Penalties for carrying on private property that doesn't allow guns....?

[Guest (BH)]

I've been wondering a great deal about this lately. I know if you carry in a city park nowadays (and get caught) you face a $50 fine. So what about private property?

On multiple occasions when carrying I've noticed "no firearms" signs while leaving stores or on tiny signs in inconspicuous places. I'm talking mainly about big stores, shopping malls, etc. It seems like most of these places want you to have to search the place with a microscope to find out if you can legally carry or not.

I generally subscribe to the "concealed means concealed, and nobody will know as long as you do your part to keep it that way" school of thought. Furthermore, I'm not going to meander around examining a place for a list of rules, when they could just put up a sign at the door.

So what sort of consequences could one expect if one was "made" in one of these situations? I know the burden usually lands on us to find out where we can or cannot carry, but we can't just call ahead everywhere we go to make sure it's ok. So what sort of trouble could one expect for carrying in a big mall or store with no obvious signage?

I mean, is this a criminal offense? Civil offense? Simple ticket? Revoked HCP? I can't find anything on the .gov page or any other credible sites...

Edited February 23, 2010 by (BH)

[macville]

It's a criminal offense if it's posted in accordance with 39-17-1359 or if they ask you to leave and you don't. Very very few places post properly, but because of the language a cop might take you in for walking past a sign that wasn't proper (it's never been tested before in court what "substantially similar" means.)

Matthew

[Erik88]

let the debate begin...

[Guest 270win]

You have a max $500 misdemeanor fine for the 'proper' posting of signs on say business property that are in line with 39-17-1359. I believe it is pretty difficult for many businesses to do this because just about all entrances used by the public have to have these notices where you can see them.........and also someone said this statute has never been tested in court. I'm guessing you'd probably be asked to leave, even if the cops were called.

The parks deal is different and I'm not too familiar on. I have only seen what I THINK may have been proper signs at Germantown parks and those are totally different signs to be legal. I believe illegally carrying in one of those parks is a much stiffer penalty.....say Class A Misdemeanor..which means more of a fine than the other sign if you get convicted.

Best thing to do is conceal in this state...at least that is what I do to avoid these sign problems. I don't have time to be hassled at some business or park because I didn't see a stupid sign. I carry a snub that no one ever notices to avoid that problem and in case i accidently go into a restaurant that serves liquor...b/c sometimes you don't know until you sit down that they may sell just beer...I just try to live a hassle free life and concealing a snub 38 has helped me do that in this state with some of these wierd laws.

[mikegideon]

I carry a snub that no one ever notices to avoid that problem and in case i accidently go into a restaurant that serves liquor...b/c sometimes you don't know until you sit down that they may sell just beer...I just try to live a hassle free life and concealing a snub 38 has helped me do that in this state with some of these wierd laws.

If they serve "just beer" on site, you can't carry.

[BBill_TN]

Note: The just 50$ fine only applies to Knoxville parks since they left their old ordinance intact and did not opt out of the new "guns in parks" law.

[Guest 270win]

Yeah...I didn't word my sentence right about the beer. I have been in some little hole in the wall lunch places in Memphis that could technically get you in trouble because you don't know that they even sell beer until you sit down to eat. Just family/local owned places. A friend told me it is pretty easy to sell beer in TN because restaurants don't have to go through the state ABC to get a license, so many just sell beer. Supposedly it is more hassle here to sell wine and liquor in a restaurant on site.

[Fallguy]

Everyone is pretty much right so far.

If the property is posted with a sign that conforms to 39-17-1359 (http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/firearms-law-faq/21580-tca-39-17-1359-tennessee-prohibition-carry-notice.html) it is $500 fine if you are convicted.

One thing to keep in mind it is a misdemeanor so the only way an officer can charge you is if it occurs in his presence, which if you are outside when he arrives it hasn't. The owner/manage or someone else responsible for the property would have to press the charges. I would be willing to bet the percentage of those that would do that as long as you didn't come back are very low.

If a place is not posted with a 39-17-1359 sign, you may violate their policy if you carry, but you have broken no law. However if told to leave you must, otherwise you could be charged with trespassing 39-14-405 Also see TN AG Opinon 07-148 Questions 5 & 6.. A Class C misdemeanor offense (up to 30 days in jail and a $50 fine)

If you carry in a posted park in violation of 39-17-1311 it is a class A misdemeanor which is punishable by up to 11 months and 29 days in jail and a fine up to $2500

For reference 40-35-111 Authorized terms of imprisonment and fines for felonies and misdemeanors.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Fallguy

[JReedEsq]

Everyone is pretty much right so far.

