Non legal signage, ignoring it?

[Guest HexHead]

Here's the sign i'll be selling from now on.

Those should be made as stickers with the really hard to remove glue like that used for parking violations. Then we could slap them on the door to the establishments that post at night when they are closed.

[Guest Linoge]

I've read several comments about this, and didn't want to derail those threads. Essentially, a lot of folks have stated that if a business posts a non- compliant "No Guns" sign, they'd just ignore it and conceal well. While that is technically legal, my question is why? The business has made a statement that they don't want your business if you're carrying. Personally, I tend to stay out of places that I'm not wanted, and keep my money with me. There are lots of places to go out to eat, I can find one that isn't posted.

What's the flip side of this? Why ignore the signs, other than just because they're not legal?

I ignore the signs because if the store cannot be bothered to look up the appropriate state laws concerning handgun carry permits, I cannot be bothered to obey their wishes.

Sure, they have every right to prhoibit firearms from their premises... but they have to find out about it first. Likewise, I have every right to defend myself, and I do not give up that right lightly.

As for why I go to places that prohibit firearms, well, I do not have much of a choice when it comes to malls, and the local theater has really, really cheap first-matinees-of-the-days.

Every man has his price, mine is just lower than most.

[Guest HexHead]

As a LEO, HCP Holder and overall Pro-2nd Amendment feller, I would strongly caution anyone from going against a sign that does not meet the "letter" of the law.

Case in point... a sign is posted on an establishment, but it does not meet the legal requirements, though the intent is clear; can you still be entered into the criminal justice system (arrest, court, etc)? Sure you can...even though it may not be exactly lawful...but do you really want to go through that hassle and possible expense... all for the judge to decide that the establishment's sign was articulate enough to establish intent?

Every time I've read this post it makes me angry. I hope you're saying you'd only arrest someone where the owner absolutely insists on it, or if the HCP holder is acting like a complete ass.

[cybernorris]

Some smart entrepreneur will develop a sign package that's been vetted legally and will be selling them. Even door to door.

Maybe a smart entrepreneur will develop a sign package that is purposely NOT legal and sell it while explaining the benefits of making the anti-gunners feel good while letting HCPs know they are welcome.

[DavidCBaker]

Maybe a smart entrepreneur will develop a sign package that is purposely NOT legal and sell it while explaining the benefits of making the anti-gunners feel good while letting HCPs know they are welcome.

I like how you think!

[cybernorris]

Those should be made as stickers with the really hard to remove glue like that used for parking violations. Then we could slap them on the door to the establishments that post at night when they are closed.

Wouldn't that be vandalism?

[cybernorris]

As a LEO, HCP Holder and overall Pro-2nd Amendment feller, I would strongly caution anyone from going against a sign that does not meet the "letter" of the law. Sure, common sense tells us that if the sign is not legal, then by carrying, you are not breaking the law. However, the way this great state operates, judges get to make the final call, with little to no oversight. My point is, everyone must make their own decision on how far they are willing to go to exercise their right. Case in point... a sign is posted on an establishment, but it does not meet the legal requirements, though the intent is clear; can you still be entered into the criminal justice system (arrest, court, etc)? Sure you can...even though it may not be exactly lawful...but do you really want to go through that hassle and possible expense... all for the judge to decide that the establishment's sign was articulate enough to establish intent?

Again, just throwing this out there. Each person needs to make their own decision based upon how far they are willing to go with the possible consequences. I just don't want folks to be so brazen and think that the signage will be an air-tight defense. To my knowledge there is no case law regarding this...and would like to keep it that way.

While I understand your concern, it is very apparent that this law was written to require a very specific statement for compliance, not a potentially vague statement of intent.

I understand that there are more laws out there than any LEO can be well versed on and there are cases where a LEO must make a decision to arrest based on an incomplete understanding of the applicable laws.

