New Law (SB3012) AS AMENDED

[Guest TNReb]

I know there has been some confusion as to exactly what the new law says due to the fact that the State site doesn't take into account the amendments to the bill. If you just click on the bill, you get the original form, not the bill as amended. What I have tried to do is take the original bill and insert the amendments where needed. I think the following is correct, but if not, please feel free to let me know. Here goes:

SENATE BILL 3012

By Jackson

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39, Chapter 17, Part 13; Section 57-3-204 and Section 57-4-203, relative to permitting or prohibiting the carrying of firearms in certain places.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE:

SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 39-17-1305, is amended by deleting the section in its entirety.

SECTION 2. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 39-17-1321, is amended by deleting subsection ( and by substituting instead the following:

( It is an offense for a person to possess a firearm if the person is both:

(1) Within the confines of an establishment open to the public where liquor, wine or other alcoholic beverages, as defined in § 57-3-101(a)(1)(A), or beer, as defined in § 57-6-102(1), are served for consumption on the premises; and

(2) Consuming any alcoholic beverage listed in subdivision (1) of this subsection (.

©

(1) A violation of this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

(2) In addition to the punishment authorized by subdivision (1), if the violation is of subsection (a), occurs in an establishment described in subdivision ((1), and the person has a handgun permit issued pursuant to § 39-17-1351, such permit shall be suspended in accordance with § 39-17-1352 for a period of three (3) years.

SECTION 3. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 39-17-1359, is amended by deleting the section in its entirety and substituting instead the following:

(a)

(1) 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 who is at a meeting conducted by, or on property owned, operated, or managed or under the control of the individual, corporation, business entity or government entity.

(2) The prohibition in subdivision (1) shall apply to any person who is authorized to carry a firearm by authority of § 39-17-1351.

(

(1) Notice of the prohibition permitted by subsection (a) shall be accomplished by displaying one (1) or both of the notices described in subdivision (3) in prominent locations, including all entrances primarily used by persons entering the property, building, or portion of the property or building where weapon possession is prohibited. Either form of notice used shall be of a size that is plainly visible to the average person entering the building, property, or portion of the building or property, posted.

(2) 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.

(3)

(A) If a sign is used as the method of posting, it shall contain language substantially similar to the following:

AS AUTHORIZED BY TCA § 39-17-1359, POSSESSION OF A WEAPON ON POSTED PROPERTY OR IN A POSTED BUILDING IS PROHIBITED AND IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE.

( As used in this section, “language substantially similar to” means the sign contains language plainly stating that:

(i) The property is posted under authority of Tennessee law;

(ii) Weapons or firearms are prohibited on the property, in the building, or on the portion of the property or building that is posted; and

(iii) Possessing a weapon in an area that has been posted is a criminal offense.

© A building, property or a portion of a building or property shall be considered properly posted in accordance with this section if one (1) or both of the following is displayed in prominent locations, including all entrances primarily used by persons entering the property, building, or portion of the property or building where weapon possession is prohibited:

(i) The international circle and slash symbolizing the prohibition of the item within the circle; or

(ii) The posting sign described in this subdivision (3).

©

(1) It is an offense to possess a weapon in a building or on property that is properly posted in accordance with this section.

(2) Possession of a weapon on posted property in violation of this section is a Class B misdemeanor punishable by fine only of five hundred dollars ($500).

(d) 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.

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

(f) This section shall not apply to the grounds of any public park, natural area, historic park, nature trail, campground, forest, greenway, waterway or other similar public place that is owned or operated by the state, a county, a municipality or instrumentality thereof. The carrying of firearms in those areas shall be governed by § 39-17-1311.

SECTION 4. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 39-17-1351, is amended by inserting the following between the fourth and fifth sentences of subsection (e):

Beginning September 1, 2010, and thereafter, a component of the classroom portion of all department approved handgun safety courses shall be instruction on alcohol and drugs, the effects of those substances on a person's reflexes, judgment and ability to safely handle a firearm, and the provisions of § 39-17-1321.

SECTION 5. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 57-3-204, is amended by deleting subsection (e) in its entirety.

SECTION 6. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 57-4-203, is amended by deleting subsection (k) in its entirety.

SECTION 7. This act shall take effect upon becoming a law, the public welfare requiring it.

Edited June 7, 2010 by TNReb

[macville]

A building, property or a portion of a building or property shall be considered properly posted in accordance with this section if one (1) or both of the following is displayed in prominent locations, including all entrances primarily used by persons entering the property, building, or portion of the property or building where weapon possession is prohibited:

(i) The international circle and slash symbolizing the prohibition of the item within the circle; or

(ii) The posting sign described in this subdivision (3).

