Legal post in a restaurant

[Guest jwb68]

So, the legislature just wasted all these words when constructing the statute and they have no meaning?:

"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)."

- OS

Yes. By adding "substantially similar" to the statute I think most judges would say "How much clearer does a property owner have to be?"

Edited July 15, 2009 by jwb68

[Fallguy]

I think the gun with the slash combined with "No guns on the premises" would fully satisfy the requirements of the act. I also think a sign that says "No guns on the premises" would also satisfy the requirements.

BTW-an opinion from the AG means absolutely nothing other than an attorney has looked at the issue and has rendered an opinion. It is not binding on any court.

I don't agree.....

substantially = to a great extent or degree wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

similar = alike(p): having the same or similar characteristics wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

So the legislature has said the sign must contain wording the same or alike to a great extent or degree of the wording 39-17-1359.

I really don't see how "No Guns" could be interpreted that way.

However I do agree an AG Opinion is simply a lawyers opinion and is not law. However his office is the one that chooses whether to prosecute people or not.

[Guest jwb68]

I don't agree.....

substantially = to a great extent or degree wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

similar = alike(p): having the same or similar characteristics wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

So the legislature has said the sign must contain wording the same or alike to a great extent or degree of the wording 39-17-1359.

I really don't see how "No Guns" could be interpreted that way.

However I do agree an AG Opinion is simply a lawyers opinion and is not law. However his office is the one that chooses whether to prosecute people or not.

I didnt say "No Guns". I said No Guns on Premises.

[Fallguy]

I didnt say "No Guns". I said No Guns on Premises.

True....but I still stand by what I said.

A No Guns on Premises sign is in no way substantially similar to the wording of 39-17-1359.

[Guest Isaac]

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)."

IANAL, but...

The obvious intent of the phrase "substantially similar" with regards to the wording is so that "THE OWNER/OPERATOR OF THIS PROPERTY" could be changed to either one, or something appropriate, and that the phrase "ON THIS PROPERTY, OR WITHIN THIS BUILDING OR THIS PORTION OF THIS BUILDING" could be modified to indicate the specific location in which firearms are banned. The rest would likely be required without modification.

[Fallguy]

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)."

IANAL, but...

The obvious intent of the phrase "substantially similar" with regards to the wording is so that "THE OWNER/OPERATOR OF THIS PROPERTY" could be changed to either one, or something appropriate, and that the phrase "ON THIS PROPERTY, OR WITHIN THIS BUILDING OR THIS PORTION OF THIS BUILDING" could be modified to indicate the specific location in which firearms are banned. The rest would likely be required without modification.

I agree!

[Guest jwb68]

I agree!

Without researching the legislative history of the bill you have no way of knowing what the intent of the bill is. If the legislature had intended for notice to be VERY specific they would have mandated word for word. See posting for No Hunting signs as an example. What is obvious is that the bill on its face offers two protections. It protects the property owner's right to ban firearms from his property and protects those that are licensed to carry from arbitrary prosecution. The question becomes what is "enough" I am suggesting that the notice of "No guns on the premises" is enough. It is clear that the owner does not want firearms and it is clear the area that the ban applies. The only thing it does not include is a warning of the consequences of ignoring the warning. That might be enough to make the sign not "enough" Maybe a sign should say "No guns on premises. If you ignore this sign you could be subject to a fine up to 500." I doubt posting the consequences of ignoring the sign is a requirement but it very well could be. I just know that GS judges are very busy, most of them are extremely law and order types and most of them (at least in middle TN) lean toward being liberal. Given the fact that for a conviction all they are really doing is collecting a 500 handgun tax I predict they will lean toward a liberal reading of the statute.

I may be wrong. It probably wont matter in the long run. Most business will eventually say why fool with "substantially similar" and just post verbatim from the statute. It will just take them a few months to get there if they want to get there at all. In those few months though you need to be careful.

