State really has had its ups and downs as far as being able to fully understand why we need them and how best to comply with the posting of those signs...
I think the 51% issue has been the clearest, and best understood statues in the CHL law we have...Although there are some places which post it incorrectly. I think that is done out of ignorance, and in most cases that is not a damnable offence by a business owner in that regard...
What corrects that, is an aggressive enforcement of the statute by the correct organization...
I'm encouraged to know, and have seen others that have called, the BATF folks about incorrect or questionable posting of that sign, and that their investigations, are for the most part, timely and conclusive...
Unlike the dreaded 30.06 signage...The confusion and outright abuse of that statute scream for the State to come in and really get a hold of that situation...Instead we have municipalities and other organizations continually and blatantly thumb their noses, daring the State to come in and enforce the correct implemetation of that statute...
It confuses me, somewhat, as to why we have good implementation and enforcement of one statute within a law, and another statute which is poorly implemented and poorly enforced within the very same law...
To me it like being on the verge of "civil disobedience"...If the government can't get the law straightened out to where we can carry a firearm under the protection of a law, then why should we need a law to begin with??? If we're doing it under a law (that has a few flaws), and somehow it creates further ambiguities, why do we really need that law???
There are 250,000 people (test cases) in this State who have no intent to commit crimes or other illegalities, we do this under a law...If we don't have a law, what really changes about those people???
Its a quandry where I find myself asking, "if an act is not illegal, why do we need a law to define whether it is legal or illegal to do so, after the fact?"
Kinda goes back to the old statement, of "...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...".
The definition of that statement in regards to the legality or illegality of self-preservation (i.e.: life) is not necessary...
I'm going to defend myself, my family, my friends and my country under the auspices of good moral judgement whether or not we have a law to do so...And do it with any means at my disposal...
If there is a segment of the citizenship in this country that does not wish to do so...Thats their choice, not mine...I'm not going to tell someone they "have" to have a gun, and learn how to use it...
I tire of them telling me, and creating immoral laws, stating that I cannot...
Man...Did I just write all this???
Ehhh, just ignore me...
I suspect the latter is what you saw. 