If the property is posted with a sign that conforms to 39-17-1359 (http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/firearms-law-faq/21580-tca-39-17-1359-tennessee-prohibition-carry-notice.html) it is $500 fine if you are convicted.

One thing to keep in mind it is a misdemeanor so the only way an officer can charge you is if it occurs in his presence, which if you are outside when he arrives it hasn't. The owner/manage or someone else responsible for the property would have to press the charges. I would be willing to bet the percentage of those that would do that as long as you didn't come back are very low.

If a place is not posted with a 39-17-1359 sign, you may violate their policy if you carry, but you have broken no law. However if told to leave you must, otherwise you could be charged with trespassing 39-14-405 Also see TN AG Opinon 07-148 Questions 5 & 6.. A Class C misdemeanor offense (up to 30 days in jail and a $50 fine)

If you carry in a posted park in violation of 39-17-1311 it is a class A misdemeanor which is punishable by up to 11 months and 29 days in jail and a fine up to $2500

For reference 40-35-111 Authorized terms of imprisonment and fines for felonies and misdemeanors.

This is generally right but I have to point out that parks in Knoxville are under a previous statute. In Knoxville, it is only a civil offense. You can be fined, but you are less likely to face criminal charges than in other posted parks. Other municipalities may differ as well.

Edited February 24, 2010 by JReedEsq

[Fallguy]

This is generally right but I have to point out that parks in Knoxville are under a previous statute. In Knoxville, it is only a civil offense. You can be fined, but cannot face criminal charges. Other municipalities may differ as well.

That is why I said in violation of 39-17-1311, I guess it would vary from city to city as what the penalty for violating a city ordnance was.

But good clarification.

[Oh Shoot]

This is generally right but I have to point out that parks in Knoxville are under a previous statute. In Knoxville, it is only a civil offense. You can be fined, but cannot face criminal charges. Other municipalities may differ as well.

I don't know what you call "criminal charges", but the Knoxville ordinance violation IS a misdemeanor, and also carries the possibility of 30 days jail time:

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

"Sec. 20-53. - Penalty for violation of article. (carrying in a Knoxville park):

Any person who is found to have violated this article may be punished as provided in section 1-9.

Sec. 1-9. - General penalty; continuing violations.

Whenever in this Code or in any ordinance of the city an act is prohibited or is made or declared to be unlawful, or an offense or a misdemeanor, or whenever in such Code or ordinance the doing of any act is required or the failure to do any act is declared to be unlawful, where no specific penalty is provided therefor, the violation of any such provision of this Code or any such ordinance shall be punished as follows: Any person violating any of the provisions of this general penalty article shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and conviction thereof shall result in the penalties of a monetary fine not to exceed fifty dollars ($50.00) and the repayment of administrative costs incident to the correction of the municipal violation in an amount not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500.00) and/or by imprisonment not to exceed thirty (30) days, or both, for each separate offense. Each day any violation of this Code or of any ordinance shall continue shall constitute a separate offense."

- OS

Edited February 24, 2010 by OhShoot

[Oh Shoot]

That is why I said in violation of 39-17-1311, I guess it would vary from city to city as what the penalty for violating a city ordnance was.

But good clarification.

"Clarification" is unfortunately wrong, see my post above.

Could be that the first person or two that gets charged will be made example of, with jail time also.

- OS

[macville]

I don't know what you call "criminal charges", but the Knoxville ordinance violation IS a misdemeanor, and also carries the possibility of 30 days jail time:

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

"Sec. 20-53. - Penalty for violation of article. (carrying in a Knoxville park):

Any person who is found to have violated this article may be punished as provided in section 1-9.

Sec. 1-9. - General penalty; continuing violations.

Whenever in this Code or in any ordinance of the city an act is prohibited or is made or declared to be unlawful, or an offense or a misdemeanor, or whenever in such Code or ordinance the doing of any act is required or the failure to do any act is declared to be unlawful, where no specific penalty is provided therefor, the violation of any such provision of this Code or any such ordinance shall be punished as follows: Any person violating any of the provisions of this general penalty article shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and conviction thereof shall result in the penalties of a monetary fine not to exceed fifty dollars ($50.00) and the repayment of administrative costs incident to the correction of the municipal violation in an amount not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500.00) and/or by imprisonment not to exceed thirty (30) days, or both, for each separate offense. Each day any violation of this Code or of any ordinance shall continue shall constitute a separate offense."

