We need to have format and placement rules on the ccw prohibited signs

[ComputerCowboy]

I want to get sign rules put in place. How do we move it forward? I'll talk to someon at Christensen's office and see if he will put something forward or request that the AG decide the format and placemant rules. Does That sound like the right path? I'm currently dealing with Omaha telling me that I'm a criminal because I didn't see a sign that must have been at groin level instead of eye level. I never wanted to be active in gun rights or belong to the nra but they just had to poke the bear heh heh heh. Now I believe that not doing anything is the same as being complicit.
>I spoke with Dan last week and Kylie today in Christensen's office. They are trying to put legislation forward on the subject of ccw and will get back with me on signage in specific. Dan Just had a baby with his wife today so he's out of the office. Gratz to him. July 23 2010

[Ronvandyn]

I dont have an answer for you but I do applaud the effort.  If you need some help PM me and I'd be glad to assist as I can.  I have seen some of the signs, small dinky things that are hidden away in the corner of a window. 

I seem to remember from training that the law does say that it has to be conspicuously placed, but even that is a bit ambiguous.

Ron

[unfy]

I agree with computercowboy -- getting signage stuff straightened out and enforced is great.


A friend pointed out a wikipedia paragraph on the topic (i lack direct link sorry):

"In some states, business owners have been documented posting signs that appear to prohibit guns, but legally do not because the signs do not meet state or local laws defining the appearance, placement, or verbiage of the sign. Such signage can be posted out of ignorance to the law, or intent to pacify gun control advocates while not actually prohibiting the practice."

[sparky]

I would have to agree.  Something needs to be done, I just about walked into a gas station today that had a sign three window panes over from the door (about 7 feet) and I caught it out of the corner of my eye just as I was opening the door.  I just closed the door and went to the one accross the street.  I even looked all over the door and around it first.  Let me know if I can help in some way.

[Dan W]

I have asked for this a few times, but it always got pushed to the back of the agenda to focus on more pressing things.

As the law stands, the NSP has the power to write the rules, but the existing law does not restrict the type of sign.

I don't think the AG has any power here.

I agree the upcoming session would be a great time to push for signage standards, and I also think we have some people at the NSP that would like to clarify this area for all concerned, but can't do it without some legislative direction

[FarmerRick]

I'm currently dealing with Omaha telling me that I'm a criminal because I didn't see a sign that must have been at groin level instead of eye level.

I'd like to hear some more details about this...

[Dan W]

018.04 State law does not mandate a specific requirement for a sign other than that it be conspicuously posted, the Nebraska State Patrol strongly suggests that a standardized format be utilized. The standardized form should contain a four (4) inch circle with a slash covering a handgun and text giving notice that carrying a concealed handgun anywhere on the premises is prohibited. A form will be available on the Nebraska State Patrol website which can be downloaded for printing. The Nebraska State Patrol also strongly recommends that a place or premises wishing to prohibit concealed handguns post the sign at normal eye level at each public entrance to the place or premises. Normal eye level is considered to be between 54? and 66? from the floor.

emphasis mine

[unfy]

Dan: awesome, thanks 

sadly, 'strongly recommends' etc aint useful legally  .  What's the legal definition of "conspicuously posted" ? The only legal definition i was able to see was 'well pronounced / noticeable / plain sight' etc ... not overtly useful

what kind of legislative empowerment would be needed to get this kind of thing cleared up ? Obviously it'd need to be at the state level ? Who would need to push for it at the next session ?

many other laws are very clear about marking things clearly prohibited and such, 'no CCW' signs should also be clearly marked  :angry9: ....

[NE Bull]

I have quit dropping my storage payment off in person as the 'free crime zone' sign is posted inside the office beside the door, you don't see it till you leave.  That among other issues, is why i'm moving all my stuff to another unit across the road. 
I have come across some petty sorry signage in some weird places myself. I don't know how I could help, but count me in. 

[Mudinyeri]

I think Kansas has some pretty specific requirements.  Maybe we could steal from them.

[unfy]

I have a great suggestion.

We've all seen these poorly marked signs.

If we want to have fodder to get something done about it, we need some kind of proof of the bad signage.

I suggest we take pictures of the bad signage so that we have physical examples when we head to discussing it with he powers that be.

Yank out your camera phone real quick, snap a pic, make note of where it was, and post it here somewhere!

[NE Bull]

I suggest we take pictures of the bad signage so that we have physical examples when we head to discussing it with he powers that be.

Yank out your camera phone real quick, snap a pic, make note of where it was, and post it here somewhere!

If nothing else, it'll sure stir-up the sheep! So.... Ok I'm in!

