Posted Properties ??

[Mousegun]

I have recently gone pretty active at posted locations by attempting, with polite and sensible conversation, to get proprietors to remove their signs.

So far the success rate is dismal but the desire hasn't diminished.

I know that a private business has the right to post a no firearms policy.

I know I have the right to take my business elsewhere.

I also have the right to discuss the matter with the owner.

He has the right to do nothing about the discussion and / or even ask me to leave and not return if he thinks I will break the law and enter with my firearm (which I will not).

Here is the question.

In a number of states, the law does not recognize a "no guns" sign as a law breaking event if violated unless when asked to leave, the carrier refuses at which time trespass or disturbance of the peace laws kick in. Here in Tennessee it can carry a $500 fine (see John, I been readin' your book)

Wouldn't this be the best of both worlds? You could still conceal and remain protected and yet the owner can, if he or she discovers you are carrying, can legally ask you to leave. It is up to you as to what to do from there.

Why do you patronize these establishment in the first place you may ask. Well what if you are with the family and a situation comes up, like a movie the kids want to see, or a store your wife just has to go in. Are you going to march the group back to the car to stash the gun to the tune of a lot of complaints, are you going to refuse to go in, or are you going to have to wait outside while the crew goes in? There must be thousands of better scenarios that can take place than I just described but I hope you get the picture. At any time a condition may develop that causes you to make a nuisance decision.

Along with the "no firearms in restaurants that serve" law, this is the one that bugs me the most.

When Tennessee went to a shall issue state they made a few reasonable rules such as the permit is a carry permit and not just a concealed carry permit. This was to supposed to stop a problem if a person accidentally exposed his or her firearm (even though here in East Tennessee a man was put against a wall for an accidental exposure in a Wally World).

Has the TGO or any other known firearm supporting group made any attempt to have the law about posted business property altered.

Does anyone think this law should be or has a chance of being changed. Is anyone else in favor of pursuing the efforts to get it changed. Please give me some thoughts on the matter.

[DaveTN]

I don’t see it changing. But if I wanted to change it I would try to get legislation that would remove any liability of the businesses owner in a shooting by a HCP holder.

In your travels around talking to business owners, what reasons have they given you for the signs?

[Guest 2HOW]

Most business that post are corporate and will not change. Its a non issue to me, I carry anywhere it would not be a felony if I was caught. Most signs are improperly posted or worded anyway. The most they can do is ask you to leave. Sure it would be great if business didnt post, but is it worth the trouble to stir it up?

[Guest bulletproof]

The Comcast business office at Metro Center has two sets of doors at the entrance. Nothing is posted on the ouside doors but once you go thru those there is the second set of doors that are posted. I don't remember if the posting was correctly worded but you are already technically inside their building at that point. Popcorn anybody?

[Guest canynracer]

I don’t see it changing. But if I wanted to change it I would try to get legislation that would remove any liability of the businesses owner in a shooting by a HCP holder.

In your travels around talking to business owners, what reasons have they given you for the signs?

I think this is the reason in most cases...Liability, if there is no sign, I draw and shoot a bg, other people may be like "im traumatized, and so are my kids, i cant go anywhere anymore...that business owes me one meeellliiiiooonn dollars to help me sleep.."

on the other hand, there is the bgs family suing the business cause I killed their family member and the store allowed me to carry and not become a victim.

[Marswolf]

I doubt this will change.

The Texas Governor has the right idea. No place should be allowed to prevent carry to protect yourself.

Only a tragedy like someone's family getting killed in a posted location because a licensed packer left his gun outside to obey the law, coupled with a major legal settlement because the business proactively prevented him from protecting them, is likely to spur any action.

[Guest 270win]

It would be the right thing to remove the criminal fine for carrying in a properly 'posted' location. I don't have a problem with business owners asking you to leave if they don't like your gun, but why should i be charged with a weapons crime over a stupid sign? That defeats the whole point of having a permit. Most states do not have such signing laws creating a criminal penalty. Why should Tennessee?

