New signage laws as of 1/1/2018

[Oh Shoot]

11 hours ago, Omega said:

Just a ray of sunshine ain't you?  Far as I know, the police can't tresspass you in an establishment without a complainant....

I'm not talking trespass, I'm talking violation of 39-17-1359. The proposed amendment mentioned above doesn't change that.  A cop can arrest or ticket you for it, with or without a complaint, same as now.

- OS

Edited February 2, 2018 by Oh Shoot

[Omega]

48 minutes ago, Oh Shoot said:

I'm not talking trespass, I'm talking violation of 39-17-1359. The proposed amendment mentioned above doesn't change that.  A cop can arrest or ticket you for it, with or without a complaint, same as now.

- OS

Ah, my bad.  So what  the heck does it do?

[Oh Shoot]

55 minutes ago, Omega said:

Ah, my bad.  So what  the heck does it do?

Nothing realistic that I can see.

- OS

[macville]

3 hours ago, bersaguy said:

    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 would say most postings that I've seeing TN (besides gov buildings) are not locally owned businesses, but big corps. I know there are some for sure that are talked into it, but it's a minority. It's lawyers for the corps that are talking the businesses into it for liability reasons. What's really funny is if you go to the same stores in other states like GA or FL, they aren't posted...and I would assume because of no posting laws.

[bersaguy]

1 hour ago, macville said:

I would say most postings that I've seeing TN (besides gov buildings) are not locally owned businesses, but big corps. I know there are some for sure that are talked into it, but it's a minority. It's lawyers for the corps that are talking the businesses into it for liability reasons. What's really funny is if you go to the same stores in other states like GA or FL, they aren't posted...and I would assume because of no posting laws.

I wonder if those same lawyers are telling their business owners that they are also responsibile for your safety while your in that place of business also. If I am in a place of business during a robbery or astranged husband trying to kill wifes boyfriend and I'm hurt in any way because of no fault of my own you can bet I'm gonna sue long deep and indefinately because I was not able to defend myself when I should have been!!!!!!

[chances R]

1 hour ago, bersaguy said:

I wonder if those same lawyers are telling their business owners that they are also responsibile for your safety while your in that place of business also. If I am in a place of business during a robbery or astranged husband trying to kill wifes boyfriend and I'm hurt in any way because of no fault of my own you can bet I'm gonna sue long deep and indefinately because I was not able to defend myself when I should have been!!!!!!

Don't think you will have much luck with that.  Responsibility will lie with the bad guy.

[bersaguy]

19 minutes ago, chances R said:

Don't think you will have much luck with that.  Responsibility will lie with the bad guy.

Why, his sign did not prevent the bad guy from coming in but deprieved me of my right to defend myself. That sign can bite the owners in the butt also. I have a cousin that is a criminal defense attorney and he said those signs can play very important rolls in any case where innocent people are injured that other wise could have defended themselves.

[Oh Shoot]

19 minutes ago, bersaguy said:

Why, his sign did not prevent the bad guy from coming in but deprieved me of my right to defend myself. That sign can bite the owners in the butt also. I have a cousin that is a criminal defense attorney and he said those signs can play very important rolls in any case where innocent people are injured that other wise could have defended themselves.

I think you'll find that liability case law would require prior knowledge of a specific threat to which the owner failed to respond. Certainly not for adhering to a practice specifically allowed by statute.

- OS

Edited February 2, 2018 by Oh Shoot

[DaveTN]

46 minutes ago, bersaguy said:

Why, his sign did not prevent the bad guy from coming in but deprieved me of my right to defend myself. That sign can bite the owners in the butt also. I have a cousin that is a criminal defense attorney and he said those signs can play very important rolls in any case where innocent people are injured that other wise could have defended themselves.

Ask him if it’s ever happened in a state that doesn’t recognize the 2nd amendment as an individual right, and where carrying a gun is a crime.

Plenty of lawyers and non-lawyers alike have made the argument you are making; it’s a reasonable argument. The question is…. Has it ever worked?

My WAG is no, or businesses wouldn’t be posting. But I could be wrong.

[bersaguy]

Well, I'm done with the sign argument. I am sure if your both own businesses you would probably have them posted and I would not be doing business with either one of you...........JMHO

[Oh Shoot]

9 minutes ago, bersaguy said:

Well, I'm done with the sign argument. I am sure if your both own businesses you would probably have them posted and I would not be doing business with either one of you...........JMHO

What a strange interpretation. Shoot the messenger, eh?

- OS

Edited February 3, 2018 by Oh Shoot

[bersaguy]

1 minute ago, Oh Shoot said:

What a strange interpretation. Shoot the messenger, eh?

- OS

I would never shoot the messenger. I just would not do business with them if their business was posted. It just seems that you and others are willing to support the posting of businesses that are against the 2nd Amendment and I am not. Just a difference of opinions is all!

[Oh Shoot]

3 minutes ago, bersaguy said:

I would never shoot the messenger. I just would not do business with them if their business was posted. It just seems that you and others are willing to support the posting of businesses that are against the 2nd Amendment and I am not. Just a difference of opinions is all!

Dave and I were merely giving opinion of what the law would decide about liability. Mine with pretty decent background since this has been discussed here before, with a couple of attorneys chiming in. To conflate that with our being "pro signage" is quite the stretch.

Perhaps you can think of another example where behavior specifically allowed by a TCA statute could be found as negligent?

- OS

[chances R]

2 hours ago, bersaguy said:

Well, I'm done with the sign argument. I am sure if your both own businesses you would probably have them posted and I would not be doing business with either one of you...........JMHO

Hate you feel that way, but, since you brought it up, I don't have to worry about you suing me.

