"language substantially similar"

[Guest Alpha Dog]

These questions are for everyone, but especially for the legal professionals and anyone else with an intimate working knowledge of T.C.A. who frequent this board.

Question 1:

OK, so after July 14 restaurants may "post", but just what constitutes "language substantially similar" to that in 39-17-1359 (a)?

Is "No Guns" sufficient?

What about "We do not allow guns to be carried here at any time"?

Just how much like the statute language does a posting have to be to be legal?

Question 2:

If a business "posts" a non-qualifying sign (one that does not meet the standard of "language substantially similar") what should the law-abiding HCP holder do?

Respect it and not carry there?

Carry anyway, and if confronted what would the outcome be? Can you be arrested for not respecting a non-qualifying sign?

Carry deep cover and behave? (Don't bother to answer this last one. )

[Guest HexHead]

Seriously, what part of "substantially similar" is unclear? It doesn't have to have the exact wording, but must address the key points like the TCA code, and penalty to be a "legal" sign.

Unless it's a legal sign, I ignore it. The worst that can happen is they ask you to leave. It has no force of law. Think of an improper sign as just a suggestion.

Besides, concealed mean concealed and unless you're being an ass with your gun, nobody's going to notice anyway. The cover doesn't even have to be all that deep.

[GLOCKMEISTER]

All I will say is this... Any place that post any kind of sign, legal or not, will not get a dime of my money and I'll do everything I can to see them no longer in buisness.

Period... this has been a long fight for our 2nd amendment rights... and after these latest stunts by metro... Im tired of playing nice.

[Guest HexHead]

All I will say is this... Any place that post any kind of sign, legal or not, will not get a dime of my money and I'll do everything I can to see them no longer in buisness.

Period... this has been a long fight for our 2nd amendment rights... and after these latest stunts by metro... Im tired of playing nice.

+1 Phil. Especially the "tired of playing nice" part.

"I'm mad as hell and not going to take it any longer." I expressed my feelings in another thread and they haven't changed.

[Guest redbarron06]

Walk in with the gun in the open and tell them I learned how to carry it according to the law if you dont like it learn how to stop it according to the law.

[JayC]

IANAL but here are the best answers I can give you.

1. It's generally believed that the signage must be nearly word for word... with some minor exceptions... For example instead of saying

THE OWNER/OPERATOR OF THIS PROPERTY

It probably would be a legal posting if it instead said:

THE OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY

"No Guns" or "We do not allow guns to be carried...." would not be considered valid postings...

You can refer to this TN AG letter which states just that.

http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/agopinions/TNAGOpPostingPrivateBldgs.pdf

Just how much like the statue must the sign be? Who knows... it doesn't appear there is any direct case law on the subject.

2. I think each individual should make their own choice as to when and where to carry... there are risks to carrying even in a place that just uses a "no guns" sign.

As for your question, if you carry and are confronted, 99% of the time they'll just ask you to leave, obviously you must under the law just like you would in any other establishment which is not legally posted, or risk being arrested.

That other 1% of the time is the issue, if the police get involved you may very well end up arrested and charged with a crime, your handgun would likely be seized and you'd most likely have your HCP revoked while you awaited trial... After spending $1000's of dollars to defend yourself and get your HCP back, you'd likely not be convicted of anything.

Keep in mind once an officer gets involved he is going to be the one to determine whether a posting meets the legal requirements, and as we all know officers knowledge of HCP rights and firearm laws are hit and miss at best in most departments. We still have officers who think it's illegal to carry into Krogers because they sell beer (not all, not even a majority but some)...

So if you choose to carry in a business that improperly posts, there are risks, while you're very unlikely IMHO to be convicted, defending yourself from an overzealous business owner and/or officer might well cost you a great deal of time and/or money.

These questions are for everyone, but especially for the legal professionals and anyone else with an intimate working knowledge of T.C.A. who frequent this board.

Question 1:

OK, so after July 14 restaurants may "post", but just what constitutes "language substantially similar" to that in 39-17-1359 (a)?

Is "No Guns" sufficient?

What about "We do not allow guns to be carried here at any time"?

Just how much like the statute language does a posting have to be to be legal?