- OS

I emailed Haslam about that since he kept saying that it's only a $50 fine. It turns out that the code has been changed (that's what he told me), but that the code hasn't been updated to reflect that.

Matthew

[Oh Shoot]

I emailed Haslam about that since he kept saying that it's only a $50 fine. It turns out that the code has been changed (that's what he told me), but that the code hasn't been updated to reflect that.

Matthew

Well, unless they've specified something about that particular section of the Parks section, I don't see how it could have been changed, as this is the penalty for ALL city ordinance violations not otherwise specified.

Haslam HIMSELF emailed you?

- OS

edit: ps, I just looked, says all current as of 12/29/09

No changes in the firearms section.

My guess, whoever emailed you confused over state vs local rules, and what was settled.

Edited February 24, 2010 by OhShoot

[JayC]

I emailed Haslam about that since he kept saying that it's only a $50 fine. It turns out that the code has been changed (that's what he told me), but that the code hasn't been updated to reflect that.

Matthew

If the code was changed after 1986, it is not legal. State Preemption ONLY allows for laws/ordinances passed before April of 1986.

[JReedEsq]

I emailed Haslam about that since he kept saying that it's only a $50 fine. It turns out that the code has been changed (that's what he told me), but that the code hasn't been updated to reflect that.

Matthew

I've been unofficially told that the "policy" is to treat this as a civil offense unless there are other infractions involved. I agree that I would not want to see it tested by anyone who values their HCP. However, I do believe that if someone has a valid HCP they are in far better shape if caught carrying in a Knoxville park than another posted park. The reason for my earlier post was to point out this distinction. You guys always seem to be looking for black and white answers when the reality of the law may be a little grey. Finally, this forum should be used for education and entertainment, but not for legal advice.

Edited February 24, 2010 by JReedEsq

[Packin]

OK, what about this? Lets say you are in a place that is posted and something happens and you have to pull your weapon. Are you going to be charged further even if your actions would have been justified somewhere else? I don't mean to open a can of worms but this something I have thought about.

[JReedEsq]

"Clarification" is unfortunately wrong, see my post above.

Could be that the first person or two that gets charged will be made example of, with jail time also.

- OS

My statement was not wrong. I'll admit it could have been more complete, but I answered the question of what penalty someone will most likely face for carrying with an HCP in a Knoxville city park. You answered the question of what is the worst possible penalty you could face. You are right that someone could therectically face other charges, but civil penalites are the policy of the current administration. You are right that a person could faced with harsher consequences but There have already I've learned a lot from you guys about firearms but when it comes to legal issues you've got to realize that there is a lot more to it than just reading a statute. I'm not going to get into a statute reading contest here on the forum. That is what I do for a living and I get on this forum as a pleasant distraction.

I don't recommend that anyone intentionally carry in an unauthorized location. You should realized that you've instantly changed from a law abiding gun owner to someone who is breaking the law and likely to lose the "benefit of the doubt" from law enforcement.

Edited February 24, 2010 by JReedEsq

[Fallguy]

OK, what about this? Lets say you are in a place that is posted and something happens and you have to pull your weapon. Are you going to be charged further even if your actions would have been justified somewhere else? I don't mean to open a can of worms but this something I have thought about.

Maybe....

But if it is ruled justifiable self-defense you can't be convicted of a violation of the law under Title 39, Chapter 17, Part 13 of the TCA which 39-17-1359 falls under.

39-17-1322 Defenses.

A person shall not be charged with or convicted of a violation under this part if the person possessed, displayed or employed a handgun in justifiable self-defense or in justifiable defense of another during the commission of a crime in which that person or the other person defended was a victim.

Even though it says "shall not be charged" the TN Supreme Court has ruled that since it also says "convicted of" it means a person can be charged since that is the only way the could be in jeopardy of being convicted.

But the DA could decided not to charge you in the first place if he thinks it is self-defense.

But if it is a questionable shoot, the $500 fine for violating 39-17-1359 is probably your least worry.

[JReedEsq]

Maybe....

But if it is ruled justifiable self-defense you can't be convicted of a violation of the law under Title 39, Chapter 17, Part 13 of the TCA which 39-17-1359 falls under.

Even though it says "shall not be charged" the TN Supreme Court has ruled that since it also says "convicted of" it means a person can be charged since that is the only way the could be in jeopardy of being convicted.

But the DA could decided not to charge you in the first place if he thinks it is self-defense.

But if it is a questionable shoot, the $500 fine for violating 39-17-1359 is probably your least worry.

