It's posted. How exactly do I tell if it was legal? (to share, I have no permit yet)

It was something like:

We want this to be a safe place for children to learn and play, so:
Minnesota Childrens Museum bans guns on these premesis.

The bans guns line was far more prominent than the intro sentence.

I did find it odd that they prefer a place predominently packed with mom's and kids to be a target...

Here is the statutes that pertain to posting from the BCA website.

"(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. "

Now is the Children's Museum a government controlled building or not?
Was all entrances posted with the sign?
Was the letters at least 1.5" in height?
Was the sign at least 11x17 in size?

It is really stupid to have this posted!

Does the inclusion of the

"We want this to be a safe place for children to learn and play, so: "

text invalidate the posting?

In addition to the location, size, font, colors, ect.. of these signs, the law also says how they have to be worded. But it doesn't say that extra text can't be included, like the ridiculous introduction sentance I've quoted above.

My daughter and grand-daughter were there yesterday. Daughter pointed out sign to me. I asked if she was carrying. "Of course, and so are YOU!", she replied. We both grinned and went on in...Not sure if anyone noticed the wheel gun under my left arm or the .45 on daughter's hip. Then again, i DO know we didn't care.

BTW, she's a specialist in elementary ed and she says the museum is mostly a waste of space.

I don't know
Yes
Yes
Yes



Did you see the funny looking guy with the two cute daughters? That was me I agree on the wasted space thing. Not only that...you would think they would change it once in a while, or at least maintain it better. I was disapointed in a few things that were borderline broken still after three years.

Good question,does the inclusion of additional wording invalidate the posting?This assumes all other requirements of being able to post are met,ie not a government owned building,a landlord,etc.

Additional wording does not invalidate the sign, provided it is otherwise compliant.

Dang.


Thanks for answering, though.

No way I'd let that sign on that building in that neighborhood stop me from carrying.

Since I've been carrying in a breast pocket of my leather jacket, I haven't took it out.

As much money as they get in the state budget they must be a state building.

Well, I had to reply to this. As much as I may not like these places, why do people choose to violate the law and carry in these places. We just recently got our priviledge to carry a pistol in Minnesota. Any negative interaction with LE, particularly in violating laws that we are clearly aware of, is going to give the anti-gunners fuel to take our new priviledges away. (Please think emphasis on the word "priviledge." We didn't have it before, and it can be taken away. It is a priviledge, not a right.)

If there is a situation that you have to use your gun in such a place, the media is not going to say that you saved these people. They are going to talk about a rambo type CCW holder illegally carrying a gun provoking gunfire around children. How do you think that's going to improve our somewhat shaky situation? You save lives, that's good, but you potentially limit the ability of others to do the same.

Breaking the laws that people have worked hard to put in place doesn't make me look too good, does it? I know for a fact that most people are not going to look at it and say "that permit holder." They are going to look at it and say "a permit holder" and I will be part of their generalization. So, why is it that we should blatantly violate our laws rather than changing peoples minds by refusing to give money to these places?

It's not against the law to carry past the sign. It's against the law to carry past the sign, then refuse to leave when compliance is demanded.

Minnesota Statutes 2005, Section 624.714, Subd. 17
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.



It's not a privilege. It's a newly-restored right, but a right nonetheless.



If there is a situation that I have to use my gun in such a place, the reaction of the media is going to be my 17th or 18th priority. Some higher priorities involve me staying alive, my wife and kids staying alive, staying out of jail, staying out of the poorhouse, dealing with the emotional and psychological aftermath of using deadly force....

If you are ID'd all they can do is ask you to leave, and let you go.
If you leave, no law broken if I understand correctly. No harm, no foul.
"OOPS! I didn't see the sign! So Sorry! Please refund my ticket price and my family and I will be on our way."

I'd rather be armed "illegally" than be dead. If something should happen to threaten the life of myself or my family, I'll defend myself to the best of my ability, and worry about the consequences later.
If the worst thing they can do is ticket me for tresspassing, assuming the use of force was found to be justified, the last thing I'd be worrying about is what affect defending my life would have on the carry law.
I'd be more worried about paying the lawyers bill and court costs.

Having to use lethal force in a place that bans guns just might illustrate how ridiculous these banning signs really are.

Just MHO.

You must have taken the old course. The law changed. Read further into the section in the very link that you posted. I'm noticing that with a lot of people with permits to carry. Here is the quote:



They changed the law when it was re-passed. I highlighted the key word. It used to say "and", they changed it to "or." It only takes one or the other now, not both.

I also understand both of your positions, but please understand mine. If I lose my priviledge to carry (which I will explain in a moment) I can not carry a gun. I may then not defend myself adequately against lethal force. By saving your skin you're risking a lot of other people's. I won't risk your safety because I don't like something and feel like breaking the law, why is it OK to risk mine.

It is indeed a priviledge. A priviledge is generally accepted as something that can be taken away. A right is something that can not be taken away. If you commit any of a variety of crimes, your permit to carry and/or own a firearm can be taken away. It is therefore a priviledge, similar to driving a car. That priviledge can also be taken away. Felons, for example can not own firearms. We generally don't want them to. Their priviledge has been taken away.

It still boils down to the same thing, refusal to leave. If I don't see the sign and they don't see the gun, what can happen? As I understand it, the wording was changed so churches didn't have to post signs to prohibit guns, they could just say guns are not allowed. Also, since I completed the training and passed the background check, I have the right to carry. It is a must issue, not may issue. Besides, the 2nd amendment also gives me the right no matter what liberal politicians may say.