The biggest problem arises when one does not, or in some cases cannot know that a sign is unenforceable or misleading. For example, I was in a city a few days ago that has some restrictions on smoking areas in businesses. The first place I stopped for breakfast had a sign posted stating that smoking was prohibited by city ordinance; had I not know that the law only required special ventilation for smoking areas, I would have been disappointed but spent my money there anyway, since I would have felt that the merchant was not permitted to provide what I wanted. Since I knew the sign to be misleading, I went a couple more blocks until I found a place with the proper ventilation system to spend my money with a merchant who provided what I wanted.GrillKing wrote:Again, if we push the issue and 'force' either compliant signs or no signs, a LOT more places will be off limits. Let people post what they want, whether firerms related or not. Either they are enforceable by law or they are not...
The same can happen with someone from out of state who hasn't memorized the exact 30.06 requirement and sees a "No handguns allowed under state law" posting: they will assume that it is not the merchant's choice, but a requirement placed on them by the state. (Granted, 30.06 still sounds like it's not the property owner's choice to post it, but that's a separate issue and should be taken up with the legislature at some point.)