[Guest 270win]

I think all this will blow over in the next few months and life will go on as usual. To get fined the max $500, i do agree that the signs on private property have to be substantially similar worded to the statute. Of course to even be arrested/charged, someone has to see you with the weapon...which means your weapon is not concealed. If you were unlucky enough and a restaurant owner spotted you...and called you out...you could just quietly walk out to your car and drive off, if some irate manager interrupts your quiet meal. I would conceal well and enjoy carrying while I had lunch or dinner. With this being a misdemeanor only fine...anyone can say anything about anybody...kind of like public intox...the police would have to see it happen on the spot to charge you and no cop is going to waste his time arresting a permittee with this....so don't argue with the restaurant mgr...just jet if spotted!

[Fallguy]

Without researching the legislative history of the bill you have no way of knowing what the intent of the bill is. If the legislature had intended for notice to be VERY specific they would have mandated word for word. See posting for No Hunting signs as an example.

Yes, there are definitely "specific" sign requirements in other areas of the TCA, not only hunting, but for schools and parks. I do agree that the legislature did not intended for a 39-17-1359 sign to be word-for-word as what is in the statute. I'm just saying IMO (which is about worth what has been paid for it ) that the substantially similar was intended to just allow customization of the sign as to who was prohibiting carry and where it is prohibited. But I will agree that even just a No Guns sign (with or without more words or picture) pretty much relays the intent to ban firearms.

What is obvious is that the bill on its face offers two protections. It protects the property owner's right to ban firearms from his property and protects those that are licensed to carry from arbitrary prosecution.

Totally agree

The question becomes what is "enough" I am suggesting that the notice of "No guns on the premises" is enough. It is clear that the owner does not want firearms and it is clear the area that the ban applies.

I can agree with that it relays the owners intent as stated above

The only thing it does not include is a warning of the consequences of ignoring the warning. That might be enough to make the sign not "enough" Maybe a sign should say "No guns on premises. If you ignore this sign you could be subject to a fine up to 500." I doubt posting the consequences of ignoring the sign is a requirement but it very well could be.

I think it should include a reference to the T.C.A. code as well..but just my

I just know that GS judges are very busy, most of them are extremely law and order types and most of them (at least in middle TN) lean toward being liberal. Given the fact that for a conviction all they are really doing is collecting a 500 handgun tax I predict they will lean toward a liberal reading of the statute.

You could very well be right.

I may be wrong. It probably wont matter in the long run. Most business will eventually say why fool with "substantially similar" and just post verbatim from the statute. It will just take them a few months to get there if they want to get there at all. In those few months though you need to be careful.

I agree with that as well.

Although I know a AG opinion is just a lawyer's opinion, I am tempted to try and get one from him about what is the "minimum" elements (such as Who is prohibiting, where is the prohibition, T.C.A. and consequence) required for a 39-17-1359 sign to be substantially similar.

I have had help from State Rep in getting a couple of opinions issued in the past...I may try to contact him in the coming days.

[Guest HexHead]

Yes. By adding "substantially similar" to the statute I think most judges would say "How much clearer does a property owner have to be?"

I don't think just using the "Weapons Banned on this Property" qualifies as "substantially similar" to the entire text.

Not here in TN, but in the past I had a business and for me just to put a no parking sign behind my building I had to include the the applicable code number. I couldn't get the police to even issue a parking ticket, much less get anyone towed without the code number on the sign.

I think the TCA code and probably the penalty need to be listed as well.

Edited July 16, 2009 by HexHead

[Guest jwb68]

Yes, there are definitely "specific" sign requirements in other areas of the TCA, not only hunting, but for schools and parks. I do agree that the legislature did not intended for a 39-17-1359 sign to be word-for-word as what is in the statute. I'm just saying IMO (which is about worth what has been paid for it ) that the substantially similar was intended to just allow customization of the sign as to who was prohibiting carry and where it is prohibited. But I will agree that even just a No Guns sign (with or without more words or picture) pretty much relays the intent to ban firearms.

Totally agree

I can agree with that it relays the owners intent as stated above

I think it should include a reference to the T.C.A. code as well..but just my

You could very well be right.

I agree with that as well.

