Chattanooga Sign

[Fallguy]

It won't after the veto, right?

Wrong....even after the veto is overriden, 39-17-1311 will still cover signs posted in parks and 39-17-1359 signs in other places.

[Worriedman]

It won't after the veto, right?

There is a multiplicity of "sign" criteria in the TCA Code Annotated. It would seem prudent to streamline and unify the criteria for all instances, including "No Trespassing", "No Hunting without Written Permission" etc.

I mean, if we are to consider that "average" individual can understand that a circle and slash (cigarettes, guns) through whatever is sufficient for State Buildings, restaurants et al, why is there such a financial burden placed on rural land and business owners to follow an antiquated system imposed on them? Shouldn't the Citizens of Tennessee who live outside the confines a "City Limit" share in the intended reduced cost of signage now enjoyed by the State government and it's protected class of urban business owner's?

[GKar]

With regards to the sign pictured in the opening post of the thread: this is pretty much the exact sign (sans the specificity about Chattanooga city council) that Bristol has posted at the entrances to its city parks. While I disagree strongly with Bristol council's decision to d so, I must give them credit that they have made good effort to post their parks with sufficient notices so that no one should be caught off-guard.

[JAB]

It would not surprise me to see a suit similar to what occurred last year, only aimed a different direction. There is sufficient disparity in signage requirements across the spectrum of applications to be confusing at the least.

And if this legislation gets overturned due to a lawsuit from our side, it would not surprise me if the state legislators said, "Okay. We have expended a lot of effort on this issue for the past two sessions. We have tried but apparently could not satisfy everyone no matter how much effort we put into it. There are other, important issues that need to be addressed right now - we'll try to revisit this issue in a year or two (i.e. next time an election is looming.)" And to give them the benefit of the doubt, I can imagine that there probably are a lot of TN residents who don't care about this issue either way but who will begin to wonder why so much attention/effort is being spent on it.

For the reasons above, I think it would be a mistake for any of us who are pro-carry to get involved with trying to have this law overturned (what is the likelihood of being able to overturn just the signage language without overturning the whole thing?) I believe - and this is, of course, just my opinion - that the better course of action would be to let the law stand, play by the new rules and encourage our legislators (hopefully with more/stronger carry rights supporters among them) to address the signage issue in a future session.

Edited May 25, 2010 by JAB

[Worriedman]

The suit would have nothing to do with the carry issue portion of the law, simply the signage part. It would be focused on other venues not enjoying the same benefit as the current legislation, and by so doing, possibly force a restructuring of the entire signage structure. This particular Bill would not be challenged, simply the signage requirements being so dissimilar across the spectrum.

Most suits do not go all the way to fruition, it is the "nuisance value" that is important here.

Edited May 25, 2010 by Worriedman

[Guest benchpresspower]

I've been to Chilis, Logans, and O Charleys and have not seen a sign. I dont go over to HP much as I see no reason to pay more for something when I can get it cheaper online or on the other side of the river.

I don't think too many of the chain restaurants will post. I could be wrong but I didn't see any last year with the exception of Outback which was posted incorrectly then but may very well be legal with this year's bill.