New signage laws as of 1/1/2018

[300winmag]

Trespass laws sufficiently protect private business owners' rights to prohibit weapons without having an additional state weapons crime for permit holders for violating a sign.  You don't see an additional crime for carrying a can of beer past a property owners' 'no beer' sign or a crime for going barefoot for going past 'no shoes no service' signs.  Why should a gun be any different?

Pro gun people that agree with having weapons crimes such as this weapons crime over a sign for permit holders really need to think about that because you should be for less restrictions for handgun carry permits, not more.

   

 

[Dolomite_supafly]

8 hours ago, DaveTN said:

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. 

And we are in 100% agreement on that.

Unfortunately we already do have a thug government but it hasn't hit close to home yet. Refuse service to anyone one any one of the, what is it, 20 something of new genders now and our thuggish government will step in and punish you for discriminating. I wonder if we can sue if we get refused service for being gun owners? I mean if we were fondling each other's "gun" instead of having one on our hip we could, right?

 

[Jeb48]

Not sure if these bill will go anywhere but it would make the signs more tolerable.

SB2336/HB2484 CRIMINAL LAW: Permit holders in possession of a firearm must immediately leave a location when told to do so, if the individual was concealing in an unauthorized location.

Sen. Green, Mark Rep. Holt, Andy

Abolishes criminality for a conceal and carry permit holder when carrying

[Oh Shoot]

43 minutes ago, Jeb48 said:

Not sure if these bill will go anywhere but it would make the signs more tolerable.

SB2336/HB2484 CRIMINAL LAW: Permit holders in possession of a firearm must immediately leave a location when told to do so, if the individual was concealing in an unauthorized location.

Sen. Green, Mark Rep. Holt, Andy

Abolishes criminality for a conceal and carry permit holder when carrying

Already covered on previous page. It does NOT abolish criminality. Does not require they ask you to leave for one thing, can still just call a cop to arrest you or a cop seeing you could do it on his own.

- OS

[chances R]

12 minutes ago, Oh Shoot said:

Already covered on previous page. It does NOT abolish criminality. Does not require they ask you to leave for one thing, can still just call a cop to arrest you or a cop seeing you could do it on his own.

- OS

Sounds like it does just that: 

Firearms and Ammunition - As introduced, removes criminal liability for possession on posted premises for a permit holder who immediately leaves posted premises upon being asked to do so. - Amends TCA Section 39-17-1359.

[Oh Shoot]

14 minutes ago, chances R said:

Sounds like it does just that: 

Firearms and Ammunition - As introduced, removes criminal liability for possession on posted premises for a permit holder who immediately leaves posted premises upon being asked to do so. - Amends TCA Section 39-17-1359.

Read it. ONLY if asked to leave, eh?

One reason so many places post is because they don't have to confront you directly, can just call a cop. This doesn't change that. The cop could of course ask you to leave, or he could arrest/cite you. A cop could also just do it on his own volition if he decides you are carrying in a posted place.

Maybe it's a slight improvement, I dunno. No big whoop.

House Version:

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/110/Bill/HB2484.pdf

Senate version:

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/110/Bill/SB2336.pdf

 

- OS

 

Edited February 4, 2018 by Oh Shoot

[chances R]

Guess we will wait and see......if passed!  But for now when it says "...removes criminal liability..." don't know what one would be charged with.  Additionally it doesn't specify who is doing the asking, so could be owner or police.

[Oh Shoot]

7 minutes ago, chances R said:

Guess we will wait and see......if passed!  But for now when it says "...removes criminal liability..." don't know what one would be charged with.  Additionally it doesn't specify who is doing the asking, so could be owner or police.

Again, read the bills. I added links in post above.

The first sentence of each still reads

"It is an offense to possess a weapon in a building or on property that is properly posted in accordance with this section"

The penalty of Class B meanor for 1359 violation remains, this just modifies one sentence in the entire statute.  Store managers don't like to confront people with guns, this won't make that any more frequent on their part.

