albuquerque zoo posted 30.06?

[texas-sig]

So if there's no sign and i don't get a verbal warning from anyone then i can carry. And even if they have the cheezy gun buster sign or any other sign that would mean no carry and skip the zoo right? I won't be leaving my Sig in the truck. We've been there once and that neighborhood just doesn't look trust worthy. Nice zoo though. Too bad the kids are still in school if not we would just head down to San Antonio.

10.8.2.27 PROHIBITING THE CARRYING OF CONCEALED HANDGUNS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY: Pursuant to Subsection C of NMSA 1978 Section 29-19-12, any person lawfully in possession of private property may prohibit the carrying of concealed handguns on such private property by posting notice in accordance with NMSA 1978 Section 30-14-6 or by verbally notifying persons entering upon the property.

[10.8.2.27 NMAC - N, 11-26-03]

[baraco01]

Last time I was there w/ my family was last year. I was told that the zoo is off limits. When I got to the entrance, I looked for a sign. There was a sign with all the restrictions in there including firearms. I went back to my vehicle, disarmed and locked my pistol.

[speedsix]

...well,I've done all the researching I'm going to...the OP is helped...if a professional instructor who lives in the state in question and deals with it for a living isn't enough...it really isn't worth any more of my time...since the law isn't worded like you want it to be, probably wouldn't be convinced if you called the State Police, either...so I'm done...and I haven't seen anyone else lift a finger to verify/dispute what I've found...so we'll all just have our opinions...some informed..some not so much

[G.A. Heath]

...well,I've done all the researching I'm going to...the OP is helped...if a professional instructor who lives in the state in question and deals with it for a living isn't enough...it really isn't worth any more of my time...since the law isn't worded like you want it to be, probably wouldn't be convinced if you called the State Police, either...so I'm done...and I haven't seen anyone else lift a finger to verify/dispute what I've found...so we'll all just have our opinions...some informed..some not so much

Appearently some people are are not reading the entire law.
You posted 10.8.2.16F which says "Carrying prohibited on private property. In addition to other limitations stated in the act, a licensee may not carry a concealed handgun on or about his person on private property that has signs posted prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons or when verbally told so by a person lawfully in possession of the property."

However 10.8.2.27 (also part of their concealed carry law) says "PROHIBITING THE CARRYING OF CONCEALED HANDGUNS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY: Pursuant to Subsection C of NMSA 1978 Section 29-19-12, any person lawfully in possession of private property may prohibit the carrying of concealed handguns on such private property by posting notice in accordance with NMSA 1978 Section 30-14-6 or by verbally notifying persons entering upon the property."

So a property owner can post a sign prohibiting concealed carry and to do so they must be compliant with NMSA 10.8.2.27 which says they must meet the requirements as specified in NMSA 30-14-6. If a sign meets those requirements then the license holder must comply. Why would New Mexico require specific minimum sizing and other requirements for a sign? Reason 1 to to prevent people from being able to claim "I couldn't read or even see the sign, it was smaller than a postage stamp."

If we take Speed Sixes interpretation I could put a gun busters sign up at a property he owns in NM and he would not be able to go past it. However if we read on down through 10.8.2 until we get to 10.8.2.27 we discover that in order for his property to be legally posted he would have to have a sign that is 144 square inches in size, be printed legibily in english, have his name and address (so you can verify the posting is correct and/or ask permission to ignore it), be placed at each appearent access to the property (No well the north doors of the mall are posted so they are all effectively posted), and say that firearms and/or concealed carry are prohibitted.

Now lets take a look at some other possible interpretations of 10.8.2.16F are. Due to the specific wording one could argue that the law requires that signs prohibitting concealed carry must actually say they are prohibitting it and that gun busters do not hold water. The law does not say "on private property that has signs posted prohibiting the carrying of firearms" the law says "on private property that has signs posted prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons". This is actually one of those things that case law would need to decide or the legislature would need to clarify, but wait they did in part with 10.8.2.27. There could actually be other laws that may further complicate things, but to say that 10.8.2.16F applies while ignoring 10.8.2.27 does not hold water. Case law can still muddy the water further or do the opposite.

To point to an instructor and say they know the law because they make their living teaching it is like pointing to a police officer and saying they know the law because they enforce it. I would rather look it up for myself and if there are still questions I will pay someone who is professional(Read lawyer) that makes a living on the subject and did more than take a state class on the matter so they can regurgitate what they think they heard (Government approved instructor). Its kinda like deciding between the owner of Billy Bob's Gun Buyin Place and Tiger McKee on who you want to teach you to run an AR. Some options are better than others.

[sugar land dave]

...and all I was looking for was a peaceful Friday to slide into the weekend....

[texas-sig]

And that my friends is why lawyers shouldn't be writing the laws. Write them to their advantage.