Restaurant Carry Bill

[Fallguy]

So can the house strip those amendments out, vote it through, and send it back to the senate?

Matthew

The house can pass a different version. Then it would have to go back to the senate to accept or reject the house version (similar to last year) and so on.

However there is some question if there is enough time for the bill to go the Governor, him wait the 10 days and veto it and then it go back to the legislature before the adjourn...let alone if he had to go through the process like year.

[Fallguy]

Here is something to make it more confusing...

If I am reading this right....

A sign with the international no symbol and a gun would be a legal posting, with any wording or without any wording at all.

But if a sign doesn't have the international no symbol and a gun then it would have to contain the substantially similar wording.

So a sign like Rayburn had would be legal as long as the "slash" symbol was somewhere on it...but probably wouldn't be if it didn't.

[macville]

Could I just print a whole bunch of them and send them out just like I could the sticker?

I guess I am still confused on the difference between the two.

Not trying to argue, but understand.

Yes you could. However, ignorance, in this case, has actually worked in our favor. There have been times that I have walked past those signs because they are not legal, and it's not because I am giving them my business (such as visiting someone in the hospital.) Places like that post because they don't want guns, but they are so stupid that they can't even post properly. Just like the Knox County libraries which have posted, but the sign isn't even close to legal. If this passes, it will be a legal posting. My tax money is going toward the library, but I can't use it unless I disarm?

Matthew

[macville]

The house can pass a different version. Then it would have to go back to the senate to accept or reject the house version (similar to last year) and so on.

However there is some question if there is enough time for the bill to go the Governor, him wait the 10 days and veto it and then it go back to the legislature before the adjourn...let alone if he had to go through the process like year.

Well, I rather get nothing than this added crap.

BTW, I don't see this passing anyhow. It's taken too long and we know that the Gov WILL veto it, I'd be shocked if he didn't since he knows a Dem isn't going to win the Gov race, so he's not hurting their cause.

Edit: Does anyone know the penalty for walking past a sign that says no shirt, no service? What about no smoking signs (which I know changed two years ago) What about carrying past a "legal" sign?

Matthew

Edited April 29, 2010 by macville

[VolunteerGuns]

Well, I rather get nothing than this added crap.

Matthew

I agree completely.

We are supposed to be expanding our rights. This legislation is POSSIBLY adds Logans, Chilis, etc (and only if they dont circle/slash us), BUT we stand to lose WAY more than we'll gain. I'd love to see amendments drop or the whole thing die.

[Guest HexHead]

if someone sees your gun and gets upset....just leave the property if there is some sort of sign to avoid problems.

More than likely either the business owner, not wanting to confront you, or some bedwetter than spots it will just make the MWAG call and you won't know about it until the cops show up and it's a criminal offense.

Edited April 29, 2010 by HexHead

[GKar]

Tryin to look at this from a different angle, staying within the current legislative realities (yeah, it would be nice to up and clean house and install all 2A super-friendly folks, but in the larger population centers of the state west of here, that ain't gonna happen anytime real soon)...

Currently the idea seems to be you can ignore an allegedly non-binding sign, even though the intent of the person posting it is to clearly disallow carry. If some/most of those signs suddenly become binding, does it not then call for what really was the solution to the problem all along - educating the poster, whose intent we've known for (in some cases) years? After all, if no sign of any kind is posted, there is no problem, right? Seems the great angst about proper posting is serving to highlight an even greater unmet need...

[Guest HexHead]

All 3 senate amendments adopted by the floor on voice vote. No discussions of any specifics of any of the amendments. Kyle suggests there be a time frame for implementation of the signs - Jackson counters that the bill actually makes most existing signs compliant, and refuses. Berke tries to move it back to Finance for a fiscal note - Jackson says the impact has already been included in an existing fiscal note, and the latest amendment is administrative only w/ no fiscal impact. Berke isn't gonna give this up easily.

