I am not a lawyer, but as I read this, it is an affirmative defense if you are not informed of the presence of the sign. I read this to mean that if they dont tell you about the notice you will not be charged.
This basically follows the pattern of you enter, they ask you to leave while telling you about the sign. If you dont leave at that point you are violating the law.
Also the sign has to be the sign from the state, they cant just make up any sign they want.
Not true. They can make their own if it's in compliance with 4-229...they don't have to use the sign from the state.
The statute you cite states the requirements for a
licensed establishment (which serves alcohol). So this specific legal requirement for the details of the sign only apply to establishments which sell/serve alcohol.
In addition, the rest of the statute you cited says:
D. The department of liquor licenses and control shall prepare the signs required by this section and make them available at no cost to licensees.
E. The signs required by this section shall be composed of block, capital letters printed in black on white laminated paper at a minimum weight of one hundred ten pound index. The lettering and pictogram shall consume a space at least six inches by nine inches. The letters constituting the words "no firearms allowed" shall be at least three-fourths of a vertical inch and all other letters shall be at least one-half of a vertical inch. Nothing shall prohibit a licensee from posting additional signs at one or more locations on the premises.
F. This section does not prohibit a person who possesses a handgun from entering the licensed premises for a limited time for the specific purpose of either:
1. Seeking emergency aid.
2. Determining whether a sign has been posted pursuant to subsection A of this section.
While doing some research on this subject, I came across the following on handgunlaw.us for Arizona:
"Arizona does have wording in their law concerning the posting of Places that Serve Alcohol and specifications for that posting. See 4-229. However a place that serves alcohol can post any type of no gun sign they wish and they have met the letter of the law and 4-229 penalties can be applied."
I don't see this explicitly stated in the statute. However, the state statute does list specifics on what is a defense to a violation and non-compliance with the specific sign construction is not listed. Therefore it may be implicit that this is not a defense, which would mean that any "No Guns" sign which is conspicuously posted may, indeed, meet the letter of the law. It may certainly be a challenge point in an actual court case, or perhaps to avoid a court case entirely.
I did find one article which supported the statement made in the handgunlaw.us page here:
http://www.examiner.com/article/some-confusion-regarding-arizona-carry-laws
I did find one other matter on criminal trespass:
13-1502. Criminal trespass in the third degree; classification
A. A person commits criminal trespass in the third degree by:
1. Knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully on any real property after a reasonable request to leave by the owner or any other person having lawful control over such property, or reasonable notice prohibiting entry.
2. Knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully on the right-of-way for tracks, or the storage or switching yards or rolling stock of a railroad company.
B. Criminal trespass in the third degree is a class 3 misdemeanor.
What does that mean? Well, if a person has a regular "No Guns Sign" conspicuously posted at the entrance of a bar and you violate it, then you can be automatically charged with a class 3 misdemeanor for criminal trespass. Perhaps the difference between the sign requirements of 4-229 and this is 4-229 also includes a criminal firearms violation as well. However, BOTH circumstances involve criminal violations and may very well affect one's ability to continue carry a CCW permit. I'll leave that up for others to discuss...but I, for one, am not eager to be charged with anything criminal, period.
Here's a previous posting on this matter by Frank Ettin (who is a lawyer):
http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=8811074&postcount=41
All that said, I ain't no lawyer and I'll happily defer to the experienced opinion of those who are on this matter.
Regardless, I am of the opinion that, like it or not, private businesses have the right to set such rules and should be respected. I can choose to comply or take my business elsewhere in response.