New signage laws as of 1/1/2018

[JayC]

2 hours ago, Dolomite_supafly said:

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.

I'm pro-property rights which is why I don't associate with the TFA anymore... But there are certain circumstances where you're not dealing with a regular business.  Before the recent law change I often was forced to go into government buildings, unlike your local restaurant or chain clothing store, there is no other place to 'go' to "buy" these services.

More importantly in many cases these 'services' are mandatory, as in if you don't partake the government will send men with guns to force you to pay one way or another   My logic is simple if you're a government entity and you can't be bothered to follow the letter of the law in posting no firearm signs, then I shouldn't be required to disarm.

Hospitals are another grey area in my book, my Doctor isn't anti-gun, but he sometimes refers myself or my family to a Hospital where they are, he doesn't have privileges anywhere else - not that in Nashville there are any Hospitals which aren't anti-gun to begin with.  Anyhow the Hospital in question has no firearm signs outside their ER entrance and main Hospital entrance, but doesn't have them from the Parking Garage entrances.  So I put a bug in my back pocket in a wallet style holster, and don't ask/don't tell carry.  And frankly I don't feel bad about doing it.

Obviously if somebody asking you to leave you should leave.  But, while I part of a business that has a 'no shirt, no shoes, no service' sign on the door, I don't expect the government to charge people who ignore it with a crime, I ask them to leave and so far they all have left, just as I suspect would be the case with the vast majority of HCP holders.

[Oh Shoot]

10 hours ago, JayC said:

...

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,

According to TCA, your permit will be suspended or revoked for a 1359 violation.

Again, we don't know for a fact if that has been followed through on or not in any actual conviction of a TN permit holder.

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

"39-17-1352. Suspension or revocation of license.

(a)  The department shall suspend or revoke a handgun permit upon a showing by its records or other sufficient evidence that the permit holder:

(6)  Has violated any other provision of §§ 39-17-1351 -- 39-17-1360"

- OS

[Oh Shoot]

9 hours ago, DaveTN said:

Under what conditions would that conviction matter? ....

It's one thing to have a 'meanor on your record for a traffic offense, even including drunk driving.

But having a gun offense on your record could well taint your chances for everything from landing that job or security clearance. Just the way lots of folks see it, about the same as having a drug conviction, except even "scarier".

- OS

 

[300winmag]

Weapons offense convictions can cause problems for people with certain jobs in in government and private sector. According to state law here your handgun carry permit can be suspended or revoked.  I'm guessing armed guards can have problems with their licenses too. 

That is what makes the no guns sign law in Tennessee bad is that it is a stupid law that can be abused to cause an otherwise good person a lot of trouble.  Why should someone who has a permit in TN still have to worry about weapons charges over a silly sign of all things in addition to staying clear of schools and colleges?  Change the law to a trespass situation like the rest of the country and if you ever get constitutional carry here you will be a lot better off.  

Edited January 28, 2018 by 300winmag

[JayC]

On 1/27/2018 at 8:15 PM, Oh Shoot said:

According to TCA, your permit will be suspended or revoked for a 1359 violation.

Again, we don't know for a fact if that has been followed through on or not in any actual conviction of a TN permit holder.

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

"39-17-1352. Suspension or revocation of license.

(a)  The department shall suspend or revoke a handgun permit upon a showing by its records or other sufficient evidence that the permit holder:

(6)  Has violated any other provision of §§ 39-17-1351 -- 39-17-1360"

- OS

I'm not aware of any suspension/revocation from a violation of 1359.  Even though Voldemort refused to show his permit, and that technically was a violation of 39-17-1351 they didn't revoke his permit using 1352a6 they used the public risk clause, probably because if they revoke your permit under a6 you could re-apply the next day and they'd be forced to grant you a new permit.

Also, I'm not sure how TDOS gets notified of a misdemeanor conviction to begin with?

[macville]

On 1/27/2018 at 9:15 PM, Oh Shoot said:

According to TCA, your permit will be suspended or revoked for a 1359 violation.

Again, we don't know for a fact if that has been followed through on or not in any actual conviction of a TN permit holder.

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

"39-17-1352. Suspension or revocation of license.

