Let's assume, for a minute, that the right of a property owner to ban concealed handguns trumps your RKBA. That is not the question of law I wish to discuss, and to assume otherwise makes the question moot.
Virtually all states, through either permutation of current trespassing law or as a specific offense, makes it a crime for you to enter or remain on the premises of a building if directly requested to leave or not to enter if you are carrying concealed. Some states make that a more severe offense than "simple" trespass. Most here agree that even in the absence of a sign, a business or homeowner has the right to tell someone they are not welcome while carrying a concealed weapon.
Let's get specific: Texas allows any property owner to orally communicate that weapons are not allowed on the property, and failure to heed that notice after it is given constitutes trespassing with a concealed weapon. The same paragraph allows the notice to be given in writing, but strictly specifies how the notice must be presented and it is largely assumed it is not binding if not in-spec. Colorado allows no such sign; property owners must orally give notice to each person carrying that they are not welcome.
Here's the question; if the owner can give oral notice, which does not have to meet any specification for its delivery other than that the intent of the message must be able to be understood by the person receiving it, how then would any sign, regardless of conformance to specifications or failure of same, which a person carrying concealed could not reasonably fail to notice or infer its intent, carry any less force of law than an oral statement? Specifications may be codified, and a slick lawyer hired to defend you against a "trespass by CHL" charge might try to tear the property owner apart on specifications (it wasn't contrasting colors, it wasn't inch-tall text, it wasn't in English and Spanish, it wasn't placed prominently at the entrance you took), but most judges I've encountered are not very tolerant of technicalities, and if you saw the sign posted, and realized what the property owner was trying to communicate, specifications matter very little; you as good as ignored a notice to refrain from entering with a handgn on your person.
Anyone have any specific cases where specifications of or prohibitions on signage for "gun free zones" were upheld or overturned?
Virtually all states, through either permutation of current trespassing law or as a specific offense, makes it a crime for you to enter or remain on the premises of a building if directly requested to leave or not to enter if you are carrying concealed. Some states make that a more severe offense than "simple" trespass. Most here agree that even in the absence of a sign, a business or homeowner has the right to tell someone they are not welcome while carrying a concealed weapon.
Let's get specific: Texas allows any property owner to orally communicate that weapons are not allowed on the property, and failure to heed that notice after it is given constitutes trespassing with a concealed weapon. The same paragraph allows the notice to be given in writing, but strictly specifies how the notice must be presented and it is largely assumed it is not binding if not in-spec. Colorado allows no such sign; property owners must orally give notice to each person carrying that they are not welcome.
Here's the question; if the owner can give oral notice, which does not have to meet any specification for its delivery other than that the intent of the message must be able to be understood by the person receiving it, how then would any sign, regardless of conformance to specifications or failure of same, which a person carrying concealed could not reasonably fail to notice or infer its intent, carry any less force of law than an oral statement? Specifications may be codified, and a slick lawyer hired to defend you against a "trespass by CHL" charge might try to tear the property owner apart on specifications (it wasn't contrasting colors, it wasn't inch-tall text, it wasn't in English and Spanish, it wasn't placed prominently at the entrance you took), but most judges I've encountered are not very tolerant of technicalities, and if you saw the sign posted, and realized what the property owner was trying to communicate, specifications matter very little; you as good as ignored a notice to refrain from entering with a handgn on your person.
Anyone have any specific cases where specifications of or prohibitions on signage for "gun free zones" were upheld or overturned?