Although I know a AG opinion is just a lawyer's opinion, I am tempted to try and get one from him about what is the "minimum" elements (such as Who is prohibiting, where is the prohibition, T.C.A. and consequence) required for a 39-17-1359 sign to be substantially similar.

I have had help from State Rep in getting a couple of opinions issued in the past...I may try to contact him in the coming days.

If you get one that would be great I would like to see what he says about it. I really do think that in three to six months all of this will really be a non-issue. I just think that we need to be really cautious in the next 2-3 months. There are going to be alot of misinformed LEOs, property owners and citizenry out there and considering to be the test case it could cost you a few grand minimum to get someone decent to fight it you might be better off keeping your head down and shirttails out until this all blows over.

Sorry to post so long. I have seen some posts on here and another forum I visit that have made my eyebrows shoot up about "proper posting" and to be honest no one really knows what "proper posting" really is. People just need to use a little common sense for the next few months.

Edited July 16, 2009 by jwb68

[Fallguy]

If you get one that would be great I would like to see what he says about it. I really do think that in three to six months all of this will really be a non-issue. I just think that we need to be really cautious in the next 2-3 months. There are going to be alot of misinformed LEOs, property owners and citizenry out there and considering to be the test case it could cost you a few grand minimum to get someone decent to fight it you might be better off keeping your head down and shirttails out until this all blows over.

Sorry to post so long. I have seen some posts on here and another forum I visit that have made my eyebrows shoot up about "proper posting" and to be honest know one really knows what "proper posting" really is. People just need to use a little common sense for the next few months.

I agree, now is definitely not the time to try and test what a proper posting is...at least not at a newly posted (proper or otherwise) restaurant.

[Guest jwb68]

What is really interesting would be a situation where a property owner tried to dictate the method of carry I.E. posting a sign that stated no open carry or concealed carry only. It is pretty well established that a person has the right to dictate how their property is to be used and enjoyed. The sign statute doesn't cover this situation so it would be really interesting if someone could be charged and convicted for criminal trespass.

[Guest trigem]

Lets start a web page that we can list every business,managers name & phone number, location etc that doesn't want our type, you know 2nd amend, types!

then we can start calling them and let them know we'll go some where else to spend our money,

If I have to, I'll stay home and save those bucks:popcorn:

P.S.

:koolaid:Hey, It will give me more money for ammo!

[Fallguy]

What is really interesting would be a situation where a property owner tried to dictate the method of carry I.E. posting a sign that stated no open carry or concealed carry only. It is pretty well established that a person has the right to dictate how their property is to be used and enjoyed. The sign statute doesn't cover this situation so it would be really interesting if someone could be charged and convicted for criminal trespass.

Just another reason I think the posting statute has "substantially similar"

That way the owner could, as you say, use the wording No Open Carry or No Concealed carry instead of No Weapons.

I really don't think the intention was for the owner to be able to use less wording, just change words to be relevant to their specific situation.

One thing about violating a sign and/or trespassing, they are both misdemeanors and would have to be charged by the owner unless you were still inside when the LEO arrived.

[Fallguy]

Lets start a web page that we can list every business,managers name & phone number, location etc that doesn't want our type, you know 2nd amend, types!

then we can start calling them and let them know we'll go some where else to spend our money,

If I have to, I'll stay home and save those bucks:popcorn:

P.S.

:koolaid:Hey, It will give me more money for ammo!

CCW Prohibited Locations - TGO Database

[Guest jwb68]

Just another reason I think the posting statute has "substantially similar"

That way the owner could, as you say, use the wording No Open Carry or No Concealed carry instead of No Weapons.

I really don't think the intention was for the owner to be able to use less wording, just change words to be relevant to their specific situation.

One thing about violating a sign and/or trespassing, they are both misdemeanors and would have to be charged by the owner unless you were still inside when the LEO arrived.

The sign statute only deals with No Carry. It has no applicability to anything other than No carry. I am not banning you from carrying. I am telling you how you must carry.

It is a flaw in the statute if you will. A hole. The argument would be I dont want people open carrying on my property. I posted a sign to that effect they ignored it and now I want them prosecuted for criminal trespass. It would be an interesting case.