Posting

[jbum]

I am sure this has been covered but I can't find it. I see many signs that say no weapons allowed I have read the law but it seems vague to me does anyone have an example of a properly posted sign. And no I am not posting my business heck I need more Hcp peploe around. Thanks!!!!

[TNTitan]

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/tennessee-politics-legislation/27875-no-guns-allowed-sign-question.html

[jbum]

Titian I read that thread but no specific example. Can you still carry into a place that simply has a hand written no weapons sign?

[TNTitan]

Titian I read that thread but no specific example. Can you still carry into a place that simply has a hand written no weapons sign?

Thats been debated alot lately. Some say the sign has to be the exact verbiage as in the link I posted. The AG has said the sign need only be "substantially similar" to the recommended verbiage. Some here think that any sign that implies no-guns means that business is anti-gun and we should not patronize it anyway. YMMV

[jbum]

Guess I'll give the d.o.s. a call on Monday.

[TNTitan]

Guess I'll give the d.o.s. a call on Monday.

report back.

[Guest 270win]

Please do not call the highway patrol. They will not give you the proper answer anyway. This will only encourage more signs and confusion.

The signage law is on this website. A 'no weapons' sign is not legal. You may carry all you want on property that has such a sign. The signage law is under TCA 39-17-1359 under the legal section of this website.

It is extremely wise not to ask a property owner if guns are 'banned'. You will get a real quick NO. Just conceal and keep quiet. I have done that for quite some time and never had a problem....you won't either. Don't ask...don't tell.

[jbum]

I have read the law but like I said it is vague. I am looking for a specific example of what is the right posting if there is such a thing.

[Guest crotalus01]

There is not, until a test case makes its way through the court system. Do you want to be the test case? I don't. The best advice has already been given to you - conceal in places that have improper signage.

[macville]

Please do not call the highway patrol. They will not give you the proper answer anyway. This will only encourage more signs and confusion.

The signage law is on this website. A 'no weapons' sign is not legal. You may carry all you want on property that has such a sign. The signage law is under TCA 39-17-1359 under the legal section of this website.

It is extremely wise not to ask a property owner if guns are 'banned'. You will get a real quick NO. Just conceal and keep quiet. I have done that for quite some time and never had a problem....you won't either. Don't ask...don't tell.

Well, considering that the AG just said that local government don't have post a sign for park carry to be illegal, it seems like you could be arrested for carrying past a non-legal sign because a sign doesn't even matter!

Some heads need to roll in Nashville and my blood pressure needs to come down.

Matthew

[Daniel]

You cant be arrested just for carrying into an establishment that is posted. That was a big part of the anti's argument. You can be cited and fined. The law clearly states that it must be substantially similiar. It is not the AG's opinion is it part of the damn law. *edit (I didnt realize the AG had also made an Opin about the matter) edit* It says it just before the verbiage it is talking about.

Edited September 27, 2009 by Daniel

[Daniel]

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/firearms-law-faq/21580-tca-39-17-1359-tennessee-prohibition-carry-notice.html

(TCA 39-17-1359) Tennessee Prohibition Of Carry Notice

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

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).

( Nothing in this section shall be construed to alter, reduce or eliminate any civil or criminal liability that a property owner or manager may have for injuries arising on their property.

© Any posted notice being used by a local, state or federal governmental entity on July 1, 2000, that is in substantial compliance with the provisions of subsection (a) of this section may continue to be used by the governmental entity.

(d) The provisions of this section shall not apply to title 70 regarding wildlife laws, rules and regulations.

[Acts 1996, ch. 905, § 11; 2000, ch. 929, § 1.]

[DaveTN]

I am sure this has been covered but I can't find it. I see many signs that say no weapons allowed I have read the law but it seems vague to me does anyone have an example of a properly posted sign. And no I am not posting my business heck I need more Hcp peploe around. Thanks!!!!

Titian I read that thread but no specific example. Can you still carry into a place that simply has a hand written no weapons sign?

I have read the law but like I said it is vague. I am looking for a specific example of what is the right posting if there is such a thing.

Until you get an answer I would go with this… When you read the sign do you understand its intent? If you do and follow it you will have no problems. If you do understand it and make a decision that it is not legal you may find yourself cited and you can make your case in court.

I talked to a Murfreesboro Officer about this and he said that when they are called out, they give the person that is carrying notice that the owners do not want them to return to the property while they are carrying. If the return while carrying they will be arrested for criminal trespass. He said he has not heard of it going any farther than that.

We have not had anyone on this forum (as far as I have seen) be cited for this or any verifiable case of it happening. While we have access to the written law most of us do not have access to case law to see if a decision has ever been made.

