New signage laws as of 1/1/2018

[spo]

So am I correct in assuming that as of the new year it is legal to carry past signs that don't meet the signage requirements (see below)?  For example the attached image of a sign would appear to not meet the requirements, lacking the phrase "NO FIREARMS ALLOWED", allowing it to be ignored.  Is this correct?

 

Quote

The notice required by this section shall be in English, but a duplicate notice may also be posted in any language used by patrons, customers, or persons who frequent the place where weapon possession is prohibited.

(3) (A) A sign shall be used as the method of posting. The sign shall include the phrase “NO FIREARMS ALLOWED”, and the phrase shall measure at least one inch (1″) high and eight inches (8″) wide. The sign shall also include the phrase “As authorized by T.C.A. § 39-17-1359”. HB0682 001807 -2-

(B) The sign shall include a pictorial representation of the phrase “NO FIREARMS ALLOWED” that shall include a red circle with a red diagonal line through the circle and a black image of a firearm inside the red circle under the diagonal line. The entire pictorial representation shall be at least four inches (4″) high and four inches (4″) wide. The diagonal line shall be at a forty-five degree (45°) angle from the upper left to the lower right side of the circle.

(4) An individual, corporation, business entity, or government entity that, as of January 1, 2015, used signs to provide notice of the prohibition permitted by subsection (a) shall have until January 1, 2018, to replace existing signs with signs that meet the requirements of subdivision (b)(3).

 

[Oh Shoot]

5 minutes ago, spo said:

So am I correct in assuming that as of the new year it is legal to carry past signs that don't meet the signage requirements (see below)?...

As always, in the exceedingly rare chance you're charged for it, a judge or a jury will ultimately decide whether it's "legal" or not.

- OS

[Dolomite_supafly]

Why spend money at a business that does not believe you have a right to defend yourself with a firearm? Take your money elsewhere.

Edited January 22, 2018 by Dolomite_supafly

[DaveTN]

No, don’t assume that because you don’t think the sign meets the requirements of the statute it is legal to carry past it. You could possibly be charged (although we haven’t heard of anyone being charged on this forum that I know of).  Then you can explain to the Judge that it’s not a legal sign.

A Murfreesboro Officer told me they give a trespass warning. But I’m sure the Officer has the discretion to do whatever he sees fit based on the circumstances.

It’s a $500 fine only offense. You would spend more than that on a defense.

If I were a Judge or Juror, the only question I would need answered is did you not know what that sign meant when you saw it?

As stated above, don’t do business with places that have policies you don’t agree with; spend your money elsewhere.

[pop pop]

Many of my Doctor offices have no gun signage. Don't see a way around that one, for sure on Medicare like I am. Not a lot of choices with that insurance!  Sometimes, not doing business in prohibited areas is not as easy as one might think. Just my Opinion. 

[Dolomite_supafly]

4 hours ago, pop pop said:

Many of my Doctor offices have no gun signage. Don't see a way around that one, for sure on Medicare like I am. Not a lot of choices with that insurance!  Sometimes, not doing business in prohibited areas is not as easy as one might think. Just my Opinion. 

My doctor allows firearms in his office, most times he is carrying one. And he DOES take Medicare.

[jtmaze]

I have open carried into my Drs office and she and I sat and talked guns for a few minutes.....be careful about pressing dr offices, they can hurt you.

[spo]

15 hours ago, DaveTN said:

No, don’t assume that because you don’t think the sign meets the requirements of the statute it is legal to carry past it. You could possibly be charged (although we haven’t heard of anyone being charged on this forum that I know of).  Then you can explain to the Judge that it’s not a legal sign.

A Murfreesboro Officer told me they give a trespass warning. But I’m sure the Officer has the discretion to do whatever he sees fit based on the circumstances.

It’s a $500 fine only offense. You would spend more than that on a defense.

If I were a Judge or Juror, the only question I would need answered is did you not know what that sign meant when you saw it?

As stated above, don’t do business with places that have policies you don’t agree with; spend your money elsewhere.

