This is one of those things where there's lots of good arguments on all sides.

Here's one: the law is very specific about who can and can't post, and how a posting is to be done. Governmental agencies that aren't allowed, by law, to post should not do so, or pretend to do so.

Here's another: people who do not wish to have permit holders' business should be allowed to express that in any way that they want -- even if their expression isn't legally binding. Those folks have the right to express themselves, just like everybody else does.

Here's yet another: it's in the interest of the carry community to know which private establishments' ownership would like us to take our business elsewhere, so that we can do that, and spend our money in friendlier places. It's also in our interest to keep embarrassing the antis, who put forward their pompous "Campaign to Post" shortly after the MCPPA passed in 2003, and quickly found that it was a dramatic and embarrassing failure.

My own take, for what it's worth, is that we're dealing with many different kinds of people who put up signs, and it's best to treat different kinds of people, well, differently. Here's a few categories:

Governmental agencies. If a governmental agency posts, it's violating the law. A governmental agency should be expected to obey the law. Giving them an appropriate, formal, lawful hassle for not doing so is a good thing. If we're dealing with a government bureaucrat who just doesn't quite understand the issues -- and there are some -- it wouldn't be bad to start off with an informal, friendly discussion. But some governmental bureaucrats are open to informal, friendly discussions. Some aren't. Knowing which one you're dealing with is a good thing -- there's no point in hassling a guy who just doesn't know what he was doing.

Malls. The law on this is unsettled. The statute is clear -- but how the courts will interpret it is not. My own take -- and remember that I'm not a lawyer -- is pretty standard: the malls can post the areas that they are the proprietors of (the mall offices, for example) but they can't take action that will restrict the right of their tenants to choose not to post, or the guests and customers of said tenants to have easy access to said tenants' establishments. At some point, somebody is going to have to take malls like the Mall of America to court -- but I'm more than a little bit unhappy about that happening in the metro area, where the judges all too often let their own political preferences overrule what the law says.

Private establishments outside of malls. That's pretty clear; if they want to post, and have the post mean something legally, they can follow the rules. If they're not following the rules, their posting doesn't mean anything legally -- but may appear to mean something legally. Educating private establishments as to what the law is is a good thing. That way, if they really want to post, they will know how to -- although it's not difficult to find out the first place -- and if they want to either take down the signs, or post a non-compliant sign that is simply a political statement, they can do that knowing what the implications are. Perfectly reasonable.

Individuals. The law is specific on this: individuals can bar permit holders from carrying in their homes by giving notice in any lawful manner. Basically: they gotta tell the permit holder somehow or other. There's lots of folks who are anti-gun; there's very few (one or two in the whole state, I think) who post any sort of sign. I think people like that should be encouraged to let the world know about their position -- and if that makes them bigger targets for burglars or home invaders, let them live with those consequences. If they don't want to put up any sort of sign, that's fine, too -- but it's also fine to point out the hypocrisy.

Well said Joel,thank you.I agree wholheartedly with regard to government agencies/buildings and following the law.As for other situations,different circumstances call for different actions.

Well, we can "Score another one for the good Guys"

All of the signs came down at the Hutchinson Mall yesterday as a direct result of the letter that I posted here in this forum and sent in to the Corperation that owns the mall and the mall manager. I really think this approach will work if it is handled professionally and with tact. The mall owners compied with my request within two weeks of submitting the letter so I am assuming they had an attorney review the letter and check the statute (or the letter stood on it's own two feet and quoted the statute well enough for them not to question it).

Please feel free to copy my letter to from the forum and use it at shopping centers and malls near you. Don't let them get away with improperly posted signs

HATS OFF TO YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GOOD JOB!!!!

Thanks

Like everybody else said: way to go!

OUTSTANDING !!! Nice job

I really appreciate all the previous work of others in getting the law passed, so I can carry a handgun legally.

I am also a firm believer in “getting up off your ass” and do something. Like, giving No Gun, No $” cards, writing letters, etc.

Your actions accomplished a lot. You are to be congratulated for that effort.

There are not that many of us (in relation to the population as a whole), so we all need to spend that extra bit of energy in promoting/protection our rights.

Thank you again.

Congrats!

I hate to rain on the parade but I was just at the Hutchinson Mall this past weekend and it looks like the signs are back up. The signs are posted at each entrance and say “The Owner and Operator of Hutchinson Mall Bans Guns in these Premises.” It looks like they read the statues and made an effort to post “correctly.”

Are they afraid to post the name of the owning company?

Not much of an effort, apparently -- even forgetting about how landlords can't restrict carry by tenants and/or their guests: I very strongly doubt that the name of the owner/operator of that mall is "The Owner and Operator of Hutchinson Mall."

Someone told me that a landlord (MALL), can put it in a lease, that you need to agree to all the Malls rules about SAFTY at the time you sign the lease and all rules the Mall will make after that.... Maybe Business Law, is a bit different?

IANAL- Whether it's legal or not, they can make someone sign it before they will let them sign a lease. But, will it hold up in court if they try to boot them out for violating it?

IAAL(retired) I suspect that by contract they can restrict the otherwise legal carry by mall tenants, but that has nothing to do with the ability (or lack thereof) to purportedly ban legal carry by guests/visitors etc.