[300winmag]

Blaming a third party property owner for the actions of a criminal is kind of like blaming Ford for someone driving a Mustang too fast and getting hurt. 

Property owners should always be able to ask people to leave/trespass, but nonconforming behavior that is otherwise lawful should not result in weapons charges because it does not follow property owners' rules/policy due to a sign.

People forget also that in Tennessee these signs do apply to some state and local government properties.  Again Tennessee is probably one of the few states that has weapons charges on the books for people with permits over a sign.  And it isn't because Tennessee doesn't recognize permitless or open carry.  Plenty of states that require permits to carry do not fine people over no guns signs and that includes places that are difficult to get permits like New York and California. 

 

[Dolomite_supafly]

I thought a recent change in the law put some liability on a business owner who failed to protect you if he prohibited weapons on the property.

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2016/01/15/bill-allows-suits-over-gun-free-zone-incidents/78862948/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/06/30/tn-businesses-that-disarm-concealed-carry-permit-holders-now-liable-for-their-safety/

http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/01/new-tenn-law-puts-onus-on-gun-free-zone-property-owners/

[Oh Shoot]

1 hour ago, Dolomite_supafly said:

I thought a recent change in the law put some liability on a business owner who failed to protect you if he prohibited weapons on the property.

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2016/01/15/bill-allows-suits-over-gun-free-zone-incidents/78862948/

That was the proposed law. Actual enactment was quite different, it protects from liability anyone who does NOT post.

- OS

 

[DaveTN]

1 hour ago, Dolomite_supafly said:

I thought a recent change in the law put some liability on a business owner who failed to protect you if he prohibited weapons on the property.

SUMMARY OF ORIGINAL BILL: Requires any person or entity that posts signage prohibiting the possession of firearms on a property, for purposes of liability, to accept custodial responsibility for the safety and defense of any handgun carry permit holder harmed while on the posted property. Sets statute of limitations for such an action to be two years from the date of the occurrence. Mandates that any notice or signage posted forbidding handgun carry permit holders from possessing a firearm must also contain language stating that any permit holder on the posted property is under the custodial responsibility of the posting person or entity.

SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT (013338): Deletes all language of the original bill. Creates immunity from civil liability for a person, business, or other entity that owns, controls, or manages property, and has the authority to prohibit weapons on such property by posting signage pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1359, with respect to any claim based on the person’s, business’s or other entity’s failure to adopt a policy prohibiting weapons on the property. Specifies that the immunity granted under this legislation does not apply to a person, business, or other entity whose conduct or failure to act is the result of gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct.

[monkeylizard]

On 1/27/2018 at 9:36 AM, JayC said:

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.

Wasn't there a case in Memphis at a motorcycle dealership a few years back? IIRC, the dealership had been robbed, so they put up signs and hired a guard. Then just a few days after the robbery a guy decided to OC right past the signs and the guard. It seems like he also got argumentative with the staff or the responding officer about his rights or about the sign not being statutorily compliant or something. Do I remember that correctly? I thought he was charged with a -1359 violation.

Edited February 3, 2018 by monkeylizard

[Oh Shoot]

5 minutes ago, monkeylizard said:

Wasn't there a case in Memphis at a motorcycle dealership a few years back? IIRC, the dealership had been robbed, so they put up signs and hired a guard. Then just a few days after the robbery a guy decided to OC right past the signs and the guard. It seems like he also got argumentative with the staff or the responding officer about his rights or about the sign not being statutorily compliant or something. Do I remember that correctly? I thought he was charged with a -1359 violation.

I'm relatively certain it's never been mentioned here or would have remembered. Would certainly like to know what the outcome was.

- OS

Edited February 3, 2018 by Oh Shoot

[bersaguy]

Well I'm sorry if I have offended anyone with my views about the signs. I don't really know why I even brought it up because I never go in a store that has them up. I think what sparked me was the fact that recently I have noticed it is getting harder and harder to see the signs becuase it seems like some stores are using very small signs and putting them up in the corners of the windows of they are becoming mixed in with other flyers and notices on the door glass and can be missed if you don't actually dedicate time to strickly looking for them...........JMHO

[DaveTN]

30 minutes ago, bersaguy said:

Well I'm sorry if I have offended anyone with my views about the signs. I don't really know why I even brought it up because I never go in a store that has them up. I think what sparked me was the fact that recently I have noticed it is getting harder and harder to see the signs becuase it seems like some stores are using very small signs and putting them up in the corners of the windows of they are becoming mixed in with other flyers and notices on the door glass and can be missed if you don't actually dedicate time to strickly looking for them...........JMHO

I don’t think you offended anyone; certainly not me. I just don’t think I should get special treatment because I’m part of a special group that bought a privilege from the state. The state thinking that me buying that privilege somehow overrides business owners rights would be the sign of a thug government. That’s just how I see it; we disagree. No big deal; all is good. 

[Oh Shoot]

43 minutes ago, bersaguy said:

... recently I have noticed it is getting harder and harder to see the signs becuase it seems like some stores are using very small signs and putting them up in the corners of the windows of they are becoming mixed in with other flyers and notices on the door glass and can be missed if you don't actually dedicate time to strickly looking for them...........

Signage standard now in effect for everyone:

• "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."

- OS

[monkeylizard]

2 hours ago, Oh Shoot said:

I'm relatively certain it's never been mentioned here or would have remembered. Would certainly like to know what the outcome was.

- OS

 

Found it:

[Oh Shoot]

30 minutes ago, monkeylizard said:

 

Found it:

Ah thanks...I do remember that now, duh. It never seemed clear enough to me with the second hand account to know exactly what the deal was. 

But assuming it was purely only a 1359 violation, even back in '07, they did indeed pull his permit as per 1352 also. Of course back then, he was also facing possible 6 month jail stretch too.

- OS