(a)  The department shall suspend or revoke a handgun permit upon a showing by its records or other sufficient evidence that the permit holder:

(6)  Has violated any other provision of §§ 39-17-1351 -- 39-17-1360"

- OS

I'm a little confused on where you find that a 1359 violation would qualify for a suspended or revoked permit. 1359 says punishment would be a Class B misdemeanor - $500 fine and nothing else. 1360 is about authorizing department of safety to put rules and regs out. 1351 lists crimes as:
 

Quote

 

"(7)  That the applicant is not currently under indictment or information for any criminal offense that is designated as a felony, or that is one of the disqualifying misdemeanors set out in subdivisions (c)(11), (c)(16), or (c)(18),
(11)  That the applicant has not been convicted of the offense of driving under the influence of an intoxicant in this or any other state two (2) or more times within ten (10) years from the date of the application and that none of the convictions has occurred within five (5) years from the date of application or renewal;

(16)  That the applicant has not been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 921;

(18)  That the applicant has not been convicted of the offense of stalking."

 

The only thing I can even slightly see is the two dashes between "39-17-1351" and "39-17-1360" was supposed to mean 1351 to 1360. But that doesn't make sense because that's not what double dashes mean--ie something important or something to be emphasized, a comma on steroids.

So what am I missing here?

[Oh Shoot]

10 hours ago, JayC said:

I'm not aware of any suspension/revocation from a violation of 1359.  Even though Voldemort refused to show his permit, and that technically was a violation of 39-17-1351 they didn't revoke his permit using 1352a6 they used the public risk clause, probably because if they revoke your permit under a6 you could re-apply the next day and they'd be forced to grant you a new permit.\

Nothing says they have to give you your permit back if you reapply, only that you have recourse of a judicial review.

As far as Embody, I suppose they had their choice of offence.

Quote

Also, I'm not sure how TDOS gets notified of a misdemeanor conviction to begin with?

Me neither, but I guess that's part of the process somehow. At least one person here reported that their HCP was indeed suspended after a DUI conviction. And folks have been prevented from buying firearms due to an alcohol related conviction within the previous year, so obviously there is a reporting mechanism in place that works at least part of the time.

8 hours ago, macville said:

I'm a little confused on where you find that a 1359 violation would qualify for a suspended or revoked permit.

?? As I said, it's in "39-17-1352. Suspension or revocation of license"

Quote

1359 says punishment would be a Class B misdemeanor - $500 fine and nothing else. 1360 is about authorizing department of safety to put rules and regs out.

I suppose you could argue that, but I'd say the prevailing ruling would be that the "$500 only" is there simply to specify that no jail term can be imposed, unlike other Class B 'meanors. That doesn't mean you can't be smacked by another statute provision. Just as though you can have loaded firearms in your personal vehicle without a permit in one statute,  you can't legally do that on school property, posted lots, or employee parking if your boss prevents it by policy in two other statutes.

Quote

The only thing I can even slightly see is the two dashes between "39-17-1351" and "39-17-1360" was supposed to mean 1351 to 1360.

Yes, seems pretty clear to me.

 

Quote

But that doesn't make sense because that's not what double dashes mean--ie something important or something to be emphasized, a comma on steroids.

Seems obvious they used the "--" because a single dash has to be used within each statute listing and you would have had a superfluous and confusing "-" in the sentence between the two statute listings. If they had only meant either of the two statutes specifically, a simple "or" would have been the obvious choice, even for the legalese verbal oafs who write some of these things.

Again, though, there have been so few cases that we know about, we also don't know if that part has even been enforced, or if so, ruled on.

- OS

Edited February 1, 2018 by Oh Shoot

[300winmag]

Tennessee no guns sign crime is a weapons crime conviction even though it is a fine only class B misdemeanor.  Intent to go armed is a misdemeanor also and most people are just fined for that too but it is still a weapons crime on your criminal record if you are convicted of it.  A person's firearm can be taken for any weapon charge and when convicted may never get it back.  So this silly law that we have here can turn into more than a 500 dollar fine if someone wants to make it into that.

Most states do not slap people who have permits with extra weapons crimes for carrying past specific no guns signs.  Pro gun people should want this law to be changed in Tennessee to more of a trespass situation.