Question 2:

If a business "posts" a non-qualifying sign (one that does not meet the standard of "language substantially similar") what should the law-abiding HCP holder do?

Respect it and not carry there?

Carry anyway, and if confronted what would the outcome be? Can you be arrested for not respecting a non-qualifying sign?

Carry deep cover and behave? (Don't bother to answer this last one. )

[Guest HexHead]

Keep in mind once an officer gets involved he is going to be the one to determine whether a posting meets the legal requirements, and as we all know officers knowledge of HCP rights and firearm laws are hit and miss at best in most departments. We still have officers who think it's illegal to carry into Krogers because they sell beer (not all, not even a majority but some)...

So if you choose to carry in a business that improperly posts, there are risks, while you're very unlikely IMHO to be convicted, defending yourself from an overzealous business owner and/or officer might well cost you a great deal of time and/or money.

I carry the proper legal wording on a note in my iPhone along with the AG opinion document number. Just in case I need to "educate" a cop on what the law is.

[Motasyco]

All I will say is this... Any place that post any kind of sign, legal or not, will not get a dime of my money and I'll do everything I can to see them no longer in buisness.

Period... this has been a long fight for our 2nd amendment rights... and after these latest stunts by metro... Im tired of playing nice.

My feelings exactly. There are a couple of companies I haven't done business with in years for reasons known only to me. I'm sure these companies feel no impact from my actions alone but I have to be true to myself. And I really haven't missed eating a Big Mac. Perhaps businesses that post will feel the collective actions of many.

[JayC]

I carry the proper legal wording on a note in my iPhone along with the AG opinion document number. Just in case I need to "educate" a cop on what the law is.

I do as well (well not an iphone but on my person)... My concern is to play it safe for the next few months, in some of the big cities where the CLEO appears to be very anti-gun.

I could see a chief talking a very hard line stance on postings and trying to push his luck to get some negative press over HCP holders... Not saying it would happen, just saying it's not outside the realm of possibility.

I personally plan on carrying on July 14th, but I'll avoid restaurants who post at all (like I do with businesses who post today) because I don't want to give them my money... There are times I'll push it right now, places like the mall where it's the only place that sells something I need locally... Or going into the medical office building where my wife gets a test done, if those aren't properly posted, I still go in CC'ing... But largely where I have a choice I don't give my money willingly to people who want to see me walk unprotected into their parking lot after dark.

I'm only cautioning people that currently it doesn't appear there is any case law on this subject and I wouldn't want to be the test case personally.

[Guest Doc44]

Seems reasonable that if we have to play by the rules/laws everyone else should also.... or did I forget something... like the elite, politicians, buddies and big money folk .... oh yeah, who your daddy is and if you play pro ball.

Justice is blind and everyone should bite the same old green wiennie.

Doc44

[Guest HexHead]

There are times I'll push it right now, places like the mall where it's the only place that sells something I need locally...

How is the mall pushing it? Are you referring to when they say "no weapons" as #14, (right under No Skateboardng) in their "Courtesy Policy" sign 30 feet inside the mall?

[Fallguy]

I think JayC pretty much hit in on the head.

Like he said, don't know of any case law on 39-17-1359.

IANAL, but IMHO, the reason for the "substantially similar" wording is to allow the owner to "customize" the wording of the sign in the law to their needs.

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).

Owner/Operator could be changed to the actual name of the person or business.

Weapons could be changed to just handguns or firearms.

Property, or within this building or this portion of this building could (or should) be changed to list the specific area(s) off limits. If you say this property, then there is no real reason to include the word buildings. Or if you just want to ban carry in a certain room, there is no reason to say property or building.

Other than those three areas I think the sign should have the rest of the wording as what is in the law.

On another note....violation of even a proper sign (not recommended) is a misdemeanor and you could only be charged by an officer if it occurs in his presence. So if you are on the other side of the sign, when he gets there, not much they can do other than advise the property owner of warrant procedures if they want to follow through with it.

[Guest sstouder]

I carry the proper legal wording on a note in my iPhone along with the AG opinion document number. Just in case I need to "educate" a cop on what the law is.

did you have to type the whole thing or what?