Ah, prosecutorial descretion. It can be terrible or wonderful and it is a great reason to be friendly with your local LEO. When in doubt, don't say much, but what you do say should be polite and respectful.

[Guest (BH)]

However, I do believe that if someone has a valid HCP they are in far better shape if caught carrying in a Knoxville park than another posted park.

This is generally right but I have to point out that parks in Knoxville are under a previous statute.

Ok let's not get onto the whole CCW in parks issue. I just mentioned that as an example in my OP, not the primary topic.

Finally, this forum should be used for education and entertainment, but not for legal advice.

I certainly am not looking for credible legal advice to use in court. This is the internet. I'm just curious as to if anyone had any personal experience with the subject or a link to some good info.

I don't recommend that anyone intentionally carry in an unauthorized location. You should realized that you've instantly changed from a law abiding gun owner to someone who is breaking the law and likely to lose the "benefit of the doubt" from law enforcement.

I don't wish to appear to advocate deliberately breaking the law, but I would like to know where the line between policy and law is drawn (ie Is it against the law to violate a policy or just a violation of some company policy?).

I'm not a Kwiknru type (trying to test the law). I'm the opposite (trying not to test the law).

Furthermore, I'm not worried about the legal aspects of having to use a gun in one of these situations. If I find myself in a situation where I have to use my gun it will be life or death. I won't be worrying about anything but preserving my life or the life of my family.

Edited February 24, 2010 by (BH)

[JReedEsq]

Ok let's not get onto the whole CCW in parks issue. I just mentioned that as an example in my OP, not the primary topic.

I certainly am not looking for credible legal advice to use in court. This is the internet. I'm just curious as to if anyone had any personal experience with the subject or a link to some good info.

I don't wish to appear to advocate deliberately breaking the law, but I would like to know where the line between policy and law is drawn (ie Is it against the law to violate a policy or just a violation of some company policy?).

I'm not a Kwiknru type (trying to test the law). I'm the opposite (trying not to test the law).

Furthermore, I'm not worried about the legal aspects of having to use a gun in one of these situations. If I find myself in a situation where I have to use my gun it will be life or death. I won't be worrying about anything but preserving my life or the life of my family.

This all sounds reasonable.

I apologize if any of my responses sounded terse. I was a little annoyed at another person's response... Another thing about the internet is it's easy for otherwise reasonable people to end up arguing because written responses don't provide the opportunity for quick and easy clarification of what a person is trying to communicate.

[Oh Shoot]

If the code was changed after 1986, it is not legal. State Preemption ONLY allows for laws/ordinances passed before April of 1986.

My understanding also, another reason I question the report of Haslam's claim that the ordinance had been "changed". I watched all the City Council debate on the park carry thing, and the law director's take was also that the ordinance could not be modified, it either stood as is or had to be repealed to let the state statute take effect.

This all sounds reasonable.

I apologize if any of my responses sounded terse. I was a little annoyed at another person's response... Another thing about the internet is it's easy for otherwise reasonable people to end up arguing because written responses don't provide the opportunity for quick and easy clarification of what a person is trying to communicate.

Apologies for my lack of tact with "Clarification" is unfortunately wrong" comment. Nonetheless, the ordinance is what it is. To my knowledge, no one has yet been charged under it, at least since the state modified its park statute.

Remember the two weirdos that were arrested on the bike trail last summer? Can't remember the exact circumstances, both were armed, one had discharged his handgun, and only one of the two had a HCP, something like that. At any rate, they were both charged with something or other, but I don't recall that "possession in a city park" was one of them.

Again, mea culpa for such a blunt statement, xreedx.

- OS

[Guest (BH)]

I apologize if any of my responses sounded terse.

Oh, no offense taken friend. I just wanted to clarify my intent with this thread (as we all know, they can go adrift pretty quick sometimes, and I'm sure I'm guilty of contributing to this on other threads )

[macville]

My understanding also, another reason I question the report of Haslam's claim that the ordinance had been "changed". I watched all the City Council debate on the park carry thing, and the law director's take was also that the ordinance could not be modified, it either stood as is or had to be repealed to let the state statute take effect.

That's because the law doesn't spell out what the penalty is. It simply refers the penalty to another part of the law. Therefore, they can change the penalty all they want, but keep the pre 1986 law because how everything is written.

But I do question the fact that the penalty has been changed. It seems last time I looked up the city code it said had been updated in late 2009 and it didn't have the changes that Haslam said were in fact the law. I guess I would have to go downtown to see what's actually on the books to see if he's telling the truth (if he wasn't, I sure as heck would go public with that info since I don't want another liar in office.)

Matthew