A tradeoff of rights

[Guest VTCessnaPilot]

So here's the problem I see with the new law going into effect... Correct me if I'm wrong, but as things stood before this new legislation, I could not carry into establishments that served alcohol yet I could carry into businesses with improper postings (incorrect language, just a circle/slash sign).

Now that the veto has been overridden, I can carry into places that serve alcohol, but now the provisions for properly posting will keep me out of places that I used to be able to carry in (a store with a sign that says "no firearms" with a circle/slash symbol).

There were so many places I used to go that were posted with just the circle/slash sign, which I could legally ignore. Not anymore, though; It seems we've just traded one area to carry in at the cost of another... Is that what it seems like to anyone else?

[Dolomite_supafly]

Personally, I don't care what the sign looked like I respected the property owner's wishes, after all it is their property. If the sign was within or not within the standard it was still their wishes that I don't carry on their property so I wouldn't as a matter of respect for their property.

Dolomite

[Trekbike]

There were so many places I used to go that were posted with just the circle/slash sign, which I could legally ignore. Not anymore, though; It seems we've just traded one area to carry in at the cost of another... Is that what it seems like to anyone else?

Yep...That's my understanding as well.

[K191145]

Even if it was improper, if they decided to get law enforcement involved it would be a big hassle. If they want to be bigots and don't want my business, then I don't want to give them my business.

[willis68]

Even if it was improper, if they decided to get law enforcement involved it would be a big hassle. If they want to be bigots and don't want my business, then I don't want to give them my business.

[GKar]

Personally, I don't care what the sign looked like I respected the property owner's wishes, after all it is their property. If the sign was within or not within the standard it was still their wishes that I don't carry on their property so I wouldn't as a matter of respect for their property.

Dolomite

Agreed. Never have quite gotten my hands around the concept RE the "improper" postings...from what I've seen/heard, that idea has as its sole backing a singular AG OPINION (which has no real standing, hence teh word "opinion"). This theory, TMK, was never proven in a court of law, which is after all, the actual proving ground. It just seems a bit disingenious to hide behind the same bandying of semantics that we so oft decry when it occurs in other realms... JMO.

The real struggle here is NOT with the wording of the law...it is for the education and enlightenment of John Q Public.

[redstategunnut]

I don't show up where I'm not wanted. I don't quibble with the terminology used to tell me that I am unwelcome. It's true that the under the law as now amended there are some places that had "nonconforming" signage that now have enforceable signage.

[Guest TNReb]

One of the things I really like about this law is that now all the gutless wonders who wanted to hide behind the old law and not have to post will have to come out in the open and decide if they want my business or not. Posted, correctly or incorrectly, tells me you do not want my gun or my money in your business. That is fine. Just have the courage of your convictions and say so. So while this law may have made it easier to post, it also now makes it a requirement to post for everyone. So post if you like. I can print plenty of the "No Guns = No Money" cards.

[Farman]

I wonder what happened to give the store owner the idea to take a magic marker, write NO GUNS ALLOWED on a piece of cardboard and tape it to his door. Do they really think that that sign will keep an armed badguy from coming in?

[Defender]

Gun Free Zone = Open Season on Crime Victims

[JAB]

One of the things I really like about this law is that now all the gutless wonders who wanted to hide behind the old law and not have to post will have to come out in the open and decide if they want my business or not. Posted, correctly or incorrectly, tells me you do not want my gun or my money in your business.

+1. Last year, when carry in restaurants that served alcohol became legal the first time, Outback Steakhouse (the one in West Knoxville, at least) posted. Their posting (from what I recall) was neither a legal sign nor was it easily visible. Texas Roadhouse didn't post, at all. Guess what? I haven't been to Outback since. We've been going to Texas Roadhouse, instead - even after last year's law was overturned and I could no longer legally carry there - and I haven't missed Outback in the least. I figure that if Outback didn't want my business during that time then they don't want my business, ever.

Another thing I like about this law is that it will help me avoid surprises. As I have said, before, the biggest reason I want to be able to carry where alcohol is served is that we often eat at 'mom and pop' type Mexican, Chinese, American, etc. type restaurants and most of them in this area offer beer among their beverage selectons. They don't have a bar area, many don't have 'Budweiser' signs in the windows, etc., they don't usually post the 'misdemeanor' sign in a very prominent place and there is often no way to know that they even serve beer until one is already inside, sitting down and looking at the menu. Before this change, someone who found themselves carrying in such a situation was technically, although unintentionally, violating the law. I mean, what was one supposed to do? Walk in the front door and say, "Do y'all serve booze?" If the answer were, "Yes," what should one have done, next? It would be kind of awkward to say, "Well, then, I guess I'd better go put my gun back in the car!"

That 'unintentional carry where alcohol was served' thing happened to me on two, different occasions. It happened once in Sweetwater in a place where we had eaten a couple of times before I got my permit and I had never noticed they had beer. On that occasion, I had a 'clenched cheek' experience of having to walk past a table full of uniformed LEO on my way out the door. Made me glad that a P3AT in a pocket holster isn't very noticeable. It also happened once in a restaurant in Nashville when my wife and I were over there to attend a wedding. Now, as long as there is no sign on the front door, it doesn't matter and I don't have to worry about it.

Yes, as others have pointed out, there may be places we have to go (hospitals, etc.) whose postings might have been in a 'grey area' before but now will be clearly legal. Do I like the idea of disarming or leaving my firearm at home to go to visit a sick relative or friend? Of course not - but I generally wouldn't have carried past the sign even when it might have been, technically, legal to do so.