[Guest benchpresspower]

Guess I need to keep my copy of "Carrying a Handgun for Self Defense in TN" in my truck as well as the travel companion.

[Guest HexHead]

did you have to type the whole thing or what?

Yeah, no big deal.

[Guest Doc44]

Back in the 80's Georgia Firearms License had the State code/law printed on the back of the carry card.

Doc44

[K191145]

I think JayC pretty much hit in on the head.

Like he said, don't know of any case law on 39-17-1359.

IANAL, but IMHO, the reason for the "substantially similar" wording is to allow the owner to "customize" the wording of the sign in the law to their needs.

Owner/Operator could be changed to the actual name of the person or business.

Weapons could be changed to just handguns or firearms.

Property, or within this building or this portion of this building could (or should) be changed to list the specific area(s) off limits. If you say this property, then there is no real reason to include the word buildings. Or if you just want to ban carry in a certain room, there is no reason to say property or building.

Other than those three areas I think the sign should have the rest of the wording as what is in the law.

On another note....violation of even a proper sign (not recommended) is a misdemeanor and you could only be charged by an officer if it occurs in his presence. So if you are on the other side of the sign, when he gets there, not much they can do other than advise the property owner of warrant procedures if they want to follow through with it.

Aw man, I hate legal language. But if a business does ban gun from it's property which I assume parking lot also, they do have to post signs in the parking lot unless it's city or government property. Actually that's kind of a question.

I know the Renasance Center in Dickson has signs in their parking lot also. BUT, you have to drive up a long drive into their lot to see them.

But officer, I couldn't see the sign till I was already on their property.

[Oh Shoot]

This came up in another thread.

Glockmeister quoted from TFA site and says he thinks Michie's info is outdated:

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

"Tennessee law (T.C.A. § 39-17-1359) provides:

An individual, corporation, business entity or local, state or federal government entity or agent thereof is authorized to prohibit the possession of weapons by any person otherwise authorized by §§ 39-17-1351 -- 39-17-1360, at meetings conducted by, or on premises owned, operated, or managed or under control of such individual, corporation, business entity or government entity. Notice of such prohibition shall be posted. Posted notices shall be displayed in prominent locations, including all public entrances, shall be in English, and shall be at least six inches (6") high and fourteen inches (14") wide, stating:

PURSUANT TO T.C.A. § 39-17-1359, THE OWNER/OPERATOR OF THIS PROPERTY HAS BANNED WEAPONS WITHIN THIS BUILDING OR THIS PORTION OF THIS BUILDING. A VIOLATION OF THIS PROHIBITION IS PUNISHABLE AS A CRIMINAL ACT UNDER STATE LAW AND MAY BE SUBJECT TO A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $500."

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

And this is from Michie's:

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

"39-17-1359. Prohibition at certain meetings — Posting notice. —

(a) An individual, corporation, business entity or local, state or federal government entity or agent thereof is authorized to prohibit the possession of weapons by any person otherwise authorized by §§ 39-17-1351 — 39-17-1360, at meetings conducted by, or on property owned, operated, or managed or under the control of the individual, corporation, business entity or government entity. Notice of the prohibition shall be posted. Posted notices shall be displayed in prominent locations, including all entrances primarily used by persons entering the building, portion of the building or buildings where weapon possession is prohibited. If the possession of weapons is also prohibited on the premises of the property as well as within the confines of a building located on the property, the notice shall be posted at all entrances to the premises that are primarily used by persons entering the property. The notice shall be in English but a notice may also be posted in any language used by patrons, customers or persons who frequent the place where weapon possession is prohibited. 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)."

----------

I can't find any other link into TCA except for Michie's.

So I've become rather unsure just what the statute really says?

- OS

edit: gonna email John Harris about this.

edit 2: anybody know his username here? I can't find an email addy and only "contact" on TFA site is within the forum.

Edited June 7, 2009 by OhShoot

[Guest cjames38464]

I do as well (well not an iphone but on my person)... My concern is to play it safe for the next few months, in some of the big cities where the CLEO appears to be very anti-gun.

I could see a chief talking a very hard line stance on postings and trying to push his luck to get some negative press over HCP holders... Not saying it would happen, just saying it's not outside the realm of possibility.

