Do "No Gun Signs" carry legal weight before being asked to leave a business?

[Phisher34]

Just going to preempt this discussion and contact a lawyer

[DaveB]

I personally don't know of any CCW person here that purposely breaks the law by carrying into a signed business. We are not about compromising our rights by breaking the law.

So, Yes, the sign has the force of law in Nebraska

If a person, persons, entity, or entities in control of the property or an employer in control of the property prohibits a permit holder from carrying a concealed handgun into or onto the place or premises and such place or premises are open to the public, a permit holder does not violate this section unless the person, persons, entity, or entities in control of the property or employer in control of the property has posted conspicuous notice that carrying a concealed handgun is prohibited in or on the place or premises or has made a request, directly or through an authorized representative or management personnel, that the permit holder remove the concealed handgun from the place or premises. A permit holder carrying a concealed handgun in a vehicle into or onto any place or premises does not violate this section so long as the handgun is not removed from the vehicle while the vehicle is in or on the place or premises. An employer may prohibit employees or other persons who are permit holders from carrying concealed handguns in vehicles owned by the employer.

[Phisher34]

I reference the law in my post and don't intend to rustle any feathers (especially on my first post). However, I do know more than a handful. We can think of this as a hypothetical situation if it helps.

I also understand the distinction between federal buildings and private property, and signs that do or do not reference the legislation.
A quick google search will show you several places where this is discussed, though I have never seen any discussion on these boards:
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=433402
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=461998

[XDHusker]

Personally, I say why chance it.  There is certainly some legal wiggle room about the "conspicuously posted" portion of the law.  I know my gym has small white text printed on a side window that is not very conspicuous at all that says "no weapons" and that's it.  If I were to carry there and get busted I could likely win in court, but I wouldn't push the issue there personally.

As far as the legal ramifications, you are committing a crime by carrying into a location that has a "no guns" sign.

028.03 The following offenses are classified as Class III Misdemeanors for the first offense and as Class I Misdemeanors for the second or subsequent offense:
?
Permit holder carrying a concealed handgun into a prohibited place or premises.
(See § 018 in the regulations or §69-2441 in the statutes.)

and more importantly:

028.05 Violators are also subject to revocation of the concealed handgun permit.

[Phisher34]

Thanks Husker, that does help.
Seeing the penalty associated with breaking the law pretty much answers my question - as I haven't seen it listed on several of the reference sites I have looked including:

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/nebraska.pdf

My question was not whether I would get the "okay" to do it. I have no intention of ever disregarding someone's right to run their property how they want. I just know many people who do it (some on these forums) because in many states there is no associated legal ramifications until you refuse to leave, or because they are completely confident they won't be spotted. I am in your group that says why chance it.

[Dan W]

Last session the law was changed to one that allows for a first offense. A conviction would still mean a class III misdemeanor on your record, but they can not revoke your permit for that first offense unless you are in property owned by the state or any political subdivision ( see the bold section in part #4 )

69-2443. Violations; penalties; revocation of permit.

(1) A permitholder who violates subsection (1) or (2) of section 69-2440 or section 69-2441 or 69-2442 is guilty of a Class III misdemeanor for the first violation and a Class I misdemeanor for any second or subsequent violation.

(2) A permitholder who violates subsection (3) of section 69-2440 is guilty of a Class I misdemeanor.

(3) A permitholder convicted of a violation of section 69-2440 or 69-2442 may also have his or her permit revoked.

(4) A permitholder convicted of a violation of section 69-2441 that occurred on property owned by the state or any political subdivision of the state may also have his or her permit revoked. A permitholder convicted of a violation of section 69-2441 that did not occur on property owned by the state or any political subdivision of the state shall not have his or her permit revoked for a first offense but may have his or her permit revoked for any second or subsequent offense.
Source

    Laws 2006, LB 454, § 17;
    Laws 2007, LB97, § 2;
    Laws 2012, LB807, § 6.
    Effective Date: April 19, 2012

[Phisher34]

That's good to know.
I am sure there are some honest situations where this might occur, or at places where signs aren't necessarily "conspicuous".

Every permit holder would know not to bring a firearm into federal/state property.

[GreyGeek]

My  own personal  response to "No gun"  signs is to take my business elsewhere.     If they don't want me to  be able to protect myself while in their establishment they leave me no other choice, since those that post such signs usually do not provide for the defense of their customers.

[HuskerXDM]

My  own personal  response to "No gun"  signs is to take my business elsewhere.     If they don't want me to  be able to protect myself while in their establishment they leave me no other choice, since those that post such signs usually do not provide for the defense of their customers.

Like

[Dan W]

The problem lies with those hidden signs that no one sees until to is too late, or not posted on every entrance, or that have fallen off the wall, or that are so faded as to be illegible, and the basic refusal of our overlords to see fit to require that the signage be visually effective, consistent and on every entrance.

The current signage requirements are more akin to camouflaged stop signs at the intersection of two major highways.

[JDS402]

Along the lines of this discussion, would an individual have any legal standing if he was attacked in one of these "safe" "gun free zones" unable to protect himself.

[unfy]

Along the lines of this discussion, would an individual have any legal standing if he was attacked in one of these "safe" "gun free zones" unable to protect himself.

Two wrong's don't make a right.

Your defense may have been justified, but having the weapon in a no-no zone can still be seekable offense.