An arrest is not an arrest until a judicial commissioner executes a warrant. I know of plenty of incidents where the officer is told no law has been violated and no warrant is issued. Booking officers hate these because they have to expunge any booking records.

So prepare yourself if a LEO does not know the law... take a cell phone pic of the non-compliant sign and insist on speaking with the judicial commissioner before an arrest warrant is issued. Show the person the non-compliant sign and point out the law.

Just beware that if you are belligerent and uncooperative with the proprietor or LEO, you could also be charged with other offenses such as disorderly conduct.

[eehlert]

Every time I've read this post it makes me angry. I hope you're saying you'd only arrest someone where the owner absolutely insists on it, or if the HCP holder is acting like a complete ass.

What I was saying is that there are many people on here that firmly believe that the statute concerning proper signage will provide them a defense against entering the criminal justice system ...that they will be immune from arrest and/or prosecution because of a business owner's ignorance. If this were a perfect world that would be true, but since it's not there is no total immunity. Never did I say that anyone would get a life sentence for this offense, but I tried to point out that troubles could still brew even though technically no law was broken because of the incorrect sign.

"you'd only arrest someone where the owner absolutely insists on it, or if the HCP holder is acting like a complete ass."

And if I were put in this position I would not make an arrest, even if the owner insisted, because I know the law. And its funny that I never mentioned arresting anyone for this violation...I simply said "be entered into the criminal justice system" which could be arrest, etc. So it might be beneficial to get a little less angry and actually understand what I wrote.

And to whomever stated that an arrest is not an arrest until the commissioner signs it is mistaken. However, if someone is taken into custody and then taken to jail, a warrant must then be signed by the commissioner or magistrate, etc. . . Being arrested does not necessarily involve taking a trip to jail.

And the above blanket statement about being arrested is exactly why I wrote my initial post. There are too many absolutes in people's mind and in the case of the criminal justice system....there are to many gray areas to take any comfort in absolutes.

I was simply trying to inform everyone that it is not always as clear cut as walking into an establishment that is incorrectly posted, having the law called and pointing to the incorrect sign and being let go about your business. It is unfortunate that things are this way, but its the imperfect system that we live in/with.

I simply want everyone to use caution and good judgement. Does everyone remember all the news reports about all of the LE agencies that are against the "guns in restaurants" bill? Does everyone remember all the LEO present at Bredesen's veto (which incidentally, my agency was not represented, thankfully)? My point is, everyone needs to really think about whether or not they really want to test the system, especially in one of the cities that was represented.

Geez people, I am on the side of the 2nd Amendment all the way and was just trying to give some advice. I am sorry that I interjected, but I don't want to see anyone get in any trouble.

E

[eehlert]

While I understand your concern, it is very apparent that this law was written to require a very specific statement for compliance, not a potentially vague statement of intent.

That's the problem, the law concerning signage does not give a very specific statement for compliance concerning the language that must be on the sign. We have no case law and even the Attorney General hasn't made a ruling as to what exactly the sign must say. It must simply "contain language substantially similar" to the wording in the law. Yet he even states the law is unambiguous. But I can't think of a more ambiguous statement than "contain language substantially similar."

Furthermore, who will make this determination? Well, first it will be the business owner, then the LEO, then the magistrate (in the case of a custodial arrest), then it will be the judge. In this equation wherein lies the problem...there is NO specific statement for compliance.

[-boatman-]

Geez people, I am on the side of the 2nd Amendment all the way and was just trying to give some advice. I am sorry that I interjected, but I don't want to see anyone get in any trouble.

E

I don't think there is any need to be sorry. I don't know yet if it will cause me do different but it does make me see it a different way and I can make a more informed decision about this.

[Oh Shoot]

... But I can't think of a more ambiguous statement than "contain language substantially similar."...

The park carry statute (even the old one, presumably enacted at same time) specifies the signage exactly, both size and wording. Why this clear definition was not also applied to businesses is just indicative of the slapdash nature of the TN legislative process.