Jackson seems pretty determined.... to f*ck us hard. We're gonna end up with a lot more places than just restaurants posted if just a little clear sticker with a circle/slash/ gun on the door, like the no smoking one, is all it takes to be a legal sign with teeth and carrying past it is a criminal offense with a $500 fine.

[Guest HexHead]

How many places up until now have been using ONLY the circle slash, which has not been a legal posting?

Instantly losing many places that have been legal, but will be no more.

Not to mention the ease an organization (ie. TN Hospitality Assn.) can print these circle slash stickers and send to EVERYONE! They'll be sticking them up right next to the NO SMOKING circle/slash.

FWIW I hope I'm wrong!

Someone please explain to me how my thinking is wrong?

You're not wrong in the least. At least one place I can think of off the top of my head, Corner Bar by the Woods on HWY 100 in Bellevue had the sign the Restuarant Assn. (or Rayburns's Facebook group) gave them up last year. It had the proscribed language along with the circle/ slash with blood dripping from the bottom of the circle.

We've got a very anti-gun Chamber of Commerce, Tourist board, Hospitality Assn and Restaurant Assn. They're gonna be handing out those 4"x4" clear circle/slash/ gun signs like Halloween candy. They'll be using their lies and misinformation to convince all kinds of business owners that really don't care one way or the other to put that sign up on the door next to the circle/ slash/ cigarette sign they already have, "to avoid any potential problems". You can count on it.

The part of the Senate amendment dealing with signage applies to all posted locations, not just restaurants. And these ****s in the Senate know it.

[Guest HexHead]

Guess I'm not understanding how it is easier to print the circle/ stickers than it is the other one.

Ease of printing isn't the issue. Lots of business owners that probably didn't care that much before or didn't like the perception the fully legal sign made didn't want to bother to post it. It was large, it was wordy and it could scare the sheep that they're a business that's had problems with guns.

People are used to seeing the circle/slash sign and aren't put off by it. Just another one on the door next to the cigarette one, only with a gun, won't have much meaning or be hardly noticed by the average non-gun toting person. But it will have huge implications to those with a HCP.

[Guest HexHead]

Here is something to make it more confusing...

If I am reading this right....

A sign with the international no symbol and a gun would be a legal posting, with any wording or without any wording at all.

But if a sign doesn't have the international no symbol and a gun then it would have to contain the substantially similar wording.

So a sign like Rayburn had would be legal as long as the "slash" symbol was somewhere on it...but probably wouldn't be if it didn't.

That's correct. But he won't need the old sign.He's the one that said with some sign changes he wants, he probably won't challenge the law with Tidwell's amendment. He wants a 4"x4" innocuously looking sign and that's exactly what the simple circle/ slash sign is. He can stick it in a corner on a door and be "properly posted". Jackson threw us under the bus for Rayburn.

Edited April 29, 2010 by HexHead

[Mike.357]

I have been reading this thread, frankly I am burnt out on the subject and really give a rats ass if I can legally carry a gun into Applebees.

But one thing I would like to know is this. Hex do you ever have anything positive to say? Yikes your pissing and moaning gets old.

[Guest TnRebel]

Its time for me to start printing my own again and passing them out .. You see I can live without patronizing their establishments and they can not with out all of ours.

If enough cards go to a restaurant then they will start to see where their profits are going.

And heck it ant above me to print this up in a sandwich board and walk up and down in front of their restaurant wearing it.

Front

Back

[Guest HexHead]

But one thing I would like to know is this. Hex do you ever have anything positive to say? Yikes your pissing and moaning gets old.

Sure, when there's something to be positive about. In it's current form, there's not much here to like with this bill.

Nice to see you again, Mike. Positive enough?

[Guest 270win]

The problem I have with what the State Senate has passed is the sign part of the bill actually makes me a 'criminal' in more places now because a lot of businesses slide those silly circle and slash 'no guns' signs up that I have so far been legal at. What now run back to my car everytime I see one of those and put my gun in the trunk? I may not always have the choice to run back to my car if i am with business associates or family that I really don't care to know that I am armed...or in someone else's car. If this sign law is expanded more....reduce/eliminate the penalty to a pure slap on the wrist like the smoking deal 25-50 buck civil penalty.......not 500 dollar criminal offense...this is crazy.