- OS

Edited February 4, 2018 by Oh Shoot

[DaveTN]

It appears to me that it would stop those that immediately leave from being arrested. It wouldn’t help those that want to have an argument/discussion about posting or whether or not their sign is legal.

It doesn’t have any requirements on who has to ask you, so until there is some case law I would say it could be a the owner, employee, customer, stranger walking by or a Police Officer. The intent of the law appears to be to make you aware you are in violation.

I would also say there is a very good possibility that if the owner called the Police your request to leave may well be accompanied with a Trespass Warning.

[bersaguy]

41 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

It appears to me that it would stop those that immediately leave from being arrested. It wouldn’t help those that want to have an argument/discussion about posting or whether or not their sign is legal.

It doesn’t have any requirements on who has to ask you, so until there is some case law I would say it could be a the owner, employee, customer, stranger walking by or a Police Officer. The intent of the law appears to be to make you aware you are in violation.

I would also say there is a very good possibility that if the owner called the Police your request to leave may well be accompanied with a Trespass Warning.

Simple solution to this is don't go into the store in the first place and try to spend money in a business that really does not want what is in your best interest in the first place and you won't have any issues.............JMHO 

[300winmag]

This law does not just apply to privately owned businesses like stores.  Some state and locally owned government buildings can still put no gun signs that apply to people with permits.  A lot of people forget about that.

 

Just by my reading of HB 2484, I think it is a big improvement over what we have now and would allow someone to leave if discovered without criminal weapons charge.  Basically if police called, then they would ask person to leave, and if that person refused to leave, then police would criminally charge with say the no gun sign law and also could trespass.   

[Oh Shoot]

3 hours ago, 300winmag said:

..Basically if police called, then they would ask person to leave, and if that person refused to leave, then police would criminally charge with say the no gun sign law and also could trespass.   

Where do you people keep interpreting that this bill requires anyone to ask you to leave?

- OS

[DaveTN]

3 minutes ago, Oh Shoot said:

Where do you people keep interpreting that this bill requires anyone to ask you to leave?

- OS

"who immediately leaves the premises upon being asked to do so."

[Oh Shoot]

Just now, DaveTN said:

"who immediately leaves the premises upon being asked to do so."

That means a cop is required to ask you leave before citing/arresting you?  Quite a stretch for a vague gerundive phrase.

- OS

 

[DaveTN]

4 minutes ago, Oh Shoot said:

That means a cop is required to ask you leave before citing/arresting you?  Quite a stretch for a vague gerundive phrase.

- OS

 

No, as I posted above, anyone can ask you to leave.

[Oh Shoot]

2 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

No, as I posted above, anyone can ask you to leave.

My point is, nobody is required to, just like now.

- OS

[DaveTN]

30 minutes ago, Oh Shoot said:

My point is, nobody is required to, just like now.

- OS

I’m looking at the intent of the law as I would have as a Police Officer. The intent of the law is for you to be notified and allowed to immediately leave. I am basing that on “It is not an offense” and “who immediately leaves the premises upon being asked to do so.”

A cop or DA could make a “letter of the law” argument like you are making for an arrest because the notification isn’t required and is vague; but I doubt it would stand in court by any Judge that didn’t want to be overturned.

[chances R]

South Carolina has similar wording.  Asked to leave and don't gets you a trespass citation.

[Oh Shoot]

53 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

I’m looking at the intent of the law as I would have as a Police Officer. The intent of the law is for you to be notified and allowed to immediately leave. I am basing that on “It is not an offense” and “who immediately leaves the premises upon being asked to do so.”

A cop or DA could make a “letter of the law” argument like you are making for an arrest because the notification isn’t required and is vague; but I doubt it would stand in court by any Judge that didn’t want to be overturned.

I'm a cop who gets called off the beat to deal with something like this, maybe I'm thinking maybe I should have an arrest for the hassle. There is simply no requirement in there to tell someone to leave so I can't arrest them.

The  "It is an offense to possess a weapon in a building or on property that is properly posted in accordance with this section" wording remains in the statute. Now, if the manager has already asked them to leave, and they didn't, I'm thinking if a properly posted biz, I'm charging them with both a trespassing AND and a 1359.

