Origins of Signs Holding Weight in TN

[Guest jmorriss]

Being as I am from GA and continue to be a resident, I have been curious to learn why TN decided that 'gun buster' signs hold legal weight. I am a rational person and have no illusion that simply posting that firearms are not allowed will do anything to stop people who are willing to do the law from doing bad things. I miss being able to carry as I wish, not worrying about some silly sign and *gasp* consume a drink with a nice dinner on the occasion I get to go out to a restaurant. Basically, what gives?

[Guest bkelm18]

Don't know the specific origins, but the posting requirements used to be a bit more stringent prior to this last legislative session. However as part of the Restaurant Carry Bill that passed last month, the "gun buster" sign is now considered a legal posting and carries the weight of the law, whereas before it had to conform fairly specifically with certain wording requirements. It's only a misdemeanor and I personally have not heard of any HCP holder being charged for carrying in a place that was posted. At most usually they are asked to leave, and you can only be charged with a misdemeanor if it occurs in the presence of a LEO.

[Dolomite_supafly]

Personally I don't care what the sign looks like or how it is worded. I like the idea of a "gunbuster" sign because some people are illiterate and can not read (not me). It is the property owner's right to refuse guns and I will respect his wishes, if I have to enter the property, regardless of how the sign looks. Even if it was written on a piece of cardboard in Crayon I would still respect his wishes and not enter if that is his wishes. It shouldn't matter how it looks or is worded. It is almost like saying someone can't ask you to leave unless they ask only using certain words.

Not either of you, but a lot of people are getting caught up in how the message is presented and claimed to carry in areas that were posted but not exactly how the law dictated at the time. To me this is nothing more than flaunting it and does nothing to change the minds of those who are asking us not to enter armed. The fact of the matter is that it is the property owners right to refuse to allow firearms on his property if he so chooses.

Again this isn't directed at either of you.

DOlomite

[Guest HvyMtl]

I think it was a political compromise. And enabled an oversimplification.

This said. If you dont want my business, post. I will gladly spend my $ elsewhere.

It is your right to post, it is my right to spend my $ where I want (both within reason...)

[Erik88]

I understand the Gun buster sign is now legal posting but what about a hand written "no guns allowed" sign?

[Guest nozzle13]

What about other signs? There's one is Basspro, about checking your firearms upon entrance. I always assumed this was for returning or gunsmith work, but didn't know. There's also one at Big Daddy Pawn on Winchester, and there is no way in hell, I'm going to go unarmed in there, or check my weapon. (It's in a very rough neighborhood, but they have lots of guns displayed)

[Guest DeadEye]

The BassPro signs are only for returning firearms bought there!

[Guest 270win]

The law makes people feel good...nothing more. It is a law that cannot be enforced...and is in many ways very gray. Have you ever been patted down when visiting someone at the hospital or going to the mall or out to eat? No...of course not...it's pretty stupid to even have such a silly law on the books that only applies to people with permits and fines them....the whole purpose of a permit is to not get fined for carrying a weapon.

The sign must be 'visible' at all entrances that people use...well what is visible to one person may not be visible to the other person....so you know oh well....if I have to visit someone at the hospital....I'm not taking my business there....or say going to a local/state govt building (there is no STATE law making it illegal)...the signs are a pure sham because sometimes you see them..sometimes you don't....thankfully as far as we know no one has gotten prosecuted/fined over this.

I keep my snub concealed for this reason...to avoid gray laws....b/c worst case I figure I'll be asked to leave.....Memphis isn't the safest place to be without a gun....and i'm not leaving it in a car to be stolen.

[Guest bkelm18]

I understand the Gun buster sign is now legal posting but what about a hand written "no guns allowed" sign?

IIRC that is still not proper. They changed the wording, but if the posting has words in lieu of the gun buster symbol, it has to conform to specific wording requirements much like it did before. I really wish they would update Michie's more often.

[vontar]

If they are going to post, I prefer a BIG RED gun buster. I want it to be clear and not faded into the background.

However I think the Law should have been more clear about where the sign should be posted. Some places have No Smoking, no pets real clear, but then almost hide the no gun sometimes several feet away from those signs. I think all the No Signs should be grouped together on or at least very close to the outside door.

I have hear Lincolns Sports Grille in Oak Ridge is Posted and driving by the front door looking, I can not see it (you can drive very close to the front door). Maybe I would have to go in to see it, maybe it is written on the white sign you can't read until you get to the door.

I like the sign at Gander MT.

Something about all firearms must be in a case, unloaded, etc. I don't have the exact wording.

at the bottom is says it does not apply to those that have HCP. I wish I had a camera when I was there. I am talking about the one at Turkey Creek Knoxville TN

[Fallguy]

AFAIK ever since the carry law was first put into place signs (properly posted) carried the weight of law. In fact when 39-17-1359 was first on the books, the notice didn't have to be posted, just announced.

I don't really know but I guess this was to appease those that simply didn't want to allow firearms in their places and to create a great deterrent for us to abide by that.