I personally plan on carrying on July 14th, but I'll avoid restaurants who post at all (like I do with businesses who post today) because I don't want to give them my money... There are times I'll push it right now, places like the mall where it's the only place that sells something I need locally... Or going into the medical office building where my wife gets a test done, if those aren't properly posted, I still go in CC'ing... But largely where I have a choice I don't give my money willingly to people who want to see me walk unprotected into their parking lot after dark.

I'm only cautioning people that currently it doesn't appear there is any case law on this subject and I wouldn't want to be the test case personally.

I am thinking any of the Cities whose Cheif stood with The Guvna an proclaimed themselves to each be CHEIF KISS@$$...

I say, help put those that post out of Business, I am tire of playing nice too....

[Guest redbarron06]

I carry the proper legal wording on a note in my iPhone along with the AG opinion document number. Just in case I need to "educate" a cop on what the law is.

yep going to have a wallet sized copy in with my permit. I dont mind educating an officer. After reading that if he still wants to take me in then I can deal with it.

If given a choice I will not go to the establishment but sometimes you dont get a choice.

[Oh Shoot]

This came up in another thread.

Glockmeister quoted from TFA site and says he thinks Michie's info is outdated:

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

"Tennessee law (T.C.A. § 39-17-1359) provides:

An individual, corporation, business entity or local, state or federal government entity or agent thereof is authorized to prohibit the possession of weapons by any person otherwise authorized by §§ 39-17-1351 -- 39-17-1360, at meetings conducted by, or on premises owned, operated, or managed or under control of such individual, corporation, business entity or government entity. Notice of such prohibition shall be posted. Posted notices shall be displayed in prominent locations, including all public entrances, shall be in English, and shall be at least six inches (6") high and fourteen inches (14") wide, stating:

PURSUANT TO T.C.A. § 39-17-1359, THE OWNER/OPERATOR OF THIS PROPERTY HAS BANNED WEAPONS WITHIN THIS BUILDING OR THIS PORTION OF THIS BUILDING. A VIOLATION OF THIS PROHIBITION IS PUNISHABLE AS A CRIMINAL ACT UNDER STATE LAW AND MAY BE SUBJECT TO A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $500."

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

And this is from Michie's:

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

"39-17-1359. Prohibition at certain meetings — Posting notice. —

(a) An individual, corporation, business entity or local, state or federal government entity or agent thereof is authorized to prohibit the possession of weapons by any person otherwise authorized by §§ 39-17-1351 — 39-17-1360, at meetings conducted by, or on property owned, operated, or managed or under the control of the individual, corporation, business entity or government entity. Notice of the prohibition shall be posted. Posted notices shall be displayed in prominent locations, including all entrances primarily used by persons entering the building, portion of the building or buildings where weapon possession is prohibited. If the possession of weapons is also prohibited on the premises of the property as well as within the confines of a building located on the property, the notice shall be posted at all entrances to the premises that are primarily used by persons entering the property. The notice shall be in English but a notice may also be posted in any language used by patrons, customers or persons who frequent the place where weapon possession is prohibited. 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)."

----------

I can't find any other link into TCA except for Michie's.

So I've become rather unsure just what the statute really says?

- OS

..

Although no one has expressed any curiosity regarding this issue, I HAVE found that these are two different posting issues, found in two different statutes.

1- The one with exact dimensions and verbiage must be used in parks/rec areas/buildings

2- The "substantially similar" is for all other places which want to post, like restaurants, malls, whatever.

The information on TFO is incorrect, using 1 as example of a business posting.

- OS

[Fallguy]

Although no one has expressed any curiosity regarding this issue, I HAVE found that these are two different posting issues, found in two different statutes.

1- The one with exact dimensions and verbiage must be used in parks/rec areas/buildings

2- The "substantially similar" is for all other places which want to post, like restaurants, malls, whatever.

The information on TFO is incorrect, using 1 as example of a business posting.

- OS

Well I wasn't sure what to say.

I knew signs for parks/rec areas and schools both have exact wording and minimal measurement requirements. However I had seen nothing like that for a 39-17-1359 sign.