Obviously, PD policy may well determine how this goes down, but if left to one's own volition, I can see the point of view.  Not speaking to "cop negation" from one who is a big 2A proponent in general, just human nature.

- OS

Edited February 4, 2018 by Oh Shoot

[DaveTN]

15 hours ago, Oh Shoot said:

I'm a cop who gets called off the beat to deal with something like this, maybe I'm thinking maybe I should have an arrest for the hassle. There is simply no requirement in there to tell someone to leave so I can't arrest them.

The  "It is an offense to possess a weapon in a building or on property that is properly posted in accordance with this section" wording remains in the statute. Now, if the manager has already asked them to leave, and they didn't, I'm thinking if a properly posted biz, I'm charging them with both a trespassing AND and a 1359.

Obviously, PD policy may well determine how this goes down, but if left to one's own volition, I can see the point of view.  Not speaking to "cop negation" from one who is a big 2A proponent in general, just human nature.

- OS

Well…anything is possible. But the intent of the statute is clear. The Officer would have to have trouble with reading comprehension or be looking a legal “Gotcha” moment. Pleading not guilty would probably result in the case being dismissed.

It certainly could have been written better/clearer; as is true with many laws.

[Oh Shoot]

1 hour ago, DaveTN said:

Well…anything is possible. But the intent of the statute is clear. The Officer would have to have trouble with reading comprehension or be looking a legal “Gotcha” moment. Pleading not guilty would probably result in the case being dismissed.

It certainly could have been written better/clearer; as is true with many laws.

To assert this addition sets a requirement for notification to leave the premises is reading comprehension mired in wishful thinking.

- OS

Edited February 5, 2018 by Oh Shoot

[n0rlf]

Like most other things in life the person's attitude would have more to do with how a cop handles the situation. Calm coll and collected means you get to walk away. Arguing and yelling will get you the ride. The cops are far from stupid. They know you will eventually get little from an arrest but it is going to cost you both time and money so they see that as their only choice. 

It has been my experience in many situations in life that being nice gets you much further than being disagreeable. Honey and vingear thing you know!

This ttype of statute works well in a lot of states currently. It is not great by any stretch but seems to handle the situation as best it can be. 

[macville]

Quote

(1) It is an offense to possess a weapon in a building or on property that is properly posted in accordance with this section; provided, that it is not an offense under this section if the person possessing a weapon is a permit holder pursuant to § 39-17-1351 who immediately leaves the premises upon being first asked to do so by a qualified law enforcement officer.

Would my two bolded changes make it extremely clear to everyone that you would need to be asked to leave first by an LEO before you could be charged under 1359? I ask because I am pretty sure Andy Holt would be open to language changes that would make the law clearer.

 

On a side note, did anyone else notice this law getting passed and signed? (http://www.local8now.com/content/news/TN-bill-will-allow-purple-paint-markings-can-be-used-as-No-Trespassing-signs-431211773.html)

If I came across a purple X in the woods, I would have no clue what it meant. Plus, purple, because it's a dark color, is a terrible color to use as a marker. Even as a lighter version like violet, it's not a high visibility color.

[DaveTN]

1 hour ago, macville said:

Would my two bolded changes make it extremely clear to everyone that you would need to be asked to leave first by an LEO before you could be charged under 1359? I ask because I am pretty sure Andy Holt would be open to language changes that would make the law clearer.

I don’t think a Police Officer should have to be dispatched to do what an owner or employee could do if they so desired.

[Erik88]

On 2/4/2018 at 10:39 AM, bersaguy said:

Simple solution to this is don't go into the store in the first place and try to spend money in a business that really does not want what is in your best interest in the first place and you won't have any issues.............JMHO 

That's not always an option though. Every single movie theater (that I'm aware of) in Knoxville is posted. As of 1/1 it appears most of the theaters won't have legal postings. I rarely go anymore but occasionally a movie comes out which is better in theater. 

 

ETA-just noticed this was already covered on the first page. My bad.

Edited February 5, 2018 by Erik88