Edited February 1, 2018 by 300winmag

[macville]

10 hours ago, Oh Shoot said:

Seems obvious they used the "--" because a single dash has to be used within each statute listing and you would have had a superfluous and confusing "-" in the sentence between the two statute listings. If they had only meant either of the two statutes specifically, a simple "or" would have been the obvious choice, even for the legalese verbal oafs who write some of these things.

Again, though, there have been so few cases that we know about, we also don't know if that part has even been enforced, or if so, ruled on.

- OS

I see what you are getting at, but the word "to" should have been used because double dashes means a comma. From a strict English and legal sense it doesn't make sense. But, once again, none of us are surprised at how poorly most of our laws are written (and State Laws are normally far better written than Federal!)

If we really want to look at see how poorly our laws are written, we can simply look at 1359 itself. So the current edit of 1359 is, I believe, from either the 2017 or 2016 session. I know things got re-written to allow banning for events like the TNV Fair here in Knoxville. But in re-writing it about "weapons" in the signage requirement part, they kinda forgot to talk about "weapons" and focused on just firearms. For example, here is the text from the law in 2010
 

Quote

 

In addition to the sign, notice may also include the international circle and slash symbolizing the prohibition of the item within the circle. The sign shall be of a size that is plainly visible to the average person entering the building, premises or property and shall contain language substantially similar to the following:

PURSUANT TO § 39-17-1359, THE OWNER/OPERATOR OF THIS PROPERTY HAS BANNED WEAPONS ON THIS PROPERTY, OR WITHIN THIS BUILDING OR THIS PORTION OF THIS BUILDING. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS PROHIBITION IS PUNISHABLE AS A CRIMINAL ACT UNDER STATE LAW AND MAY SUBJECT THE VIOLATOR TO A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($500).

 

vs the current law

Quote

• (1)  Notice of the prohibition permitted by subsection (a) shall be accomplished by displaying the notice described in subdivision (b)(3) in prominent locations, including all entrances primarily used by persons entering the property, building, or portion of the property or building where weapon possession is prohibited. The notice shall be plainly visible to the average person entering the building, property, or portion of the building or property, posted.
• (2)  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".
  • (B)  The sign shall include a pictorial representation of the phrase "NO FIREARMS ALLOWED" that shall include a circle with a diagonal line through the circle and an image of a firearm inside the 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 degrees) angle from the upper left to the lower right side of the circle.

So before, to ban other weapons like knives, you had to put "no weapons allowed" and now you just have to put "no firearms" and somehow that bans all weapons...even without saying all weapons? The crazy part is it's way convoluted than the original carry where alcohol is served laws and that got stuck down as unconstitutionally vague. I mean, honestly, can I carry a knife in my local YMCA that has the exact legal sign posted, but nothing else posted about other weapons? I can make a solid argument about intent, but also a solid legal argument that the law is poorly/vaguely written and that a sign that only says "no firearms" doesn't refer to knives and other weapons.

 

This is why 1359 needs to be focused on repealing. It so poorly written and I cannot see banning guns anywhere but inside jails and possibly activate courtrooms and mental hospitals can prevent crime. Plus, by letting property owners post with legal signs (trespassing sign could still be posted by business owners but it would be a trespassing violation if refused to leave) to legislature is shirking it's duty in that only THEY are supposed to be able to ban the carry of arms and with "a view to prevent crime."

 

[JayC]

11 hours ago, Oh Shoot said:

Nothing says they have to give you your permit back if you reapply, only that you have recourse of a judicial review.

Seeing as a violation of 39-17-1351 nor a class B misdemeanor is not a reason they can deny you issuing you a permit, I don't see how they turn down the application.  I said at the time, Voldemort could really mess up their day by just simply re-applying for a permit.  Nothing in the law allows TDOS to deny the permit... and lets remember that TDOS's track record in court on permits is like 0% success rate.

Either way, the chance you get charged with 1359 is slim as long as you stay away from Airports, and don't give any reason for the officers to look for a charge.  (Again not suggesting that people should violate the law, but walking past clearly unlawful signs while concealed is not the risk some folks are making it out to be.)

[Sidecarist]

I think this thread has replaced the Swamp.