- OS

[Fallguy]

The park carry statute (even the old one, presumably enacted at same time) specifies the signage exactly, both size and wording. Why this clear definition was not also applied to businesses is just indicative of the slapdash nature of the TN legislative process.

- OS

I said this in another thread about 39-17-1359 sinage, but I think the "substainly simmilar" was to allow the property owner to "customize" the sign to fit there needs as to where they want to prohibit carry (property, buliding, floor, room, etc...) and to allow them to use the name of the business/company instead of owner/operator of this property.

Signs for parks and schools can be exact because the whole property is off limits.

But that is just my non-legal opinion and has been said there is no case law on this that I know of.

[Guest HexHead]

Wouldn't that be vandalism?

One man's vandalism is another man's civil disobedience.

[Guest HexHead]

"you'd only arrest someone where the owner absolutely insists on it, or if the HCP holder is acting like a complete ass."

I was simply trying to inform everyone that it is not always as clear cut as walking into an establishment that is incorrectly posted, having the law called and pointing to the incorrect sign and being let go about your business. It is unfortunate that things are this way, but its the imperfect system that we live in/with.

I simply want everyone to use caution and good judgement. Does everyone remember all the news reports about all of the LE agencies that are against the "guns in restaurants" bill? Does everyone remember all the LEO present at Bredesen's veto (which incidentally, my agency was not represented, thankfully)? My point is, everyone needs to really think about whether or not they really want to test the system, especially in one of the cities that was represented.

I would just hope that any officer would be professional enough, that regardless of what his chief may think, would inform the restaurant owner that his incorrect sign has no force of law, and the most he could do is ask the gun owner to leave or risk a trespassing charge.

Thankfully, it appears you would fall into that category.

[Guest HexHead]

I said this in another thread about 39-17-1359 sinage, but I think the "substainly simmilar" was to allow the property owner to "customize" the sign to fit there needs as to where they want to prohibit carry (property, buliding, floor, room, etc...) and to allow them to use the name of the business/company instead of owner/operator of this property.

Signs for parks and schools can be exact because the whole property is off limits.

But that is just my non-legal opinion and has been said there is no case law on this that I know of.

What's "substantially similar" about "No guns ever, free parking always"?

Or just "No guns allowed"?

[Fallguy]

What's "substantially similar" about "No guns ever, free parking always"?

Or just "No guns allowed"?

Nothing IMO

[Volzfan]

My opinion of a "No Guns" sign is that the management of that establishment is trying to play to both sides of the issue. I can't imagine that they don't know the law well enough to know their sign is not legal so knowing that we do know the law they are trying to get us to enter their business and spend our money anyway. I say screw them. If they want my business there will be NO sign before I drop a dime in their business. Unless there is a sign that says "guns are welcome". I don't expect to see many of those.

[Guest Old goat]

I'm sure we will find out how it will play before long. Judges, I don't trust them.

[Guest HexHead]

I'm sure we will find out how it will play before long. Judges, I don't trust them.

We might have had a shot with judges when they had to follow the same rules as any other HCP holder. But now that they get the LEO pass, ie: laws don't apply to them, they have no reason to rule in our benefit.

[Fallguy]

We might have had a shot with judges when they had to follow the same rules as any other HCP holder. But now that they get the LEO pass, ie: laws don't apply to them, they have no reason to rule in our benefit.

I don't think the law that would let Judges carry like LEOs passed....did it?

[Guest HexHead]

I don't think the law that would let Judges carry like LEOs passed....did it?

Hmmm, I just assumed it did.

[Fallguy]

Hmmm, I just assumed it did.

If this are the one you're thinking of, there were difference in the house and senate version and the never could get together on it.

[Guest HexHead]

If this are the one you're thinking of, there were difference in the house and senate version and the never could get together on it.

Yeah, that was the one. Good, I'm glad it went to the dead bill file.