Is there a certain size sign and lettering or any other requirements for a "No Guns Allowed" sign at restraunts, stores and what not???

Yup........................ From MN 624.714

(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.

That's a "yup...but..."

Since signage is not required anymore, any business can post any sign for any reason.

If it meets the law's specification, we refer to it as "proper", if it's not, then it's "improper".

What he said.

Yes there is, but it makes no difference.

So if someone had a sign that was black letters, like 1/2 tall in black on glass, that wouldn't be legal???

There is nothing "illegal" about the sign you describe, but it would, as Pakrat described, "improper", and you're free to walk past it - much as if it were a "proper" sign.

phorvick, I hope you don't mind.....

1. owner is against customers carrying guns, but puts up no sign; customer enters and is somehow seen carrying, and is asked to leave; absent some other discriminatory act on part of the owner that is statutorily prohibited (i.e., we don't serve minorities), the private property owner has the right to ask you to leave and could enforce that request through a trespass threat; however, there is no penalty for simply entering the store, the penalty, if any, is in failure to leave;

2. owner erects non-compliant sign; customer enters and is somehow seen carrying, and is asked to leave; absent some other discriminatory act on part of the owner that is statutorily prohibited (i.e., we don't serve minorities), the private property owner has the right to ask you to leave and could enforce that request through a trespass threat regardless of the correctness of the sign; however, there is no penalty for simply entering the store, the penalty, if any, is in failure to leave;

3. owner erects a fully compliant sign; customer enters and is somehow seen carrying, and is asked to leave; absent some other discriminatory act on part of the owner that is statutorily prohibited (i.e., we don't serve minorities), the private property owner has the right to ask you to leave ; however, there is no penalty for simply entering the store, the very minor penalty, if any, is in failure to leave;

I believe the correct term to be "non-compliant". I love those.

Why is signage no longer required? Can you cite where this appears in state law? (DH is big on sources.)

It would take a far keener mind than mine to parse through the sign issue. If there is a sign (compliant or not) and you are seen to be carrying in the posted establishment, they can ask you to leave and it would be best if you did.

If there is no sign and you are seen to be carrying in the non-posted establishment, they can ask you to leave and it would be best if you did.

To me, the sign seems to be to be little more than a "f--- you" to people legally carrying.

Pretty much sums it up, old dude.
Until they ask you to leave and you refuse, no harm, no foul, if I follow the law.
And if you do refuse to leave, then the chips fall where they may.

I look for the signs - I obey the signs - I respect the signs - hell I even admire and wonder at peoples mentality if they have posted a sign - but I never want to get into a confrontation over a sign.

I simply try as best as I can to avoid all of the posted establishments.

If I cannot - well - I follow the rules.

In the 2005 version of the law, a business can notify that guns are banned EITHER with a compliant sign, OR verbally.

But in both the 2003 and 2005 versions, the business must "demand compliance" -- a separate action from the sign or the verbal notification.

IF that demand is ignored, and IF the cops are called, and IF the permit holder is still there when they arrive, the cops may issue a $25 petty misdemeanor ticket.

To the best of anyone's knowledge, no such ticket has ever been issued.

What does this mean? It means that carrying past a "proper" sign is COMPLETELY LEGAL.

Refusing to leave AFTER a demand for compliance is the only time an infraction occurs.

Every permit holder should understand this. If your carry instructor didn't make this clear, it's time to look for another class.

Well, yea, you can use non-compliant also... I think of the word compliant like the word legal. Since you don't have to comply with the signage... I use proper/improper. Anything works...


With the passage of the 2005 version of the law, the legislature changed a word (AND) to an OR in the posting/trespass section. Instead of the business posting a sign AND notifying you that guns are banned, now it's post a sign OR notify you. So, regardless of what sign is out front, they can still notify you that they ban guns and ask you to leave.

Current version of 624.714 here. Subd 17.

And a reassuring belly-rub to the hoplophobic minority.