Still not sure if when they say "both" it means that the symbol with incorrect text is a legal posting or not. I feel like I could read it either way. Please, let's just make laws more confusing.

Matthew

[Guest bkelm18]

Still not sure if when they say "both" it means that the symbol with incorrect text is a legal posting or not. I feel like I could read it either way. Please, let's just make laws more confusing.

Matthew

Well since it would contain the symbol, it would be considered a proper posting regardless if the verbiage is incorrect.

[cadillacdude1975]

now it is time to work towards removing the signage law, and to work towards making the permit be a 5 year issuance, expiring with your drivers license.

[Guest Glock23ForMe]

IMHO...

If there is a

only...

It is "properly posted"...

If it only contains "substantially similar" words as these

AS AUTHORIZED BY TCA § 39-17-1359, POSSESSION OF A WEAPON ON POSTED PROPERTY OR IN A POSTED BUILDING IS PROHIBITED AND IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE.

only...

It is properly posted...

Now, my question is this:

"No Firearms Allowed" - Properly Posted?

IMO, I think not, since it doesn't say anything about TCA or a criminal offense, and, to me, substantially similar means "with more similarities than differences" and this doesn't follow thought... Only if I was a judge

HOWEVER?! It does have to be on all entrances that customers use and such to be properly posted as well, and, I may be wrong, but if they have two doors and one door doesn't have a correct posting, then it's not properly posted, but that's treading thin ice, IMO.

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

For me its really not too tricky. If they are posted, correctly or otherwise, I see it as affirmation that they don't want my business and I will gladly move on to an establishment that does.

[Guest 270win]

My view is that a picture sign with incorrect language is not in compliance with the statute.

The statute seems to allow three types of easy to see notice on all primarily used entrances.

1. The picture only.

2. The substantially worded sign citing statute.

3. The words WITH picture.

I only see 1, 2, 3.....I'm not a lawyer...but that's the way I read the code. Adding words to a picture doesn't seem to be valid posting because the code specifies what is 'legal' notice. I'm reading this in a black/white fashion.

[TNRobocop]

Well like another guy said, if they have anything anti, just have an unarmed member of your group give the front door person one of the cards that say you will be eating elsewhere.

Then go somewhere else. Problem solved.

I am just waiting for me to get the first dispatch to remove a HCP individual from a posted business. I love officer discretion.

[macville]

Just remember that all places that "post" are not necessarily businesses. The library system here in Knox Country is posted, but only with the gun logo and crazy wording. So are many hospitals where you might be visiting a family member/friend.

Matthew

[Fallguy]

My view is that a picture sign with incorrect language is not in compliance with the statute.

The statute seems to allow three types of easy to see notice on all primarily used entrances.

1. The picture only.

2. The substantially worded sign citing statute.

3. The words WITH picture.

I only see 1, 2, 3.....I'm not a lawyer...but that's the way I read the code. Adding words to a picture doesn't seem to be valid posting because the code specifies what is 'legal' notice. I'm reading this in a black/white fashion.

Well it doesn't really say the picture has to be used alone or just with the proper wording....just that it can be used.

So I still think that if it has "circle and slash" symbol it is a legal posting regardless of what (if any) wording it has.

Just my

[Guest Glock23ForMe]

Well it doesn't really say the picture has to be used alone or just with the proper wording....just that it can be used.

So I still think that if it has "circle and slash" symbol it is a legal posting regardless of what (if any) wording it has.

Just my

True... I'd hate to say, "Officer, It's the right picture, but the wrong words!?"

I'd rather go with, "Those words aren't 'substantially similar,' Officer"

[Guest charlie8584]

Common sense says if an owner says no guns regardless of how he says it means no guns. All this bickering over verbiage is simply juvenile and counterproductive to what we are trying to achieve...the right to carry a firearm anywhere we see fit as long as the owner of that property does not object.

[macville]

Common sense says if an owner says no guns regardless of how he says it means no guns. All this bickering over verbiage is simply juvenile and counterproductive to what we are trying to achieve...the right to carry a firearm anywhere we see fit as long as the owner of that property does not object.

But it does matter in places that are publicly owned. Why should I have to disarm to visit my public library that is paid for by my tax dollars? I understand buildings like the courthouse being posted because of the courtroom law (plus, they run everyone through the metal detectors) but other places that are posted incorrectly but are public buildings.