The way I see it is if you want to be a test case go for it, let us know how that works out.

Life isn't fair

Property owners have the right to exclude you for any reason they want.

You have the right to not do business with anyone for any reason too.

I'd rather read a thread about how cutting edge 40 S&W is.

[Oh Shoot]

3 hours ago, macville said:

I see what you are getting at, but the word "to" should have been used because double dashes means a comma. From a strict English and legal sense it doesn't make sense

Just to be pedantic, having one of them thar Engleesh degrees and all:

It's simply a crude em dash, meaning "to" or "through" when used with things like numbers and dates (actually an en dash is proper but most don't know the diff and use the em, which is acceptable).  "- -" is the way you make it on a typewriter or if you don't know how to do it on puter or your word processor doesn't convert it.

Although since the statute numbers on each side are necessarily made with hyphens, the writer may have actually used the double hyphen instead of true em dash to set it off more explicitly than using a true em dash.

- OS

 

Edited February 1, 2018 by Oh Shoot

[bersaguy]

I don't know about any one else but this is a "No Brainer" to me. If you approach a place of business and they have any kind of gun ban sign up what so ever, just turn around and walk away. Go to another location that does not hvae Gun Banned signs up and do business. How hard is that to understand??????..................JMHO

[n0rlf]

6 minutes ago, bersaguy said:

I don't know about any one else but this is a "No Brainer" to me. If you approach a place of business and they have any kind of gun ban sign up what so ever, just turn around and walk away. Go to another location that does not hvae Gun Banned signs up and do business. How hard is that to understand??????..................JMHO

Works for me. Right up until I have to go in for whatever reason. Government building comes to mind. This has always been a tough situation. In other states where it was nothing more than being asked to leave I would walk right past. Where it is a criminal conviction that may have far greater impacts on my life and jobs I have to rethink it. In the end it comes down to what you are confortable doing. No one is going to make a point that is legal that changes anyone's mind. It is one of the grey areas that bites. Hosed if we do and hosed if we don't. 

Solution? Throw the bums out and get people in that will write laws that make sense and respect our rights!

[Omega]

My problem is not willful disregard of the sign but inadvertently going past it while something or someone is blocking the sign or your attention is on something else.  I've no problem taking my business to a more gun friendly establishment if I know it's posted, but when a sign has a force of law a simple mistake can cost you plenty.

[bersaguy]

1 hour ago, Omega said:

My problem is not willful disregard of the sign but inadvertently going past it while something or someone is blocking the sign or your attention is on something else.  I've no problem taking my business to a more gun friendly establishment if I know it's posted, but when a sign has a force of law a simple mistake can cost you plenty.

I agree with you 110% Omega. I have seen small 4 inch signs located on the lower corner of an entrance glass to a business and would have missed it if someone would have blocked it while coming out of the store. I think if the business is going to post their business it should be a sign 20 inch by 20 inch placed at eye level on every door entering the business and should be required to be made in Florescent Green or Florescent orange and totally visable. I also think the state should be required to sell the signs and the businesses should have to buy them from the state. That way there is no mistaking which ones are legal and which ones are not................JMHO

[Omega]

1 hour ago, bersaguy said:

I agree with you 110% Omega. I have seen small 4 inch signs located on the lower corner of an entrance glass to a business and would have missed it if someone would have blocked it while coming out of the store. I think if the business is going to post their business it should be a sign 20 inch by 20 inch placed at eye level on every door entering the business and should be required to be made in Florescent Green or Florescent orange and totally visable. I also think the state should be required to sell the signs and the businesses should have to buy them from the state. That way there is no mistaking which ones are legal and which ones are not................JMHO

Ha, while we are dreaming lets add that the signs should cost them as much as it does us to get our permit.

[bersaguy]

32 minutes ago, Omega said:

Ha, while we are dreaming lets add that the signs should cost them as much as it does us to get our permit.

Good point Omega, and they should have to renew them and pay for that also just as we do. Whats fair for the goose is fair for the gander.............JMHO

[DaveTN]

1 hour ago, Omega said:

Ha, while we are dreaming lets add that the signs should cost them as much as it does us to get our permit.