What is the purpose of having specific requirements for signage then?  The way I see it, if the sign clearly doesn't match up to the requirements as defined by Tennessee law then it is not a legally valid form of prohibiting weapons on the property.

 

Also, to everyone saying to just avoid patronizing business that put up signs such as these I agree for the most part, however in some cases its not possible (or very inconvenient) to do so.  For example the vast majority of theaters have these signs up and as much as I dislike it, I do like to see a movie every so often.

[Oh Shoot]

19 minutes ago, spo said:

What is the purpose of having specific requirements for signage then?  The way I see it, if the sign clearly doesn't match up to the requirements as defined by Tennessee law then it is not a legally valid form of prohibiting weapons on the property.

Quite true, prob is that in the real world, it might take court procedure, maybe even appeal process, to get a ruling that strictly abides by the statute.

Just look at how the carry in parks statute has been virtually ignored by various municipalities, eh?

- OS

[DaveTN]

7 hours ago, spo said:

What is the purpose of having specific requirements for signage then? 

The purpose is so that you will see the sign, and understand what it means.

7 hours ago, spo said:

The way I see it, if the sign clearly doesn't match up to the requirements as defined by Tennessee law then it is not a legally valid form of prohibiting weapons on the property.

You may be able to get the charged dismissed or be found not guilty if there is some deviation between the sign and the statute. That doesn’t make it legal to carry past it; it just gives you a possible out.

7 hours ago, spo said:

Also, to everyone saying to just avoid patronizing business that put up signs such as these I agree for the most part, however in some cases its not possible (or very inconvenient) to do so.  For example the vast majority of theaters have these signs up and as much as I dislike it, I do like to see a movie every so often.

Then you have to go unarmed or don’t go. We live in a state where carrying a gun is a crime. We are a “special group” that has bought a “privilege” from the state. Some business owners have decided they don’t want our little “special group” carrying loaded guns in their business. That is their right and we must abide by it.

I carry concealed; no one is going to know I have a gun unless they search me. I don’t look especially hard for signs. If I miss one and walk past it and get caught; so be it. If I saw one and knew what it meant, but didn’t think it met the specifications of the statute; I might disregard it. But I would do that knowing full well I could be charged under the statute and it might cost me $500 or time in court.

Now having said all that...... I think a lot of time and resources (that could be used for other issues) is wasted on trying to get this changed. I believe you would be hard pressed to find very many people that have been charged under this. I also believe in respecting the rights of others. If the state recognized that the 2nd amendment gives all citizens the right to carry a gun; then there would be an argument for carrying in businesses open to the public. But until that happens we have to respect the wishes of the business owners.

EDIT: another potential problem is if it is somewhere you need/want to go all the time. If the Officer goes the trespass warning route, he may tell you the business doesn’t want you back carrying a gun and if you do you will be arrested for trespassing. Or he may tell you the business doesn’t want you back at all, and if you return you will be arrested for trespassing.

 

Edited January 23, 2018 by DaveTN

[spo]

2 hours ago, DaveTN said:

The purpose is so that you will see the sign, and understand what it means.

You may be able to get the charged dismissed or be found not guilty if there is some deviation between the sign and the statute. That doesn’t make it legal to carry past it; it just gives you a possible out.

Then you have to go unarmed or don’t go. We live in a state where carrying a gun is a crime. We are a “special group” that has bought a “privilege” from the state. Some business owners have decided they don’t want our little “special group” carrying loaded guns in their business. That is their right and we must abide by it.

I carry concealed; no one is going to know I have a gun unless they search me. I don’t look especially hard for signs. If I miss one and walk past it and get caught; so be it. If I saw one and knew what it meant, but didn’t think it met the specifications of the statute; I might disregard it. But I would do that knowing full well I could be charged under the statute and it might cost me $500 or time in court.

Now having said all that...... I think a lot of time and resources (that could be used for other issues) is wasted on trying to get this changed. I believe you would be hard pressed to find very many people that have been charged under this. I also believe in respecting the rights of others. If the state recognized that the 2nd amendment gives all citizens the right to carry a gun; then there would be an argument for carrying in businesses open to the public. But until that happens we have to respect the wishes of the business owners.