But remember, there are a lot of things that people say that they don't really mean. If he can't post a sign correctly, while I'm not going to "support" him with my money, I may still carry since he can't even take the time to look up the proper law.

Matthew

[VolunteerGuns]

Well it doesn't really say the picture has to be used alone or just with the proper wording....just that it can be used.

So I still think that if it has "circle and slash" symbol it is a legal posting regardless of what (if any) wording it has.

Just my

Agreed.

IMO a legal posting. and/or is just that.... and/or.

[Guest stovepipe]

Agreed.

IMO a legal posting. and/or is just that.... and/or.

I don't understand Spanish... I think this means No Revolvers. Maybe semi's are okay?

Edited June 7, 2010 by stovepipe

[Guest stovepipe]

Probably a dumb question, but has all the paperwork been signed and turned in allowing us to carry in unposted restaurants?

Edited June 7, 2010 by stovepipe

[Guest benchpresspower]

so are the signs in liquor stores and walgreens legit again?

[Fallguy]

Common sense says if an owner says no guns regardless of how he says it means no guns. All this bickering over verbiage is simply juvenile and counterproductive to what we are trying to achieve...the right to carry a firearm anywhere we see fit as long as the owner of that property does not object.

I think we would all like to see business owners either not able to post or the posting not carry the weight of law.

However for now the law not only allows them to post, but to make it a criminal offense to carry on "properly" posted property.

Now many say they are not going to give their money to a place that post regardless of whether it is a legal posting or not....and that is fine.

But, there may be times that you either don't have a choice on where you go to do business or in smaller areas there may not be another choice for the same type business. In those cases discussion on whether the sign posted would mean you are violating the owner's policy/wishes or violating the law is fairly relevant and IMO not at all juvenile.

[Fallguy]

so are the signs in liquor stores and walgreens legit again?

Which signs do you mean?

If you mean "ghostbusters" signs, then Yes.

If you mean the old signs that were required by the ABC laws...then no in fact if you look in the OP Sec 5 & Sec 6 of the bill removed the provision of the law requiring those signs to be posted.

[Fallguy]

Probably a dumb question, but has all the paperwork been signed and turned in allowing us to carry in unposted restaurants?

The NRA and Rep Todd have said the bill must be assigned a Public Chapter number by the Secretary of State before it goes into effect (which has not been done yet).

Myself and few others on here as well as some media outlets think it was effective as of Friday night.

[Guest rockytop]

Well it doesn't really say the picture has to be used alone or just with the proper wording....just that it can be used.

So I still think that if it has "circle and slash" symbol it is a legal posting regardless of what (if any) wording it has.

Just my

Mine too, Fallguy

[bayouvol]

Here's my question. If the sign is on the doors and I am in the parking lot then I have broken the law if the parking lot is owned by the establishment? Does that mean they have to post at the entrance of the property(section 3a1: or on property owned, operated, or managed or under the control of the individual, corporation, business entity or government entity.)? I will avoid the place. There are too many places around that offer similar services. One restaurant is almost the same as another. I'll be looking for the signs. What if someone breaks into my car in the parking lot? I am a criminal for having the gun stored so I can eat in their place of business. NO THANKS!!!!

[Fallguy]

Here's my question. If the sign is on the doors and I am in the parking lot then I have broken the law if the parking lot is owned by the establishment? Does that mean they have to post at the entrance of the property(section 3a1: or on property owned, operated, or managed or under the control of the individual, corporation, business entity or government entity.)? I will avoid the place. There are too many places around that offer similar services. One restaurant is almost the same as another. I'll be looking for the signs. What if someone breaks into my car in the parking lot? I am a criminal for having the gun stored so I can eat in their place of business. NO THANKS!!!!

If the sign is on the door, then No, you have not broke the law by being armed in the parking lot. If the sign is at the entrance to the parking lot, then Yes, you did.

What people tend to forget sometimes a property owner can prohibit carry on as much or as a little of his property as he wants to.

They can post at the entrances to the parking lot and prohibit carry on the whole place.

Or they can post on the door to a single room and then carry is only prohibited in that room.

So it is not above the realm of possibility that places that have a separate bar area could post just the bar area, but allow carry in the restaurant portion.

The key is you can't carry passed a proper sign, but if there is a sign on the door to the manager's office then that doesn't make the whole place off-limits.

[Guest ScottD]

Could someone post the exact "international symbol"? I think there is reason to debate. It seems a bit unconstitutionally vague.