The Attorney General has written an opinion on this. Here is a link if you want to read the entire opinion. http://tennessee.gov/attorneygeneral/op/2007/OP/OP43.pdf

Keep in mind that the AG opinion is not binding on an Officer or the Courts; so it’s just an opinion and DOS can't speak for all deaprtments in the state.

QUESTION

1. In order to prohibit handgun permit holders from carrying their handguns in a nongovernmental building, must the sign contain the exact language set forth in Tenn. Code Ann. § 39- 17-1359(a)?

OPINIONS

1. No. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1359(a) requires the posting of a notice which uses language that is “substantially similar†to the language provided in the statute.

ANALYSIS

1. Owners of private property may prohibit the possession of handguns and other weapons on their property. To be effective, the owner must post a written notice that satisfies the requirements of Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1359(a), which states, in pertinent part: 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).

The primary objective of statutory construction is to give effect to the intent of the legislature.

See Cronin v. Howe, 906 S.W.2d 910, 912 (Tenn. 1995). If the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, the legislative intent must be ascertained by the plain and ordinary meaning of the statutory language used. See Carson Creek Vacation Resorts, Inc. v. State, Dep’t of Revenue, 865 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Tenn. 1993).

Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1359(a) is clear and unambiguous. By its terms, it does not require word-for-word use of the statutory language. All that is required is that the notice uses language that is substantially similar to the language provided in the statute.

[VolunteerGuns]

Follow the link in my post

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/handgun-carry-self-defense/27968-anyone-seen-crap.html

to find what Metro Nashville evidently considers a "proper Posting":D

Hope it helps..

[Guest Bill Lumberg]

Posted is posted. Whether a given sign is "substantially similar" is up to the court to determine, not the permit holder.

[Daniel]

IYO

[Guest Bill Lumberg]

Precisely. Just as every driver's license holder doesn't get to decide reasonableness of every law or every sign, neither does every permit holder. The court is the final arbiter, not every joe on the street.

Posted is posted. Whether a given sign is "substantially similar" is up to the court to determine, not the permit holder.

[molonlabetn]

Private businesses or individuals can't post legally-enforceable traffic signs, so it's not really that much of a parallel, since the problem isn't the no guns sign itself, it's the accountability and accuracy required for a person/establishment to responsibly post it... it's as ridiculous as me being able to place a pink, square "stop" sign in front of my driveway and expect traffic to stop in front of my house for fear of being ticketed.

But, as far as adhereing to postings go... if they don't at least cite or reference the relevant T.C.A. section on it, I don't give it a second thought. Life's too short to sweat fools who can't even word a sign when the state even gives them a perfect template.

[Hotshot]

The way i read it, this is required....

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).

And they "may" add a universal no-gun sign.

If I see any style of posting, I stay out. Went to check stock at a gun\pawn shop. They had "no loaded firearms, even if you have a permit" sign. I went elsewhere.

[Guest Bill Lumberg]

No, the verbage above is not required. Signage must be similar. The court decides how similar is good enough, not every joe with a permit. As previously posted, if you see a "no vehicles allowed" sign, don't drive there. If you see a no weapons sign, don't carry there. Pretending that a sign isn't good enough requires employing pre-pubescent logic. Carrying where posted otherwise is exactly the kind of poor judgement the sheep worry about when they think of private citizens carrying guns.

[Hotshot]

No, the verbage above is not required. Signage must be similar. The court decides how similar is good enough, not every joe with a permit. As previously posted, if you see a "no vehicles allowed" sign, don't drive there. If you see a no weapons sign, don't carry there. Pretending that a sign isn't good enough requires employing pre-pubescent logic. Carrying where posted otherwise is exactly the kind of poor judgement the sheep worry about when they think of private citizens carrying guns.

Can't argue with that. Sage advice.

[Daniel]

We have been arguing with it for 3 pages in this thread and countless others. If they dont have the verbiage listed in the TCA I wont not carry.

Edited October 5, 2009 by Daniel

[Guest Bill Lumberg]

Agreed hotshot. Age does not necessarily beget maturity.

Can't argue with that. Sage advice.

[Guest Bill Lumberg]

That's true, Mariner.

No, the verbage above is not required. Signage must be similar. The court decides how similar is good enough, not every joe with a permit. As previously posted, if you see a "no vehicles allowed" sign, don't drive there. If you see a no weapons sign, don't carry there. Pretending that a sign isn't good enough requires employing pre-pubescent logic. Carrying where posted otherwise is exactly the kind of poor judgement the sheep worry about when they think of private citizens carrying guns.

[molonlabetn]

That's true, Mariner.

Why are you talking to yourself?