So.........they changed the law about signage?

Gun related chat that doesn't fit in another forum

Re: So.........they changed the law about signage?

Postby farmerj on Mon Jan 30, 2012 1:19 pm

In addition.

Before a change to the law can go into effect, it must be published. To be published, it must be posted to the revisor.

If it's even posted for print update, it's my understanding the website is updated first.

So ergo, 7/15/2011, someone make an administrative ruling to change the BCA website and now Mr Rothman has another thing to froth about on their website.
We reap what we sow. In our case, we have sown our government.
Current moon phase
User avatar
farmerj
 
Posts: 4801 [View]
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 9:11 am
Location: The edge of the universe in the vertex of time on the space continuum of confusion

Re: Re: So.........they changed the law about signage?

Postby goett047 on Mon Jan 30, 2012 1:20 pm

mmarino wrote:I'm lost, what is it that supposedly changed?

You and I both
User avatar
goett047
 
Posts: 1821 [View]
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2011 8:27 pm
Location: Anoka, Minnesota

Re: So.........they changed the law about signage?

Postby John S. on Mon Jan 30, 2012 1:42 pm

Posted signs don't mean diddly, if a business has a sign saying no guns allowed, unless you carry in that business, and are personally told to leave,(if you are carrying concealed, there's no reason anyone should even know it), you aren't breaking any laws, but, if you were told to leave and don't, THEN you are breaking the law, and it is a petty misdomeaner. The way that website had it worded the sign itself WAS legal and you can't carry in there, but, it looks like it is worded wrong on handgun laws website! ;)
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. -- P.J. O'Rourke, Civil Libertarian
User avatar
John S.
 
Posts: 4368 [View]
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 7:32 am
Location: In your Fridge!

Re: So.........they changed the law about signage?

Postby plblark on Mon Jan 30, 2012 1:52 pm

What this all means is that John S. Jumped the gun and panicked. Nothing changed. Someone commented to handgunlaw.us that their information was incorrect. handgunlaw.us checked the MN BCA website FAQ which incorrectly states things. handgunlaw.us acknowledges this as quoted earlier but they're between a rock and a hard place. So, handgunlaw.us changed the language on THEIR site on that date. Nothing actually changed in the law.

To Reiterate: NOTHING HAS CHANGED! handgunlaw.us is relying on an erroneous FAQ from the MN BCA.

Stay calm and Carry On!
private or small grou permit classes available
"I'll take a huge order of fiscal responsibility, a side of small government, hold the religion please. " Paraphrase from Tamara K
RIP 1911Fan
User avatar
plblark
 
Posts: 6794 [View]
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 12:12 pm
Location: Roseville

Re: So.........they changed the law about signage?

Postby bstrawse on Mon Jan 30, 2012 2:24 pm

farmerj wrote:So ergo, 7/15/2011, someone make an administrative ruling to change the BCA website and now Mr Rothman has another thing to froth about on their website.


Froth?
b
Chair, Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus & Minnesota Gun Owners Political Action Committee - Join the Caucus TODAY
MN Permit to Carry Instructor| NRA Instructor | NRA Chief Range Safety Officer | Twitter | Facebook
User avatar
bstrawse
Moderator
 
Posts: 4136 [View]
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 11:45 am
Location: Roseville, MN

Re: So.........they changed the law about signage?

Postby John S. on Mon Jan 30, 2012 2:59 pm

GD interweb and their lies!..................................LIES! :roll:
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. -- P.J. O'Rourke, Civil Libertarian
User avatar
John S.
 
Posts: 4368 [View]
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 7:32 am
Location: In your Fridge!

Re: So.........they changed the law about signage?

Postby Gary Slider on Tue Jan 31, 2012 10:12 am

Handgunlaw.us reports the laws as written and information supplied by the Government Agency that supplies that information on the web. From what the BCA is stating on their website and how the law reads the signs do have the force of law. From my discussions with those in the RKBA's in MN the BCA is oversteppting their authority with their listing on the FAQ's and you must be ask to leave. I have to report what the states are saying and not "My Opinion" or someone else's opinion. Another case in point. In my home state of WV the AG puts on his website that all "Police Stations" are off limits. WV Law is very specific in what places are off limits and Police Stations are not mentioned in the law. I put Police Stations as off limits on the WV Page as this is what the AG Is reporting. That is what I have to list as that is what the AG is stating.

