Posted on 06/06/2003 2:03:14 PM PDT by jdege
BY CASEY SELIX
Pioneer Press
They're big, bold and — some complain — downright ugly, but they're bringing in a few bucks for local sign makers in a tepid economy.
Minnesota's new conceal-and-carry gun law requires businesses and other establishments to post signs at all entrances if they don't want gun-toting people roaming the halls.
But not just any old sign will do. The law says the sign must be at least 187 square inches in area, the black typeface must be Arial (which looks like this: Arial) and 1½ inches in height, and the background must be a bright, contrasting color. The sign must say: "(Name of establishment) bans guns in these premises."
Area sign makers say they're dealing with hundreds of inquiries and producing some sizable orders since the posting requirement went into effect late last month. Though the new commerce is a welcome bonus in a slow economy, sign makers don't expect a long-term bonanza.
"It's certainly been pennies from heaven for us, but it isn't going to fund my retirement," said Tom Trutna, owner of SigntificGraphics in Eagan.
Depending on the quality of the sign material and the quantity ordered, prices can range from $6 to nearly $50 apiece, according to the sign makers interviewed for this story. Typical profits on signs are double or more the makers' costs, said one sign maker.
Trutna recently sent out a "blast fax" to 400 members of the Northern Dakota County Chamber of Commerce to advise that his firm could quickly produce customized signs. Signtific's first order came from Northwest Airlines, he said.
A couple of pesky issues keep surfacing in customer inquiries, Trutna and others said.
"Frankly, when these signs are laid out to the letter of the law, they're ugly and alarming," Trutna said. "I've got people saying, 'Geez, I want to post something, but I don't want it to be big, gaudy and fear-inducing.' "
David Goldstein, a partner at the Faegre & Benson law firm who has conducted seminars on the conceal-and-carry law, said businesses are understandably concerned about the aesthetics.
"That's been a big complaint, and it's not a trivial complaint," Goldstein said. "A lot of businesses spend a lot of money to create an atmosphere. They pay to have fancy signs. They pay image and branding consultants. So, they're upset about having to stick something like this in the middle of a carefully crafted lobby or customer space that is dictated to them by the Legislature."
Trutna said the ugliness issue and the fear factor could be keeping some businesses from posting the signs.
Others aren't taking any chances.
The Woodbury Operations Center of State Farm Insuranceordered 40 signs to post at the center and at its claims and field agency offices throughout the state, said spokeswoman Anne Obst.
"We've always had this (weapons ban) policy at State Farm, but we posted the signs to be in compliance with the new state law," Obst said.
State Farm's order delivered a nice boost to the Sign-A-Rama franchise in Maplewood, said owner Bob Siegel. In the past two weeks, his small company has taken 200 orders for conceal-and-carry signs from customers ranging from a Laundromat to State Farm.
"It's gravy-type work," Siegel said. "It's not going to put you over the top, but any time you pick up a couple extra thousand in a month, that's nice."
Davin Brandt, general manager of Budget Sign-Graphics in St. Paul, started alerting customers last month that the company had developed a couple of black-on-white formats.
The business, on Territorial Road near Highway 280, also just erected this week an eye-catching banner declaring that conceal-and-carry signs are available there. The small firm has fielded 200 inquiries and landed several orders.
The bulk of Budget's orders so far are for aluminum signs that can be affixed to building exteriors, Brandt said. He strongly advises customers to stick with the basic black-on-white format and message.
Some customers like to soften the tone of the sign, he said. One recently added a mannerly message below its ban: "Thank you for respecting our wishes. It's the law."
Attorney Goldstein said he doesn't expect any "sign police" to go after businesses that use a wrong typeface, color or size for the conceal-and-carry bans. Even so, the sign subject could come up in a trespass case, he said.
"The only person likely to raise that issue is someone who is an activist in favor of the law who is looking to broaden or establish their rights," he said.
ONLINE
For more information on complying with the conceal-and-carry law, go to www.faegre.com/articles/article_960.asp.
What do you mean "public business"? The mere fact that a business is generally open to the public does not forbid the owner from uninviting certain people.
If a business owner wants to forbid firearms on his property, he has every right to do so, provided that those who do not wish to disarm are not compelled to enter his property (places that a person might be contractually required to enter would be another story, if such contracts were entered into before the prohibition went into effect).
I just stated they could ask him to leave, and if he didn't the police could arrest him for tresspass. Or did you not read that part?
A public business can "toss out" anyone for any reason they wish, but they should not be able to ban certain groups (like gun owners or blacks) from entering. If they don't want members of the public in their establishment, they should become a private club.
In MY house (business, property), you should have to live by MY rules. If you don't like it, go elsewhere.
But your rules ("no tresspassing" excepted) should not be backed up by the law. For instance, if you required that only tall blondes with 36D or larger hooters be allowed onto your property, and you called the police because a brunette showed up at your door, they would laugh in your face.