[Guest uofmeet]

And heck it ant above me to print this up in a sandwich board and walk up and down in front of their restaurant wearing it.

i am down. we can do a different place every weekend during the busiest times.

and i think i understand why you don't like the sign bill.

but as far as i am concerned, even the people who are illegally posted still clearly don't want my money.

[M1_Garand]

I skimmed the thread but couldn't find the actual amendment language - does anyone have a link to the actual language? When I pull up SB3012 on the Tennessee Legislature website, I get:

... (3) The notice required by this section shall be in English, but a duplicate 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, but not in lieu of, the sign set out in subdivision (4), notice may also include the international circle and slash symbolizing the prohibition of the item within the circle. (4) The sign shall be of a size that is plainly visible to the average person entering the building, premises or property and shall contain the following language: AS AUTHORIZED BY TCA § 39-17-1359, POSSESSION OF A WEAPON ON THIS PROPERTY, WITHIN THIS BUILDING, OR THE POSTED PORTION OF THIS BUILDING, IS PROHIBITED. A VIOLATION IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE PUNISHABLE BY A FINE OF - 3 - 01212471 $500 AND POSSIBLE IMPRISONMENT AND HANDGUN CARRY PERMIT SUSPENSION. ...

This reads to me like the 'gun busters' signage is only valid if its accompanied by the larger state mandated sign - which is similar to the current law:

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 figure I must be missing something here. Is it just that they eliminated that "substantially similar" language that has some of you upset?

Edited April 29, 2010 by M1_Garand

[GKar]

but as far as i am concerned, even the people who are illegally posted still clearly don't want my money.

Exactly - and that is the root problem.

[Guest 270win]

M1,

What we are upset with in the Senate Amendments is that a sign that just has picture of a gun with a circle and slash will be an ok way of hitting us with a five hundred dollar fine. Right now...we can't get hit with a five hundred dollar fine criminal offense for those circle and slash signs that don't have all that language added to them. I am not too happy about that because I walk past those circle/slash signs at certain places when with business associates, relatives, etc....and mind my own business...b/c I am still legal. Under this bill with the amendment I would be risking a five hundred dollar criminal offense....kind of like two steps back.

[Fallguy]

Edit: Does anyone know the penalty for walking past a sign that says no shirt, no service? What about no smoking signs (which I know changed two years ago) What about carrying past a "legal" sign?

Matthew

No Shirt/No Service signs....AFAIK, No penalty other than trespassing if you do not leave when told to do so.

No Smoking signs.... $50 according to 39-17-1807

Legal 39-17-1359 signs....has always been $500.

Edited April 29, 2010 by Fallguy

[Defender]

TN Rebel,

I'd love to get some of those cards to hand out when I see a posted place...

[Fallguy]

I skimmed the thread but couldn't find the actual amendment language - does anyone have a link to the actual language? When I pull up SB3012 on the Tennessee Legislature website, I get:

I posted a link to all three in post 340

Or from the page you were on before all you have to do is click on the Amendments Tab

[M1_Garand]

I posted a link to all three in post 340

Or from the page you were on before all you have to do is click on the Amendments Tab

Thanks Fallguy - my script blocker wasn't letting me see the links.

[Guest 270win]

If these guys want to be able to put up a halfway sign...whatever an 'international symbol' is....then we shouldn't be subject to a Class B misdemeanor five hundred dollar fine...that is the equivalent of the fine that folks can get fined for loaded pistols in cars WITHOUT PERMITS! At most (and I don't agree with that)...we should get a slap on the wrist 25 buck parking ticket non criminal deal that we can't get arrested for and our gun taken. This is really over the top that places we are presently legal under this amended senate bill we can get fined for.....if you see the 'international symbol'!...talk about vague!

[Fallguy]

Misread post....oops