EDIT: another potential problem is if it is somewhere you need/want to go all the time. If the Officer goes the trespass warning route, he may tell you the business doesn’t want you back carrying a gun and if you do you will be arrested for trespassing. Or he may tell you the business doesn’t want you back at all, and if you return you will be arrested for trespassing.

 

All great points and things to consider.  I guess I think of these signs that aren't up to the legal requirements similarly to the "no guns" signs that are still in some parks, even though the law clearly states that HCP holders can legally carry there regardless. 

[chances R]

6 hours ago, DaveTN said:

 

I carry concealed; no one is going to know I have a gun unless they search me. I don’t look especially hard for signs. If I miss one and walk past it and get caught; so be it. If I saw one and knew what it meant, but didn’t think it met the specifications of the statute; I might disregard it. But I would do that knowing full well I could be charged under the statute and it might cost me $500 or time in court.the business doesn’t want you back carrying a gun and if you do you will be arrested for trespassing. Or he may tell you the business doesn’t wan

 

OR, the specific signs may make it much easier to bring legitimate charges against a violator. 

[macville]

11 hours ago, DaveTN said:

The purpose is so that you will see the sign, and understand what it means.

You may be able to get the charged dismissed or be found not guilty if there is some deviation between the sign and the statute. That doesn’t make it legal to carry past it; it just gives you a possible out.

That doesn't make any sense. If something doesn't follow the law of what it takes to make it illegal, then it's legal. Yes, you may have to go to court to show that it's legal (which is absurd) but the law is very clear of what it takes to make a sign have legal weight (just not constitutional, but that's another argument about the legislature's duty and  "a view to prevent crime")

[DaveTN]

35 minutes ago, macville said:

That doesn't make any sense. If something doesn't follow the law of what it takes to make it illegal, then it's legal. Yes, you may have to go to court to show that it's legal (which is absurd) but the law is very clear of what it takes to make a sign have legal weight (just not constitutional, but that's another argument about the legislature's duty and  "a view to prevent crime")

The intent of the law is very clear; if you understand the sign don’t carry a gun. The specifics of the sign requirements are there to make sure the people can see it and understand it. If you didn’t see it or didn’t understand what it meant; you can make an argument.

I was just addressing his question as to whether or not his interpretation on the sign requirements makes it legal; it doesn’t.

As I said above, I don’t think the state should have squat to say about what permit holders can do at a business one way or the other. The state doesn’t recognize your carrying a gun as a right; it is a privilege we purchase from them. If a business wants to post; so be it. If they don’t want to approach someone carrying a gun past their sign; I can understand that also. They call the cops and let them handle it.

[Dolomite_supafly]

Regardless of what the sign says or even if there is a sign you cannot carry on someone else's property against their permission. The property owner can dictate what conditions must be met in order to be on their property. They can say only Nerf guns are allowed or that you must wear a pink tutu and you must abide by their wishes if you want to enter. Property owner rights trump any rights a visitor might think they have on the property, including the right to free speech.

[spo]

5 minutes ago, Dolomite_supafly said:

Regardless of what the sign says or even if there is a sign you cannot carry on someone else's property against their permission. The property owner can dictate what conditions must be met in order to be on their property. They can say only Nerf guns are allowed or that you must wear a pink tutu and you must abide by their wishes if you want to enter. Property owner rights trump any rights a visitor might think they have on the property, including the right to free speech.

That's all fine and good but what I'm going after with this is the legal aspect of this.  Of course a property owner has the right to ask you to leave their property if you aren't following the rules they define but you won't be in legal trouble (unless you refuse to leave, obviously) for simply not following their rules.  I would compare this to something like bringing food/candy into a movie theater.  Sure, most theaters have rules against this and could ask you to leave if they find out what you're doing, but that's obviously not illegal.  If you're carrying concealed the property owner will be none the wiser and if you're LEGALLY in the clear in the exceedingly rare case you're exposed, worst case is the property owner wants to trespass you or something of that nature.