They might even arrest you for filing a false report. At the very least you could expect a serious tail-chewing for wasting their time.
If you don't want people on your property, fine. Post "no trespassing" signs. I'd abide by them, and even call the police if I saw someone violating your "no tresspassing" sign.
If you want a long laundry list of "do's and don'ts" on your property, then put armed guards at the door (at your expense), form a private club, and make folks pay $$$ to join.
But if you want to run a business open to the public, don't expect the rest of us to foot the bill to have the police and district attorney enforce your ridiculous laundry list.
What do you mean "public business"? The mere fact that a business is generally open to the public does not forbid the owner from uninviting certain people.
No, it doesn't.
But it does mean that the owner must make it clear to those people he does not want in a clear and unmistakable manner.
Have you been in establishments that had "No shirts, no shoes, no service" signs posted? Or "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" signs?
Are you under the impression that businesses can post these signs in any size or place that they choose and still have them have legal affect?
'Tain't so.
A property owner has the right to decide under what circumstances someone may enter his property. People who do not wish to meet the property owner's conditions should simply refrain from entering his property.
There are some rightful limitations on this: (1) a landlord may not impose additional conditions on a tenant during a lease; (2) if someone's property must be crossed to access someone else's property, the former property owner has a limited right to impose conditions upon those wishing to access the latter's property; (3) if a person requires to enter his property for purposes of honoring a contract, he has a limited right to impose any new conditions upon those who are compelled to enter.
He or she can ask the "unwelcome patron" to leave. This is backed up by hundreds of years of Western law related to property and tresspass.
If a business owner wants to forbid firearms on his property, he has every right to do so,
But he doesn't have the right to have that request backed up by the law. He can certainly ask them to leave, but he can't make a criminal out of someone for simply setting foot inside while armed.
What the anti-gunners want is to turn the traditional laws relating to tresspass upside down by making it a criminal act to violate the sign of a business. (Of course, this only applies to guns, not to "shirts required" or "shoes required" signs). Traditionally, only "no tresspass" signs and perhaps "members only" signs have been recognized by the law.
They aren't pro-business, or pro-property. Rather, they are anti-gun zealots who want the make the lives of gun owners absolute hell.
Are you under the impression that businesses can post these signs in any size or place that they choose and still have them have legal affect?
The general principle is that in general a business may kick almost anyone out for almost any reason; the effect of a "no shirt/shoes/service" sign is primarily to tell people that if they do not meet the stated dress requirements they'll be asked to leave immediately and may as well not even bother entering. They aren't posted particularly for "legal effect", but rather to minimize the number of ill-dressed people whom the manager has to kick out.
A property owner has no right (moral or legal) to expect these conditions to be backed up by the law.
Only when he posts a "no trespass" sign, or asks the individual to leave, should the law get involved.
That's the way it's been for hundreds of years (except in some segregational areas decades ago) and that's the way it should be.
Indeed he can ask such a person to leave.
If a business owner wants to forbid firearms on his property, he has every right to do so,
But he doesn't have the right to have that request backed up by the law. He can certainly ask them to leave, but he can't make a criminal out of someone for simply setting foot inside while armed.
From what I understand, the signs in MN have no legal effect since a patron who is found to be armed but leaves when asked is not chargeable with any sort of offense. In TX, if I recall, someone who is caught carrying in a posted business may be charged, but the charge is a petty non-criminal offense [akin to a parking ticket].
I guess my biggest question is why CCW-holders would want to set foot in businesses where they know they are unwelcome, except to such extent as may be contractually necessary to terminate business there.
Not really. What she did took a hell of a lot more courage than some guy with a CCW permit walking in a business with a "no guns" sign, while carrying a well-concealed weapon.
Said Free man should be aware the he may have to relinguish not only his future right to carry but also his future right to even own a firearm.
And many supposedly "pro-gun" people here would being celebrating.
On a side note, Free men can't "lose" Rights. Governments can only fail to recognize them.
I have no problem with that.
I guess my biggest question is why CCW-holders would want to set foot in businesses where they know they are unwelcome, except to such extent as may be contractually necessary to terminate business there.
Usually conveinience. For instance, you fill up your tank with gas, then go inside to pay and see a "no guns" sign. Or you're in a hurry and go into the first store you see. Or you can go in and load up your cart with thousands of dollars of merchandise, and then leave after "discovering" the sign :)
But seriously, these signs (when backed up by legal sanction for violators) result in fewer people carrying, thus increasing the chance that a good guy or gal gets hurt by a bad guy.
That is why the Texas legislature mandated what the sign looked like and had to say. An justly so.
You have to make the rules known before you start enforcing them.
When KKKommunists are running the show, it IS.
It is just like racism to say, "We invite the public, please come in with your money, unless you are an evil gun owner."
I don't spend money at racist establishments, or anti-gun establishments.
Now we agree, let the free market decide.
FReegards, FRiend.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.