I'm not sure that I agree that a sign on one of many entrances meets the legal definition of being "displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public". Sure it is visible to some of the public, but not all of the public that is visiting that store / location. To take one example, picture an Academy (I'm assuming most on this board are familiar with their typical layout). If a valid 30.06 sign is posted in the restroom area is it "displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public"? The public is welcome to walk into that restroom area, and if they do, let's assume that they will clearly see the sign. However, not every member of the public who visits that location would typically enter that area of the store on a given trip, or possibly ever over a number of trips. In the same way, if I am a creature of habit and I always enter a Kroger or whatever through an unposted door, am I liable for the notice that was posted on a different entrance altogether?C-dub wrote:I would make the same argument if I had to, but am afraid I would lose since the business that has a correct sign on even one entrance meets the definition of the law. I do not think this argument has been made in the courts yet because no one has violated it and been caught.Katygunnut wrote:That said, if the sign is not anywhere near any of the multiple entrances to the location, then I would argue that it is not "displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public". This is similar to a business that has multiple entrances that are commonly used and only posts a few of them. At a minimum, I think it would be a defense to prosecution if the facts were that you entered the location through an entrance that is commonly used by the public, and there were no signs visible when you entered. If someone has to go out of their way to search all possible entrances (and in this case places that are not even near entrances) to see a sign, then I think the sign is by definition not "displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public".
A similar situation would be a gas station / convenience store that put the 30.06 sign on the gas pumps, but had no sign near the door. Some customers will be at the gas pump before entering the building, others won't, just like in this case. Would we really expect a jury to convict a CHL holder because they stopped by the store to buy some milk and failed to walk around the entire premises searching for a potential 30.06 sign before entering?
Disclaimer - IANAL
IANAL, but it seems to me that the spirit of the law is that the owner of the premises needs to give fair warning that would reasonably be seen by a typical patron of their establishment. Posting only one of many entrances doesn't meet this standard, in my mind. Posting somewhere on the outside of the building, away from any of the entrances (as in the case of AMC) is basically equivalent to posting outside the restrooms, IMHO.