As far as the "Gun Busters" sign be legal, it wasn't until the recent restaurant carry law passed. This law also amended 39-17-1359 in an attempt to better define what a "legal posting" was. Originally the bill had exact wording that was to be used, however this would have made the posting on several government buildings invalid and would have meant a cost to change/replace those signs (including some that were permanent or would have been very hard/expensive to change). Bills with a fiscal note (especially firearms bills) can be hard to pass. So it is my understanding that the "International Circle and Slash" symbol was a comprise so that a property could be legally posted regardless of the wording of any sign.

[analog_kidd]

If they are going to post, I prefer a BIG RED gun buster. I want it to be clear and not faded into the background.

However I think the Law should have been more clear about where the sign should be posted. Some places have No Smoking, no pets real clear, but then almost hide the no gun sometimes several feet away from those signs. I think all the No Signs should be grouped together on or at least very close to the outside door.

I have hear Lincolns Sports Grille in Oak Ridge is Posted and driving by the front door looking, I can not see it (you can drive very close to the front door). Maybe I would have to go in to see it, maybe it is written on the white sign you can't read until you get to the door.

I like the sign at Gander MT.

Something about all firearms must be in a case, unloaded, etc. I don't have the exact wording.

at the bottom is says it does not apply to those that have HCP. I wish I had a camera when I was there. I am talking about the one at Turkey Creek Knoxville TN

The sign at Lincoln's is way up high on the glass to the left of the door on the wall perpendicular to the door (and the street). It is very difficult to notice, and not very conspicuously placed. I think they would have a hard time enforcing it.

[Guest jackdm3]

Being as I am from GA and continue to be a resident, I have been curious to learn why TN decided that 'gun buster' signs hold legal weight. I am a rational person and have no illusion that simply posting that firearms are not allowed will do anything to stop people who are willing to do the law from doing bad things. I miss being able to carry as I wish, not worrying about some silly sign and *gasp* consume a drink with a nice dinner on the occasion I get to go out to a restaurant. Basically, what gives?

It's just good practive not to drink to avoid giving the prosecutor more ammo to indict you for being in a shootout while under the influence. They consistently question witnesses on the stand like your waiter/waitress about what you had to drink prior to fire.

[Guest DanE479]

In response to the OP about having a drink while carrying:

Alcohol impairs the mindset, and slows reactions. If you want to drink, don't carry. If you want to carry, don't drink. Simple...

As for the signs, it was decided that there needed to be some general standard to avoid confusion. There needs to be a way to inform people that firearms are not welcome on their property. Being that it is private property, it is thier right to decide who they want and who they don't want. It's my right to go there or not.

[TNRobocop]

If you drink and carry you are a fraking idiot.

[Guest DRO]

If you drink and carry you are a fraking idiot.

This is the greatest quote ever.

[Fallguy]

If you drink and carry you are a fraking idiot.

This is the greatest quote ever.

Would be better if it said: "If you're intoxicated and carry you are fraking idiot."

Just my opinion.

[hso]

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).

I may be wrong, but the wording I've highlighted seems to say that the sign with the legal wording is still required, BUT the sign may also include the "gunbuster" symbol. I interpret that to mean that the gunbuster by itself doesn't constitute legal posting. Is there any written clarification on this?

[Oh Shoot]

I may be wrong, but the wording I've highlighted seems to say that the sign with the legal wording is still required, BUT the sign may also include the "gunbuster" symbol. I interpret that to mean that the gunbuster by itself doesn't constitute legal posting. Is there any written clarification on this?

That's the old statute, not the new one.

If you got it off Michie, it hasn't been updated yet.

- OS

[Fallguy]

I may be wrong, but the wording I've highlighted seems to say that the sign with the legal wording is still required, BUT the sign may also include the "gunbuster" symbol. I interpret that to mean that the gunbuster by itself doesn't constitute legal posting. Is there any written clarification on this?

That's the old statute, not the new one.

If you got it off Michie, it hasn't been updated yet.

- OS

Correct...

See Section 3 of Public Chapter 1009 for the current version of T.C.A. 39-17-1359 Part ((1) says that one or both can be used.

[Guest m&pc9]

In defense of the OP, I will have a drink while carrying around the house. And have not shot anyone or had an accident.

But I will not drink while out in public and carrying.

Does the law say the ghost buster sing has to be a certain size?

[Oh Shoot]

In defense of the OP, I will have a drink while carrying around the house. And have not shot anyone or had an accident.

But I will not drink while out in public and carrying.

Does the law say the ghost buster sing has to be a certain size?

No.

- OS

[Fallguy]

Yep....just the standard "plainly visible" requirement.

[Guest m&pc9]

Yep....just the standard "plainly visible" requirement.

So if I have bad eye sight I can go places others cant.

I dont like that, that means its open for interpretation by a judge. And I will get the liberal judge when I carry in a place that has a 1 inch sign in the far corner of the tinted door.

[DaveTN]

Would be better if it said: "If you're intoxicated and carry you are fraking idiot."

Just my opinion.

Most people have no concept of what that means. Just as they have no concept of what .08 means.

That’s just my opinion based on arresting many drunk drivers that thought they were fine only to be shocked at what their BAC level was.

Your judgment is impaired before you are legally intoxicated; that is an undisputed fact. No intelligent person would drink while they are carrying; and if they are doing it off their property their permit needs to be revoked and they need to go to jail.

I will not support any legislation that allows an HCP holder to drink while they are armed.