[MikeF72]

Here's what Kansas law says about posting signs.  I got it from SB 306 at http://www.ksag.org/page/concealed-carry.

Much clearer than NE law and much more definitive.

------------------------------------

(f) The attorney general shall adopt rules and regulations prescribing
the location, content, size and other characteristics of signs to be posted
on premises where carrying a concealed handgun is prohibited pursuant
to subsections (a) and (b). Such regulations shall prescribe, at a minimum,
that:
     (1) The signs be posted at all exterior entrances to the prohibited
buildings;
     (2) they be posted at eye level of adults using the entrance and not
more than 12 inches to the right or left of such entrance;
     (3) the signs not be obstructed or altered in any way; and
     (4) signs which become illegible for any reason be immediately re-
placed.

Then I ran across this which further clarifies changes for 2010:

2010 SB 306 Changes to the Posting of Approved Signage

Prohibiting Concealed Carry into Lawfully Posted Places

SB 306 merged K.S.A. 75-7c10 and K.S.A 75-7c11 into a single statute dealing with prohibited places under K.S.A. 75-7c10. SB 306 clarified the definition of buildings and added language excluding parking lots and garages as prohibited places for all locations except areas governed by federal law (e.g., ?federal facilities? such as post offices & department offices and ?federal court facilities? such as federal courthouses in Kansas City, Topeka and Wichita). For other federal areas - such as Corp of Engineer property, National Parks and Monuments, etc. - please contact the local area office to find out what federal restrictions are in place as some of these areas MAY allow licensed CCH now.

Other changes include the elimination of criminal penalties for the first and second violation of carrying into a lawfully posted building, and making it a class B misdemeanor on the third or subsequent offense.

K.S.A. 75-7c10 was amended to include specific instructions for the posting of the Attorney General?s approved sign. The posted sign must conform in every way with the sign detailed in K.A.R. 16-11-7. When posting the sign, it must be placed at all exterior entrances to the prohibited building; posted at eye level of adults using the entrance and not more than 12 inches to the right or left of such entrances; not obstructed or altered in any way; and immediately replaced if it becomes illegible for any reason.

In the coming months, K.A.R. 16-11-7 will be amended to reflect the changes brought about by SB 306. The regulation, in draft form, proposes to define ?eye level of adults? as the area entirely above four (4) feet and below six (6) feet from the base of the door. Please use these guidelines when posting or reposting signs.

And finally . . . this is how they define the specific signage:

Personal and Family Protection Act: Required Signage
For K.A.R. 16-11-7
Prepared by the Office of the Attorney General
October 19, 2006

K.A.R. 16-11-7. Signs. (a) Each sign posted pursuant to either paragraph (a)(2) or
paragraph (a)(3) of L. 2006, ch. 210, ? 8, and amendments thereto, shall contain the
graphic in the document titled ?personal and family protection act:: required signage for
K.A.R. 16-11-7,? dated October 19, 2006, and hereby adopted by reference.
(b) The size of the sign shall be eight inches by eight inches or larger. If the sign
is eight inches by eight inches, the size of the graphic adopted by reference in
subsection (a) shall be six inches in diameter. If the sign is larger than eight inches by
eight inches, the size of the graphic shall be proportional to the size of the sign.
(c) Each sign shall meet all of the following requirements:
(1) The background shall be white.
(2) The portion of the graphic depicting the handgun shall be black.
(3) The portion of the graphic depicting the circle and diagonal slash across the
handgun shall be red.
(4) No text shall be placed within the one-inch area surrounding the graphic.
(d) Each sign shall be displayed in a manner that makes the sign reasonably
likely to come to the attention of persons entering the premises. (Authorized by L. 2006,
Ch. 32, ? 16 and L. 2006, Ch. 210, ? 8; implementing L. 2006, Ch. 210, ? 8; effective P-
_________________.)

You can't much clearer than this . . .

[Wilson]

I will probably hear about this but...

If they don't have an obvious sign up, I usually go in with confidence. So now I want them to put a sign up that I can't miss so I will stay away?

Actually, if the sign says "No Concealed Weapons" I should walk in OC to see what happens  but I don't because I don't want the attention. Another case of bad sign posting. So who will be collecting pictures?

Can you say "Passive Aggressive?"

[DanClrk51]

I definitely agree we need "uniform signage requirement" reform but the NFOA is going to try and put a lot of our energy toward getting a full blown Castle Doctrine and removing the power of cities, towns, villages, and counties from regulating firearms (aka full State pre-emption of all gun laws) passed for this next session. We are trying to force Omaha to drop their handgun registration.