 

1 hour ago, bersaguy said:

Good point Omega, and they should have to renew them and pay for that also just as we do. Whats fair for the goose is fair for the gander.............JMHO

Why should they have to pay? It’s the state saying it’s a crime to carry a gun. The state telling them they have to do anything more than post in a visible location is a reach.

[Omega]

13 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

 

Why should they have to pay? It’s the state saying it’s a crime to carry a gun. The state telling them they have to do anything more than post in a visible location is a reach.

Why should we have to pay to exercise a right?  But I was only kidding about them having to pay, realy there should be no crime to these signs unless you are tresspassed by the business and you refuse to leave. Once they take that part away, official signage should be abolished as well.  I bet if they did require payments for the signs, only the die-hard anti 2A would bother, and they would enforce all penalties they could too.

[300winmag]

You might want to contact your state rep, state senator, and the NRA to get behind HB 2484 / SB 2336.  This bill does exactly what some of us have been asking for with these stupid signs by "removing criminal liability for possession on a posted premises by a permit holder who immediately leaves posted premises upon being asked to do so."  

This bill will not pass without help. If you would like a legal trap to be removed for good people trying to protect themselves, this is a good bill to improve our carry situation.

[Oh Shoot]

1 hour ago, 300winmag said:

You might want to contact your state rep, state senator, and the NRA to get behind HB 2484 / SB 2336.  This bill does exactly what some of us have been asking for with these stupid signs by "removing criminal liability for possession on a posted premises by a permit holder who immediately leaves posted premises upon being asked to do so."  

This bill will not pass without help. If you would like a legal trap to be removed for good people trying to protect themselves, this is a good bill to improve our carry situation.

The store owner could still call a cop without speaking to you at all to see if he will arrest you, just as it is now. Or a cop sees you and does it on his own, just as it is now.

- OS

Edited February 2, 2018 by Oh Shoot

[Omega]

16 minutes ago, Oh Shoot said:

The store owner could still call a cop without speaking to you at all to see if he will arrest you, just as it is now. Or a cop sees you and does it on his own, just as it is now.

- OS

Just a ray of sunshine ain't you?  Far as I know, the police can't tresspass you in an establishment without a complainant, at least not in non posted private places, at least not now.  They can't even have a car towed off private property, the land owner has to do it.  The owner/management can call LEO,  which will ask you to leave and only arrest if you refuse.  Has there been many arrested for not having a shirt, shoes, in a similarly posted place without the business asking LEO to do so?  Of course, there's always a possibility of an over zealous LEO doing so, but I would think they'd have a hard time making it stick.

[DaveTN]

10 hours ago, Omega said:

Why should we have to pay to exercise a right?  

Because the state doesn’t recognize your RIGHT to carry, yet you want them to act like it’s a right because you bought a privilege from them. It can’t work that way.

The state needs to recognize carry as a RIGHT under the 2nd amendment of the Constitution. Until they do that for ALL citizens of this state the only folks here with RIGHTS are the property owners. If they don’t want me on their property they can post it. If I choose to ignore their wishes I can be cited for the violation. Violating the law has consequences.

It is the STATE that refuses to recognize a RIGHT to carry for all citizens. And let’s be frank, you can’t seriously make the argument that because someone has been through a HCP class they are somehow deemed safer than the average citizens to carry a gun.

[bersaguy]

    In all honesty I have said this before and I will say it again. I don't think all of these no gun signs are truly the ideas of the business owner. I think probably most of the are from ANTI-2ND Amendment groups that go around to the different businesses and fill the owners head full of ideas and they put the signs up for the business owner. You can bet they don't inform the business owner of the down side to the signs which is lost revenue by the people that would trade in his store that go armed every day and don't shoot anyone.

  I am only one person and yes I do go armed when I go out and last year I kept a sort of tally of how many times I walked away from a posted location and went to a non posted location to make a purchase. Sometimes sizable some times nickle and dime stuff but it all adds up and as best I can tell last year I walked away from 371 businesses that were posted when I arrived and I spent about $2,135.00 at unposted locations. Now I realize I am only one person that does not get out a lot or spend a great deal of money but what about the folks that do. How much are the bottom lines of posted stores being effected by the signs????? Maybe someone needs to tell them and see if they still feel the signs are worth the lost revenue!!!!