[Dolomite_supafly]

But why risk it. If you are arrested I can guarantee you will be out thousands of dollars in legal fees, even if it goes in your favor. Anyone going in front of a judge without a lawyer standing next to them will likely have a very bad day. I know I wouldn't go in front of a judge for anything without having an attorney present, especially if I was accused of breaking a law. Even if you are in the clear your arrest will always show up in a background unless you pay thousands to have it expunged.

Another thing, any cop that shows up will not let you try to convince them the sign is wrong if they believe you have broken the law. Most cops will not know what the correct language of the sign so to them you will have violated the law by walking past the sign. Now a lot of cops will probably just tell you to leave but all it takes is one and you will be hauled away in handcuff, starting your long expensive process of proving the sign was wrong and that you were in the right for carrying past a sign whose intent is quite clear. To a jury of 12 you will be painted as a renegade gun owner who willingly violated the intent of the law despite being in compliance with the letter of the law. Best case scenario you will be out thousands, worst case you will be out your freedom and when you get out of jail you will not be the same person as when you went in.

My freedom is not worth the risk of walking past any posting and my money is more valuable than to give it to someone who doesn't allow me to protect myself.

[Steelharp]

On 1/23/2018 at 8:56 PM, Dolomite_supafly said:

Property owner rights trump any rights a visitor might think they have on the property, including the right to free speech.

Unless you're a Christian bakery.

Carry on.  

[bersaguy]

On ‎1‎/‎22‎/‎2018 at 11:39 AM, Dolomite_supafly said:

My doctor allows firearms in his office, most times he is carrying one. And he DOES take Medicare.

My doctor allows guns in her office also and she and her staff are all armed. Her office is a house that has been coverted to a doctors office and her staff is all female and anyone not knowing her and her staff might think it would be an easy drug hit would be in for a very rude awakening. We talk guns every time I go for an appointment. She was packing a Kimber last visit which was a new purchase as she was packing Glock but didn't like how bulky it was. 

[DaveTN]

On 1/23/2018 at 9:28 PM, Dolomite_supafly said:

Another thing, any cop that shows up will not let you try to convince them the sign is wrong if they believe you have broken the law. Most cops will not know what the correct language of the sign so to them you will have violated the law by walking past the sign. Now a lot of cops will probably just tell you to leave but all it takes is one and you will be hauled away in handcuff, starting your long expensive process of proving the sign was wrong and that you were in the right for carrying past a sign whose intent is quite clear. To a jury of 12 you will be painted as a renegade gun owner who willingly violated the intent of the law despite being in compliance with the letter of the law. Best case scenario you will be out thousands, worst case you will be out your freedom and when you get out of jail you will not be the same person as when you went in.

My freedom is not worth the risk of walking past any posting and my money is more valuable than to give it to someone who doesn't allow me to protect myself.

You are correct that the cop will be the first one to make the decision about the sign. But this is a fine only offense; I don’t think they can cuff you and stuff you, can they? I assumed they would give you an NTA.

[JayC]

On 1/23/2018 at 9:28 PM, Dolomite_supafly said:

But why risk it. If you are arrested I can guarantee you will be out thousands of dollars in legal fees, even if it goes in your favor. Anyone going in front of a judge without a lawyer standing next to them will likely have a very bad day. I know I wouldn't go in front of a judge for anything without having an attorney present, especially if I was accused of breaking a law. Even if you are in the clear your arrest will always show up in a background unless you pay thousands to have it expunged.

Another thing, any cop that shows up will not let you try to convince them the sign is wrong if they believe you have broken the law. Most cops will not know what the correct language of the sign so to them you will have violated the law by walking past the sign. Now a lot of cops will probably just tell you to leave but all it takes is one and you will be hauled away in handcuff, starting your long expensive process of proving the sign was wrong and that you were in the right for carrying past a sign whose intent is quite clear. To a jury of 12 you will be painted as a renegade gun owner who willingly violated the intent of the law despite being in compliance with the letter of the law. Best case scenario you will be out thousands, worst case you will be out your freedom and when you get out of jail you will not be the same person as when you went in.

