Wishful Firearms Legislation

[Defender]

I know this isn't likely in today's climate, but one thing, among many, that I wish Tennessee had was something similar to Florida when one carries past a gunbuster sign.  Make it a possible trespassing charge not a gun charge.  I mean, I understand the supposed logic  behind this here, property owners have their rights too, right?   And they should be free to post if they want.  But it shouldn't be a crime.  Using this logic, what if they didn't want cell phones on their property and posted that. Should that also be a crime?

[chances R]

I agree with you...the sign should not have the force of law.  But, AFAIK, there has not been anyone charged/convicted of this.  If anyone knows differently please share.

[krunchnik]

Wut Sign?

[Snaveba]

Wasn’t there a Bill this session that was going to do something like that? Make carrying past a sign no longer a “gun crime”. I don’t think it passed. It may have been part of the Bill to expand the carry rights when you have a ECP. 

[chances R]

Yes I believe you are correct.  Believe it was HB 2554….very fe places one could not carry with ECP.

[monkeylizard]

On 6/17/2022 at 8:31 AM, chances R said:

I agree with you...the sign should not have the force of law.  But, AFAIK, there has not been anyone charged/convicted of this.  If anyone knows differently please share.

I'm pretty sure it happened several years back in Memphis. I think it was a motorcycle dealership (Kawasaki?) which had just been robbed or something and they had pretty blatant and obvious signage up afterwards and the owner was super spooked about guns. Those details may not be exact. Going on a few years now but I seem to recall it was a unique one-off case for sure. I think it was discussed here on TGO for a short time.

I don't think anyone every reported back here with the outcome so I don't know if the guy was convicted or not.

[TN_Jim]

Memphis TV channel 13 reported some info on the Kawasaki shop incident. I know the man who carried in to the store. Went to Bartlett PD until bail paid. At court received probation and fine. Could not carry until probation ended. Had to reapply for permit. Didn't get weapon returned until after court hearing after probation ended and PD did a TICS check. Lawyer fees $5k, probation a little over 2 years. 

[Defender]

54 minutes ago, TN_Jim said:

Memphis TV channel 13 reported some info on the Kawasaki shop incident. I know the man who carried in to the store. Went to Bartlett PD until bail paid. At court received probation and fine. Could not carry until probation ended. Had to reapply for permit. Didn't get weapon returned until after court hearing after probation ended and PD did a TICS check. Lawyer fees $5k, probation a little over 2 years. 

Dang!  Don’t care how rare it is,it needs to change!

[billyblazes]

Another wishful bit of firearm legislation I would like to see in Tennessee, ironically also as is the case in Florida, is preemption with regard to where a firearm can be discharged.

In Florida, State statute makes clear that a firearm may be discharged on one's private property regardless of how small or how large the property is so long as the shooting is done safely without negligence.  Granted, safely and without negligence is subjective; however, a municipality such as a city or county cannot make their own rules dictating anything different than what the State allows.  A city cannot write their own ordinance stating "No discharge in city limits" or "No gunfire after sunset" or likewise.

I see so many posts here asking "may I fire my gun on my property here or there?"  It shouldn't matter where one resides so long as one is on their own property and the bullets are not leaving that property.

[scatman]

5 hours ago, billyblazes said:

Another wishful bit of firearm legislation I would like to see in Tennessee, ironically also as is the case in Florida, is preemption with regard to where a firearm can be discharged.

In Florida, State statute makes clear that a firearm may be discharged on one's private property regardless of how small or how large the property is so long as the shooting is done safely without negligence.  Granted, safely and without negligence is subjective; however, a municipality such as a city or county cannot make their own rules dictating anything different than what the State allows.  A city cannot write their own ordinance stating "No discharge in city limits" or "No gunfire after sunset" or likewise.

I see so many posts here asking "may I fire my gun on my property here or there?"  It shouldn't matter where one resides so long as one is on their own property and the bullets are not leaving that property.

I feel as though the reasons as to why it isnt like this is a concern in more residential areas. You know, Joe Blow with half an acre in his back yard, but can reach out his kitchen window and high five the neighbor in their kitchen, decides to set up a mini range in his backyard. Neighbors, regardless if they're gun enthusiasts or not, might find that to be an uneasy concept, regardless of how safe the range is. I live in the sticks, my closest neighbor is a 1/4 mile on either side, everyone has a range on their property out here, and depending on what's being shot, you might think someone was on your range in your yard vs their own, so I understand as to why they leave it to individual communities to write their regulations regarding this.