CAJUNLAWYER
crusty old bastard
Should they? The law itself is not concise, nor is it precise.
I've bolded the part that people have a discrepancy with. While the provisions of subsection N shall not limit the right of a property owner, lessee, or other lawful custodian to prohibit or restrict access, it does not define how they can prohibit or restrict said persons.
It's not cut and dry, nor is there case law to support EITHER argument.
COncealed permit holder. Practicing attorney for 35 years SPECIALIZING in criminal law. If a client asked me for an opinion I would tell him that Subsection O means exactly what it says. If an owner meets you at the door, welcomes you in but tells you that no guns are allowed-that is enough under the law to trigger thi ssubsection. Period. You want to be a test case? Bring lots of money for the lawyer. It always amazes me the amount of people spoiling for a fight especially on the internet. It IS cut and dry! If the owner communicates to you in ANY way, whether it be by sign, orally or by jungle drums he wants no firearms on his premises-that's it! Period. End of story. You disobey him and you are at the least going to loose your permit and at worst have a felony on your jacket.