Liberty wrote:Be careful what you ask for: Changes to the 30:06 laws opens the opportunity for mischief and unwanted additions. The Conspicuously Posted aspect pretty much protects us anyway. If the sign isn't posted at the entrance that I use, then it isn't really all that conspicuous.HootHoot wrote:I'm asking for 06 to match 07 and include the words "at each entrance" to remove the needless risk of a prosecutor interpreting the matter a little differently. If this additional requirement was enough to include in 07, it should be in 06 as well.rotor wrote:If the sign was not visible where you entered and you didn't know it was posted, then you have not been notified. You are asking for more signs to make sure you know it is posted?HootHoot wrote: First of all, for the love of God, can we PLEASE add "at each entrance" to signage requirements for 06 like they are on 07? Had one too many surprises lately where the side or back entrance to a place I stopped by in traveling turned out to be posted, while the front door and entrance I inspected had no warnings to speak of.
How many people have been prosecuted because of confused or unclear signs? Where does our political capital need to be utilized?
I haven't heard of anyone being charged under the law, for not seeing signs, or refusing to leave when asked. More regulations, could cause more confusion among business owners, that was already caused by groups like MDA, and even libtard legislators after the last session.
Business owners, are not posting signs nearly as often as they were, and many are taking down signs they posted when they were scared by Maternal Units Strongly Suggesting Motion, who told them their businesses would be taken over by hordes of camo wearing, AK 47 wielding, mouth breathers if they didn't.
While the OP may have been asked to leave a particular business, I have never encountered that scenario, but if I had been, I would have contacted the business regarding their policy and let them know that they would not be getting another penny of my money. If that wasn't their policy, and they had hired a convicted felon to be in charge, I would definitely question their ethics, and sanity, for having a criminal, determine that their business is a gun free zone. JMHO