I don't know if this new effort will take away from that effort but I definitely think it is also a pressing issue as well as Castle Doctrine (stand your ground law). I think these are three very pressing issues we want to get done this next session: Castle Doctrine, Ban Registration, & Uniform signage.

Here are my thoughts on the signage issue:

I think we should go straight to the way how Texas does it. I have heard they require only one specific sign to be allowed. All other signs are no good and don't hold force of law.

AZ-has signage requirements but the law says places that post must also provide safe storage containers so that the guns aren't left in the car and get stolen. However there is no penalty for this so most places don't comply.

However I really would like to see what they have going in Missouri come to Nebraska, which I think is the best of all.

This is straight from the Missouri Highway Patrol:

http://www.mshp.dps.missouri.gov/MSHPWeb/Publications/Brochures/documents/SHP-863.pdf


"In accordance with Section 571.107 RSMo., you may not carry a concealed
weapon in the following places:

? any police, sheriff, or Highway Patrol office or station without consent;
? within 25 feet of any polling place on Election Day;
? adult or juvenile jail or institution;
? courthouse or facilities;
? any meeting of a government body (except by a member with a
concealed carry endorsement);
? bar without consent;
? airport;
? where prohibited by federal law;
? schools;
? child care facility (without consent of manager);
? riverboat gambling facility;
? amusement parks;
? any church or place of worship; without permission
of Minister or person representing religious organization
? any sports arena or stadium (with seating for more than 5,000);
? hospitals; and,
? private or public property where posted.

Possession of a firearm in a vehicle on the premises of any of the
above-listed locations is not prohibited so long as the firearm is not removed from the vehicle or brandished while the vehicle is on the premises.
Carrying a concealed firearm in any location specified above is not a
criminal act. However, you can be denied access to the premises or may
be removed from the premises for doing so. If a peace officer is summoned:
? Upon the first offense, you can be cited and fined up to $100.
? If within six months, a second offense occurs, you can be fined up
to $200, and your concealed firearms endorsement can be suspended
for a period of one year.
? If within one year of the first offense a third citation for a similar violation
is issued, you may be fined up to $500, and your concealed
carry endorsement revoked. If your concealed carry endorsement
is revoked, you are not eligible for the endorsement for a period of
three years."

So basically if you carry into any prohibited place in Missouri and you are not discreet about it, and refuse to leave after they have asked you to remove the handgun, or refuse to be escorted to the door, the worst they can do to you is call a police officer who will then only fine you $100, and if you do it again they can fine you $200 and suspend your CCW for a year, and if you do it again after getting a new CCW within a year the fine is $500 and your CCW gets revoked for 3 years. After all of that it is still not a criminal act.
I love this Missouri law!

But if we want to make any of this a reality we all need to start an organized and concerted effort in buzzing our state senators with this issue. I definitely think there would be plenty of support for getting uniform signage in the legislature we just have to make it an issue.

[RLMoeller]

I know there are limitations on how much any of us can take on at one time, either individually or collectively.  I just want to point out that the more members we have that become active, the more successful we will be.  Perhaps that could also mean the more things we can work on collectively.  

So let's get more of our members active.  Encourage people to become active. Encourage people to join the NFOA if they aren't already members.  And then encourage those folks to become active.

OK, cheerleader mode off now.   I will see a bunch of you tomorrow at the leadership conference.  

Rod

[ComputerCowboy]

I'm happy to see support for uniform signage requirements. I agree we should all do what we can to make sure castle doctrine, registration ban, and uniform prohibited signage are addressed by our representatives.
I think they passed the castle law and made it so ccw don?t need to register their guns so far. Since I have been set for trial (ccw in prohibited area) I will include the details my lawyer says it's ok to talk about in a different thread soon.
Anyway all of you please feel free to solicit support from any and all district, city and state representatives on this sign thing. It may not come in time to help me but many will saved from jail, humiliation, and unnecessary court costs. I will update my actions and progress on Monday.

[equinox137]

I'd rather see the "signage" crap go away altogether and have the "place or premises where the person, persons, entity, or entities in control of the property or employer in control of the property has prohibited permitholders from carrying concealed handguns into or onto the place or premises" clause........removed from the statute entirely.

[Husker_Fan]

I have no problem with a private property owner or person in control of the place having a rule that CCW is not allowed.  I would greatly prefer the system other states have where you are not in violation until you are asked to leave and refuse.  The signs are often not present or not clearly visible.

[Dan W]

Intellectual honesty keeps me from demanding others waive their rights to control their property, just to please me...Just ain't right.