[Guest canynracer]

It would be the right thing to remove the criminal fine for carrying in a properly 'posted' location. I don't have a problem with business owners asking you to leave if they don't like your gun, but why should i be charged with a weapons crime over a stupid sign? That defeats the whole point of having a permit. Most states do not have such signing laws creating a criminal penalty. Why should Tennessee?

the question is WHY dont they like your gun....because they are liable for the stuff that happens on their premises, they need to do BOTH...lose the concequence, then lose the liability to the business owner

[towerclimber37]

I think they could solve this with a simple sign..say..something along these lines..

"Anyone carrying a firearm will be legally responsible for the proper use of said firearm on this property. Unlawful use will result in criminal prosecution under state and federal laws."

[Guest canynracer]

I think they could solve this with a simple sign..say..something along these lines..

"Anyone carrying a firearm will be legally responsible for the proper use of said firearm on this property. Unlawful use will result in criminal prosecution under state and federal laws."

...

[strickj]

even though here in East Tennessee a man was put against a wall for an accidental exposure in a Wally World).

where at,what happend,by who(leo,security?

I have oc at wally world,and never had anything happen

[Guest canynracer]

happened in Knoxville....http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2007/sep/22/gun-owner-receives-apology/

[Guest 270win]

I don't care whether they like my gun or not. Most places i go are indifferent because my handgun is concealed. What people do not know does not hurt them. The fact is a sign should mean nothing under the weapons laws of the state. Alabama, Georgia, Florida, California, Oregon, Utah, Connecticut, even New York, and the list goes on of states where signs mean nothing for those who are licensed as long as not in a location prohibited by the state, such as in Florida you can't have one in a courthouse (excepted judges and those they allow). I have a feeling Tennessee has not always had this 'signing' law regarding handguns.

[cadillacdude1975]

where i carry is no ones business. as long as it would not constitute a felony, i usually have it on my person.

[Marswolf]

Trying to carry anywhere that doesn't have a metal detector shouldn't be a felony.

[Guest 270win]

I definitely agree that carrying anywhere that doesn't have a metal detector should not be a felony either. It would be a step in the right direction for places that do have metal detectors to have storage boxes for firearms, such as courthouses (Pennsylvania has a law requiring this).

[Guest Smitty]

I agree with you all that some things need to changed, but it does not look that way at the moment. Anyway, what does a "proper" sign suppossed to look like? Are they supposed to cite the exact law that allows them to prohibit firearms on their premises? Can the sign just say "No firearms allowed on these premises."? I'm still not clear on this little issue myself. I'd appreciate a reply. Thanks.

[DaveTN]

I agree with you all that some things need to changed, but it does not look that way at the moment. Anyway, what does a "proper" sign suppossed to look like? Are they supposed to cite the exact law that allows them to prohibit firearms on their premises? Can the sign just say "No firearms allowed on these premises."? I'm still not clear on this little issue myself. I'd appreciate a reply. Thanks.

All that is required is that the notice uses language that is substantially similar to the language provided in the statute.

S T A T E O F T E N N E S S E E

OFFICE OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL

PO BOX 20207

NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE 37202

April 9, 2007

Opinion No. 07-43

Posting Notices that Handguns Are Not Permitted in Private Buildings

QUESTIONS

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)?

2. May a property owner use the international circle and slash symbol in lieu of a sign that uses the language prescribed by Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1359(a)?

3. In a building with multiple businesses, does Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1359(a)

require the posting of signs at every entrance to the entire building, or to each separate business that elects to prohibit handguns if the entire building has not prohibited the possession of handguns on

the premises?

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.

2. No. The international circle and slash symbol may not be used in lieu of a sign that uses the language prescribed by Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1359(a).

3. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1359 requires the posting of notices at the entrances of each individual business that prohibits weapons on its property if possession of handguns has not been prohibited on the entire property.

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.

2. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1359(a) also authorizes the use of the international circle and slash symbol. The unambiguous language of the statute, however, states that the international symbol may be used in addition to, not in lieu of, the written notice that is prescribed the statute.

3. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1359(a) also prescribes the requirement for the posting of notices. It states, in relevant part:

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.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1359(a).

Under the plain language of the statute, if the owner intends to prohibit the possession of handguns or other weapons on the entire premises, the notice must be posted at each entrance to the premises primarily used by persons entering the building, as well as any other prominent locations the owner may choose. If the owner intends to prohibit such possession only in certain parts of the

premises, the notices must be posted at the entrances primarily used by persons entering those parts of the premises.