The MN BCA website at
https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/bca/bca-di ... y-FAQ.aspx
States:
Where am I prohibited from carrying my pistol?

School property
A childcare center while children are present
Public colleges and universities – may have policy restricting the carrying of weapons on their premises by employees and students while on campus
Private establishments that have posted a sign banning guns on their premises
Private establishments who have personally informed the permit holder that guns are prohibited and demands compliance
Places of employment, public or private, if employer restricts the carry or possession of firearms by is employees
State correctional facilities or state hospitals and grounds (MN Statute 243.55)
Any jail, lockup or correctional facility (MN Statute 641.165)
Courthouse complexes, unless the sheriff is notified (MN Statute 609.66)
Offices and courtrooms of the Minnesota Supreme Court and Court of Appeals
Any state building in the Capitol Area of St. Paul described in MN Statute Chapter 15B unless the commissioner of public safety is notified (MN Statute 609.66)
In federal court facilities or other federal facilities (Title 18 U.S.C.§ 930)

Then MN Law states this at https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=624.714

Subd. 17.Posting; trespass.

(a) A person carrying a firearm on or about his or her person or clothes under a permit or otherwise who remains at a private establishment knowing that the operator of the establishment or its agent has made a reasonable request that firearms not be brought into the establishment may be ordered to leave the premises. A person who fails to leave when so requested is guilty of a petty misdemeanor. The fine for a first offense must not exceed $25. Notwithstanding section 609.531, a firearm carried in violation of this subdivision is not subject to forfeiture.

(b) As used in this subdivision, the terms in this paragraph have the meanings given.

(1) "Reasonable request" means a request made under the following circumstances:

(i) the requester has prominently posted a conspicuous sign at every entrance to the establishment containing the following language: "(INDICATE IDENTITY OF OPERATOR) BANS GUNS IN THESE PREMISES."; or

(ii) the requester or the requester's agent personally informs the person that guns are prohibited in the premises and demands compliance.

(2) "Prominently" means readily visible and within four feet laterally of the entrance with the bottom of the sign at a height of four to six feet above the floor.

(3) "Conspicuous" means lettering in black arial typeface at least 1-1/2 inches in height against a bright contrasting background that is at least 187 square inches in area.

(4) "Private establishment" means a building, structure, or portion thereof that is owned, leased, controlled, or operated by a nongovernmental entity for a nongovernmental purpose.

(c) The owner or operator of a private establishment may not prohibit the lawful carry or possession of firearms in a parking facility or parking area.

(d) This subdivision does not apply to private residences. The lawful possessor of a private residence may prohibit firearms, and provide notice thereof, in any lawful manner.

(e) A landlord may not restrict the lawful carry or possession of firearms by tenants or their guests.

(f) Notwithstanding any inconsistent provisions in section 609.605, this subdivision sets forth the exclusive criteria to notify a permit holder when otherwise lawful firearm possession is not allowed in a private establishment and sets forth the exclusive penalty for such activity.

(g) This subdivision does not apply to:

(1) an active licensed peace officer; or

(2) a security guard acting in the course and scope of employment.
_____________
Stay Safe,
Gary Slider

Co-Owner Handgunlaw.us

Member Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network
User avatar
Gary Slider
 
Posts: 20 [View]
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 9:43 am

Re: So.........they changed the law about signage?

Postby DeanC on Tue Jan 31, 2012 10:33 am

Like I said - that *is* what the law says. Thanks for popping in Gary! :D
Decrypt the points of departure and return your head slowly and you do not cancel your hair.
User avatar
DeanC
 
Posts: 8502 [View]
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 8:22 am
Location: Captain Cufflinks

Re: So.........they changed the law about signage?

Postby plblark on Tue Jan 31, 2012 10:34 am

(a) A person carrying a firearm on or about his or her person or clothes under a permit or otherwise who remains at a private establishment knowing that the operator of the establishment or its agent has made a reasonable request that firearms not be brought into the establishment may be ordered to leave the premises. A person who fails to leave when so requested is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.


Reasonable request followed by demand for compliance. I still recommend people respect property rights and not spend money with people who post such signs but the legality of the offense is the refusing to leave part.
Last edited by plblark on Tue Jan 31, 2012 10:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
private or small grou permit classes available
"I'll take a huge order of fiscal responsibility, a side of small government, hold the religion please. " Paraphrase from Tamara K
RIP 1911Fan
User avatar
plblark
 
Posts: 6794 [View]
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 12:12 pm
Location: Roseville

Re: Re: So.........they changed the law about signage?