Edited June 10, 2010 by JAB

[Guest TNReb]

I had an interesting situation last month. My son and daughter have birthdays close together in May, so we went to a restaurant in Nashville that was a BYOB place. You could bring in beer or wine and they would charge a "corking fee" and serve it for you. I don't drink anyway, so it was no problem for me, but the kids wanted to have some wine with the meal and brought a bottle in. The waiter set up the glasses, opened the bottle and poured it in the glasses. I couldn't help but sit there and wonder if that place qualifies as a restaurant that "serves" alcohol since they didn't "sell" the alcohol. Of course, it doesn't matter now with the new law, but they were not posted either, or else I would not have been eating there. I think that fact situation would make a great law school or bar exam question, since I could argue that you could carry there under the old law because they didn't sell the alcohol, but one could also argue that they did serve alcohol for on-premises consumption. Interesting conundrum anyway. If anyone is interested, let the debate begin!

[JAB]

I had an interesting situation last month. My son and daughter have birthdays close together in May, so we went to a restaurant in Nashville that was a BYOB place. You could bring in beer or wine and they would charge a "corking fee" and serve it for you. I don't drink anyway, so it was no problem for me, but the kids wanted to have some wine with the meal and brought a bottle in. The waiter set up the glasses, opened the bottle and poured it in the glasses. I couldn't help but sit there and wonder if that place qualifies as a restaurant that "serves" alcohol since they didn't "sell" the alcohol. Of course, it doesn't matter now with the new law, but they were not posted either, or else I would not have been eating there. I think that fact situation would make a great law school or bar exam question, since I could argue that you could carry there under the old law because they didn't sell the alcohol, but one could also argue that they did serve alcohol for on-premises consumption. Interesting conundrum anyway. If anyone is interested, let the debate begin!

That same question came up a in a thread a couple of months ago when I mentioned eating in a Mexican restaurant that doesn't serve booze but allows BYOB. I have specifically liked eating at that particular restaurant because they have good food and don't serve alcohol, meaning I could legally carry there (they even used to have a sign on the front door saying "We do not serve alcohol" - sign might still be there, haven't noticed.)

In that post, I was saying that I ate at a restaurant, in the same room with folks who were drinking, and my handgun didn't jump out of the holster and start slaying folks. Someone else (maybe Fallguy or OhShoot, don't remember) brought up the question you were asking about whether they were still serving for on-premises consumption. In my case, the answer was still 'no' as the wait staff there simply brings out the glasses and, from what I have seen, customers open the beer/wine and pour it, themselves. Still, I agree that it is good we don't have to wonder, now.

Just another example of why I think we gained more than we lost with the new law. Of course, we may both change our tunes if everywhere we normally go - even non-alcohol serving businesses - has posted a circle and slash by this time next month. I'm not too worried about that happening, though.

Edited June 10, 2010 by JAB

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

I agree that the new signage law will make some places illegal that were technically legal before. I see it as an opportunity to educate the owners if they will listen. Business owners truly need to understand that any type of 'no guns' sign accomplishes absolutely nothing with regard to the real threat of people who carry weapons with the intent to harm.

[GKar]

+1

[Guest 270win]

I don't particularly care for the 'sign' law because some places I may have to go I don't patronize...but have to go...like hospitals or local/state government buildings. Some of the hospitals I'm not quite sure are still 'posted' properly..but I don't look hard when I'm there...same as the local/state govt buildings...and not all local/state govt buildings have signs...it is kind of a here and there. If I have to go to those places...my gun stays on me....my mind is on something else...especially seeing relatives at the hospital. I'm not looking for signs...i'm concerned about my family or friend i'm seeing.

Now when it comes to private businesses...I generally don't go and give them money...i'll eat somewhere or shop somewhere else...like Sam's VS Costco.

[Guest Usagi]

I've said it before and I'll say it again...

The TOP priority of our pro-2A legislators in the state for next legislative session should be a simple stripping of 39-17-1359 from TCA.

[Fallguy]

Guess I'm lucky in that I only know of about one place that I have ever been to that will be considered legally posted now and wasn't before.

So while I don't totally like the new 39-17-1359, the fact that bill repeals 39-17-1305 all together was a good thing.

[Oh Shoot]

Only in the area of handgun carry does the legislature bar something (concealed weapon carry), then allow the same for a special class (HCP holders) and then deny the special class from what the license allows (by entities posting signs).

We really ARE a special group.

- OS

[TNRobocop]

After all the headaches over the last year, I can't realistically see the state legislature to ever want to touch the hcp or bars/restaurants definition/licensing issues again for a LONG time.

I would like to be pleasantly surprised though.....

[Guest don_m]

I wonder what happened to give the store owner the idea to take a magic marker, write NO GUNS ALLOWED on a piece of cardboard and tape it to his door. Do they really think that that sign will keep an armed badguy from coming in?

Apparently they think so -- or that some of their customers do. Though it defies reason, they're probably right.

[Guest m&pc9]

We really ARE a special group.

- OS

I feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

[tnhawk]

Personally, I don't care what the sign looked like I respected the property owner's wishes, after all it is their property. If the sign was within or not within the standard it was still their wishes that I don't carry on their property so I wouldn't as a matter of respect for their property.

Dolomite

If a place doesn't want my business, it's not a problem, others will be happy to get it.