The new "Carry Prohibited Locations" forum

[Steelharp]

For those that had a hard time understanding how it would be "easier" to post now that the gunbuster sign is sufficient... notice how many of the places listed already have only that?

(But whadda I know? I'm just the 800 lb. steel player in the room... )

[Garufa]

Ain't it wonderful how they simplified things for us?

[BrasilNuts]

Yeah, I had no idea that was in the language of the bill. When I realized it was in there my first thought was "S.O.B. this is gonna suck!" What idiot put that in there?

[Guest clownsdd]

anyone got a link to that?

[Fallguy]

anyone got a link to that?

New database Carry Prohibited Locations - Tennessee Gun Owners

New law http://state.tn.us/sos/acts/106/pub/pc1009.pdf (Section 3 has the new 39-17-1359)

[Fallguy]

For those that had a hard time understanding how it would be "easier" to post now that the gunbuster sign is sufficient... notice how many of the places listed already have only that?

(But whadda I know? I'm just the 800 lb. steel player in the room... )

I will admit in larger cities, especially Knoxville it seems...there are more legally posted places.

Just another reason for me to stay in the sticks I reckon....

[Oh Shoot]

I will admit in larger cities, especially Knoxville it seems...there are more legally posted places...

Not that I've made a systematic survey or anything, but I've sure carried past a LOT of gunbuster signs since I started legally carrying two years ago, which weren't "legally compliant", until now.

For the record, I don't advocate that anyone carry past a legit sign.

On a purely unrelated side note, I have noticed that my Kahr in the pocket is getting more use lately than my XD in IWB.

- OS

[Falcon1]

Yeah, I had no idea that was in the language of the bill. When I realized it was in there my first thought was "S.O.B. this is gonna suck!" What idiot put that in there?

It was put in there to put the bill ahead of the budget. Several state buildings were posted only with that sign, and intended to stay posted that way. If the "gun-buster sign" language had not been included in the bill, posting the state buildings with the older-language sign would have given the bill a fiscal note, which would have put it behind the budget (i.e., not even considered until after the budget had been passed with the funding to pay for the new signage in it). That would have allowed Mr. Naifeh and his minions to kill the bill with ease. So, the sponsors held their noses and put it in.

"Those who respect the law and like sausage shouldn't watch either one being made."

[JAB]

For those that had a hard time understanding how it would be "easier" to post now that the gunbuster sign is sufficient... notice how many of the places listed already have only that?

(But whadda I know? I'm just the 800 lb. steel player in the room... )

I realize that there are more places in TN than Knoxville. That said, Knoxville and Chattanooga are the two larger cities that are closest to where I live (closer to Knoxville but still go to Chattanooga a good bit.) On the list, I see six listings for Knoxville - and at least three of them indicate that the posting has the verbiage sign or both the verbiage and gunbuster sign, meaning that the change in posting law would have no impact on their posting. Putting up a sign is putting up a sign, IMO - neither takes more 'effort' than the other. As far as the idea that 'they might be more likely to put up the gunbuster sign because the verbiage sign might disturb potential non-carriers', I don't get that thinking, either. To me, if I were going to be afraid of guns being somewhere, the gunbuster sign would be a lot more noticeable (and frightening) than a sign with a bunch of words on it that I probably wouldn't even pay attention to if I weren't carrying.

Just from a personal standpoint (no, I'm not saying that things are only important if they impact me, just giving my perspective):

Sunspot - I haven't been there in years. Food is not bad but nothing that special, either. Won't be missed.

Pelancho's - big deal. As if there isn't a Mexican restaurant on darned near every corner these days.

Lemon Grass - I like their food but haven't been there in about a year. Too bad - but there are other options for Asian/Thai in the area.

PF Changs - I've never been there. Never understood why I would want to go there when there are plenty of Chinese restaurants in the area that are cheaper and likely (although I can't be sure having never eaten there) better.

Aztec Markets - like there isn't a gas station/convenience store every few feet around here.

TVA Credit Union - I really do hate this for people who are members. I'm not and have never stepped foot in any of their locations.

On the other hand, there are other businesses that still, apparently, want our patronage. Just since the law passed, I have eaten and carried at:

O'Charley's at Turkey Creek in Knoxville. No sign.

Ye Olde Steakhouse on Chapman Highway (special occasion for a friend's birthday). They serve beer - no sign.

Redskin Cafe in Loudon. They serve beer. No sign.

La Fortuna Chinese Restaurant (I know - sounds like a Mexican restaurant) in Madisonville. They serve beer. No sign.

So that's four places I have been - and legally carried - just since the law passed where I wouldn't have been able to legally carry, before. Further, at least for now, there are a lot more businesses NOT on that list - and a lot more restaurants now open to legal carry that were not open, before - than businesses that ARE on the list. I realize that could still change, in the future, but unless and until it does, I still believe the law was and is a positive move, overall.

Edited June 18, 2010 by JAB

[chadbuddy]

On a purely unrelated side note, I have noticed that my Kahr in the pocket is getting more use lately than my XD in IWB.

- OS

Same here, the pocket pistol is the way I like to go.

/end thread hijack

I think my HCP instuctor was wrong about this topic. At the time I took the class, it was legal to carry past a ghostbuster sign but he said that it wasn't.

Is there still a law about verbal declarations of a gun free zone in a store or diner or does there have to be a sign?

[Oh Shoot]

..

Is there still a law about verbal declarations of a gun free zone in a store or diner or does there have to be a sign?

Never heard of a "verbal declaration" in any statute.

- OS

[Fallguy]

Is there still a law about verbal declarations of a gun free zone in a store or diner or does there have to be a sign?

Never heard of a "verbal declaration" in any statute.

- OS

Well actually prior to July 1, 2000 39-17-1359 did say the prohibition had to posted or announced.

What announced meant was never really defined. In fact that is one of the reasons I used to not carry regularly...never knew if some place had announced at a prior time and if so if it still applied.

It was changed by SB0908 (Click here to see the summary and the old law where used to say announced) Which became Public Chapter 929

Also the main reason I try to keep up the laws so closely know.

[Oh Shoot]

Well actually prior to July 1, 2000 39-17-1359 did say the prohibition had to posted or announced.

What announced meant was never really defined. In fact that is one of the reasons I used to not carry regularly...never knew if some place had announced at a prior time and if so if it still applied.

It was changed by SB0908 (Click here to see the summary and the old law where used to say announced) Which became Public Chapter 929

Also the main reason I try to keep up the laws so closely know.

Ah, good catch.

I wasn't paying any attention 10 years and more ago.

- OS

[Guest jackdm3]

Well actually prior to July 1, 2000 39-17-1359 did say the prohibition had to posted or announced.

What announced meant was never really defined. In fact that is one of the reasons I used to not carry regularly...never knew if some place had announced at a prior time and if so if it still applied.

It was changed by SB0908 (Click here to see the summary and the old law where used to say announced) Which became Public Chapter 929

Also the main reason I try to keep up the laws so closely know.

You're an oracle on these matters and I thank you!

[Volzfan]

This sign thing is going to be quite a challenge.

[Daniel]

I am not a fan.

[Guest redbarron06]

What state buildings were not marked? The only ones I have seen that were not properly posted have been National Guard Training sites and armories.

[Fallguy]

What state buildings were not marked? The only ones I have seen that were not properly posted have been National Guard Training sites and armories.

Well see...that's the trouble...

Most state building are marked with some type of posting. So if 39-17-1359 had required exact wording for a sign...and then said ONLY a sign with that wording was a valid posting....all state buidlings (that wanted to post) would have had to post new signs, therefore costing money.