Postby goett047 on Tue Jan 31, 2012 10:35 am

DeanC wrote:Like I said - that *is* what the law says. Thanks for popping in Gary! :D

Like ^
User avatar
goett047
 
Posts: 1821 [View]
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2011 8:27 pm
Location: Anoka, Minnesota

Re: So.........they changed the law about signage?

Postby BemidjiDweller on Tue Jan 31, 2012 10:41 am

It looks the same to me. Then again, I didn't read it before the suposed change.
User avatar
BemidjiDweller
 
Posts: 777 [View]
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 12:26 am

Re: So.........they changed the law about signage?

Postby farmerj on Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:07 am

BemidjiDweller wrote:It looks the same to me. Then again, I didn't read it before the suposed change.



There still was no change that went into effect 7/15/2011.

The last changes to mn statute was 2009.

It was an administratrive ruling on handgunlaw.us to post a change to their website based off an administrative ruling from BCA
We reap what we sow. In our case, we have sown our government.
Current moon phase
User avatar
farmerj
 
Posts: 4801 [View]
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 9:11 am
Location: The edge of the universe in the vertex of time on the space continuum of confusion

Re: So.........they changed the law about signage?

Postby Gary Slider on Tue Jan 31, 2012 12:00 pm

I am not positive but the way I remember it I was carrying MN on as "???????? unsure Until further information is available."

I was not sure so It was listed as unknown. When I changed it I changed it from Unsure/unknown if they had the force of law to "They have the force of law."
So there didn't have to be a law change in MN. That is just when I had enough information showing it did have the force of law to post that info.

Is that info correct? I am not 100% sure but I have to go with what the law reads and what the BCA is putting out. I kicked around the idea of adding the info on No Gun Signs for a couple years before I did it for the very reason this discussion is going on. It is very difficult in some states to actually have it in black and white. If the state does not have it spelled out in their handgun laws then you have to start looking at trespass laws and even AG Opinions/Court Cases. It can be very difficult and I still carry 5 or 6 states as ????????/ as I can't find enough enough one way or the other.
_____________
Stay Safe,
Gary Slider

Co-Owner Handgunlaw.us

Member Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network
User avatar
Gary Slider
 
Posts: 20 [View]
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 9:43 am

Re: So.........they changed the law about signage?

Postby DeanC on Tue Jan 31, 2012 12:08 pm

Gary - you have quoted the law correctly. The definition of what "force of law" the signs have is spelled out in what you posted.

The signs do have a force of law. How that law is practically implemented or enforced is subject to interpretation. I do not believe anyone can cite a case where someone was fined $25 for refusing to leave since the law went into effect in 2003.

I don't know how you could fit a whole big discussion about it on your summary, it is better addressed in the class that all Minnesota permit holders must take. For people travelling to MN with a recognized permit, it might be more clear to them if you said:

Do “No Gun Signs” Have the Force of Law?

Yes, but very weakly
Decrypt the points of departure and return your head slowly and you do not cancel your hair.
User avatar
DeanC
 
Posts: 8502 [View]
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 8:22 am
Location: Captain Cufflinks

Re: So.........they changed the law about signage?

Postby farmerj on Tue Jan 31, 2012 12:12 pm

Gary,

That's understandable.

But the confusion HERE started when someone referenced the handgunlaw.us website and came back reporting that the law had changed as of 7/15/2011 thinking that Minnesota Statutes had changed since his class for his permit.

Luckily, this was a relatively minor issue in the carry world and what could have happened. In MN, this would have been a petty misdemeanor trespass issue.

As an instructor, I tell my students that your website is a wonderful resource along with a couple others for a clearinghouse on carry laws for where they want to travel to around the country.

Hate to say it, but that leaves a large point of responsibility on your part even if they are directly told in writing and verbally that information is subject to change as well as verification of current laws at the date of travel. Part of which the OP did. He came here to verify what he saw as a change on the handgunlaw website.

Confusion can come quickly as we have just witnessed.

A possible solution is to note if it's an actual statute change or an administrative change and on whose part.
We reap what we sow. In our case, we have sown our government.
Current moon phase
User avatar
farmerj
 
Posts: 4801 [View]
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 9:11 am
Location: The edge of the universe in the vertex of time on the space continuum of confusion

PreviousNext

Return to General Gun Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests

cron