ROBERT E. COOPER, JR.

Attorney General

MICHAEL E. MOORE

Solicitor General

LIZABETH A. HALE

Assistant Attorney General

Requested by:

Honorable Matthew Hill

State Representative for the 7th Legislative District

107 War Memorial Building

Nashville, TN 37243

[Mousegun]

I am making an attempt to do my personal share to get some of these lousy laws, if not changed, at least looked at and then hopefully changed. I dislike the idea that Tennessee has allowed us to be the controllers of our own self protection by allowing us to get a licence to carry and stupid signs can block that abiliy. I know there are many that think it is fine for a public business to post a "no guns" sign and all we have to do is go elsewhere but that is not always a practicle solution and in a number of other states, the sign has no legal strength. It would be a lot easier if Tennessee was in that category.

The carry permit is just that. It is not a concealed carry permit but a right to carry permit and you can open carry if so desired. Not a good idea here in east Tennessee because of the inevitable "man with a gun" calls from a lot of northern transplants (like myself ) and a good number of LEOs that are not sharp on that law.

I recently sent my representitives the following e-mail.

>>>>

Sir:

Our State of Tennessee has “made legal†the right that we have as human beings and verbalized in our Constitution allowing us to be the master of our own self defense by passing statewide handgun carry laws in 1996.

While this progressive act did in fact fall in line with the national trend that continues today, was a positive step forward, it did and still does fall short in many areas of which two specific points come to mind.

In many other states, pistol permit holders are legally allowed to enter an establishment that makes less than 50-51% of their revenue by the sale of alcohol. This, although still a restriction on the legal right that the states provided lawful gun owners, is a somewhat reasonable compromise. It allows a person to take their family to most restaurants and not jeopardize their self protection capabilities. The law also place a heavy restriction on the consumption of alcohol while in the possession of a firearm, as it should.

The other point that can be learned from quite a number of other state laws centers on how they handle restricted areas. Here in Tennessee we face misdemeanor charges by entering a public establishment that has simply put up a “no firearms†sign. A number of other states recognize that THEY, the state, gave their people the legal ability to carry a firearm and don’t recognize the sign as a legal entity. If a person enters the signed establishment, is asked to leave and doesn’t, then and only then can legalities be imposed like trespass or disturbance of the peace. This is the best of both worlds. If the firearm remains concealed it is a non event. If open carried the proprietor has the means at his disposal to deal with it as he sees fit.

In the wake of recent events it is clear to see that people intent on harm do not read signs, do not respect life and realize that the best places to do their evil is places that are not only crowded but provide them a safer environment by dis-allowing licensed firearm holders. The police, although doing a wonderful job if they are present, are just not always present and for the most part become armed historians as they take the report. The old saying is, “when seconds count, the police are just minutes awayâ€. We know they can’t be at all places at all times and for those of us who have chosen to be the directors of our own destiny, these two laws are a major blocking point in the ability to do so in an otherwise wonderful State whose people have proven themselves worthy of the awesome responsibility the State legally granted.

Please remember, it is not the laws that give us the right to carry a firearm, but the Constitution of the United States and our God given right to self protection. Laws just make it “legalâ€.

So I respectfully request you consider changes in the legislation addressing the above and consider sponsoring laws that make it easier and less restrictive for us all and follow some of the guidelines as previously described.

Thank you for any consideration

and my unwavering support if

followed up on

XXXX XXXXXXXX

[Fallguy]

Not a bad letter Mousegun. I have been in contact with my Rep on these and a few other issues.

I'll tell you one of the biggest problems is Speaker Naifeh. I remember seeing a newscast of him giving a sponsor of a "resturaunt carry" bill a hard time. I'm afraid that may not change as long as he is the speaker, but doesn't keep me from trying.

[Marswolf]

Until Jimmy Naifeh is replaced as Speaker, nothing will get done. People living in districts with Democrat Representatives need to work to replace them with Reps who will vote to get rid of Naifeh and replace him with someone who respects the right to protect yourself any your family.

[fishingjld]

wow i had not heard about that wal mart incident