My freedom is not worth the risk of walking past any posting and my money is more valuable than to give it to someone who doesn't allow me to protect myself.

First, the key fact that everybody here seems to forget, we know of only a few cases where permit holders have been charged for violating 39-17-1359 and ALL of the known cases involve carrying firearms into the secure area of an airport.

Second, violation has been changed to a class B misdemeanor with a fine only, so if you're found guilty you're not facing any jail time, you're not facing loss of your permit, you're facing a $500 fine.  I highly doubt you'd even get arrested, just cited and told to leave.  Obviously I'm not recommending knowingly committing a crime.

While I won't spend money in a business that is posted, there are times that I'm forced to carry into 'unfriendly' territory, and will carry past a sign that doesn't comply with the statue, or use an entrance that isn't posted.  I carry concealed, and nobody is the wiser.  If I get caught and charged, I probably won't hire an attorney, $500 isn't much more than a very bad speeding ticket money wise, and I think I could properly put together a motion to dismiss and argue the legislative intent was clear, any sign that fails to standards set out in the law were meant to be unenforceable.  If not I write a check for $500 and have a great story to tell.

If some employee comes up and asks you to leave, then leave.  If some officer walks up to you and tells you to leave, apologize, tell him you have a HCP and didn't see a valid sign, then offer to leave.  I seriously doubt you'd find many officers who are going to try and make a case out of it when you act reasonably to resolve the situation.  

[bersaguy]

I like my idea best!!!!! If I approach a store or business of any type and they have any kind of signage of any type against firearms not allowed I turn around and go find a store with the same products I was wanting to buy and do business with them. I don't want any person of company to have 1 dime of my money that does not feel the same as I do about my freedoms according to the Constitution and state and local laws................JMHO

[Dolomite_supafly]

You can be trespassed for no reason at all and show me a reasonable anti gunner who will be reasonable if you are caught carrying, on their property, against their wishes. I would not care to be trespassed from an anti gun establishment but I don't want to be either.

I also have a serious problem with people going against a property owner's wishes for their own gain more than anything. They don't want you carrying a gun there but you thumb your nose at their wishes because you think your privilege of carrying a firearm trumps their right to use their property how they wish. It is like random people coming on your property and as long as you don't catch them I guess it is ok. I don't want anyone on my property doing anything against my will and on that issue I will 100% stand with the anti gun establishments because I believe their property owner's rights trump anyone's misconceived right to carry a firearm on that property.

Someone's is going to say public access, public property, yada-yada-yada. Still doesn't matter. In the same way you can't say what you want in a public business you cannot do what you want either, unless the owner/operator allows it. We have a right to self defense but we do not have the right to use any tool we want unless the property owner allows it. As I have said before, if a property owner requires you to wear a pink tutu and carry a Nerf gun on their property, you abide or don't enter. That doesn't change just because the item you are carrying does. Just because the consequences are acceptable to you still doesn't change the fact you violated someone's right with your want. I guess it is OK if a rapist rapes a family member as long as the rapist OK with the consequences. Forcing yourself, and your wishes, onto someone else is wrong no matter the reason or where it is.

I am as pro gun as anyone here but a property owner's right trumps anything a guest might think they have.

[300winmag]

The no gun signs law should be changed so that violation of it is a trespass crime instead of a weapons crime under state law.  That is the big difference between Tennessee and most states in this country, including other states that require permits to carry like California and New York. 

Of course until recently people carrying 5 inch blade knives could have been technically breaking the law also but were rarely bothered by police if otherwise not causing problems.  You could say the same about how it used to be very common for people to illegally carry handguns.

Pro gun people should want any of these types of weapons laws that can be abused to be taken off the books/modified to protect honest people. 

 

[DaveTN]

4 minutes ago, 300winmag said:

The no gun signs law should be changed so that violation of it is a trespass crime instead of a weapons crime under state law. 

Under what conditions would that conviction matter? Trespass is a misdemeanor that could involve jail time, carrying past a sign is a misdemeanor that is fine only.