Improperly posted places.

[dunndw]

Is there such a thing as a improper sign any longer with the backpedaling with the restaurant bill regarding signage not having to adhere to the “substantially similar verbiage”

[Guest Glock23ForMe]

Is there such a thing as a improper sign any longer with the backpedaling with the restaurant bill regarding signage not having to adhere to the “substantially similar verbiage”

Yes. From what I understand, just a simple "No Firearms Allowed" still doesn't work in the eyes of the law, as long as there is no gunbuster sign. For me, "Substantially similar" means it must be more similar to what is in the TCA than not. So, over 50% should be the same. And, how I see it, "No Firearms Allowed" doesn't work. It could be a store/business owner copout to the sheeple that want it. IMO

[Oh Shoot]

Is there such a thing as a improper sign any longer with the backpedaling with the restaurant bill regarding signage not having to adhere to the “substantially similar verbiage”

"Substantially similar" is still a part of the statute, and must be adhered to.

However it is exactly defined now.

( 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.

- OS

[Fallguy]

Is there such a thing as a improper sign any longer with the backpedaling with the restaurant bill regarding signage not having to adhere to the “substantially similar verbiage”

"Substantially similar" is still a part of the statute, and must be adhered to.

However it is exactly defined now.

( 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.

- OS

Yep, now if a wording only sign is used, it must contain the three above elements, to be valid. But the same law also now says a "Circle and Slash" symbol with a gun sign by itself is a legal posting as well.

[Punisher84]

Improper I roll on through (concealed of course). Proper I do an about face and go spend my money elsewhere.

[tnhawk]

...Isn't a NGA sign an advertisement for a BG with a gun as a safe place to commit an act of armed robbery?

The news also provides free advertising for a business as they report armed robbery incidents in the parking lots.

[vontar]

Isn't a NGA sign an advertisement for a BG with a gun as a safe place to commit an act of armed robbery?

The following sign could be about the same thing for a posted business.

I guess a posted business is more like this

Edited August 25, 2010 by vontar

[vontar]

actually I found the signs they should have to post if they want to Post no guns..

Or

[Guest broncobuddha]

It's a touchy situation.

I like the "Oh I didn't see the sign, I'll be happy to leave" tactic, but I think more often than not, you're not going to be approached by a store employee, but rather by the police after they've silently called them. Then, depending on how the cops want to play it, you could be up for the fine for carrying past a properly posted sign. The right LEO might simply ask you to leave and all may be well, but I think the odds are against it.

So, best not to get made.

Not properly posted? I carry concealed and allow them to wallow in their ignorance.

[Guest DMasterson]

I'd like to think some places intentionally post improperly... they get the best of both worlds that way. We (HCP holders) can ignore it and go about our business and the sheeple can look at it and remain blissful in their belief that the naughty, naughty firearms are no where to be found.

[Guest 270win]

I have a good friend that is a lawyer in another state. Here is what he has told me.

He has told me to never talk and to leave when asked if someone happens to see my handgun. My buddy said to keep on hiding my snub well as I always do should take care of any of my problems as it has done for a long long time. He has also told me to not talk to the police when dealing with anything criminal/weapons related that it can do more harm than good. Of course show the permit when asked for the permit as required by law. I don't show my permit when asked for a DL when driving and he said that is a good idea to keep on doing that because I don't need to incriminate myself. The 5th Amendment is our friend to protect us from pat downs, frisks, and admitting that we accidently broke the law.

[Guest broncobuddha]

Well isn't leaving immediately if asked if you're carrying basically the same thing as admitting? If you didn't you'd say no and then not leave right?

[Punisher84]

Well isn't leaving immediately if asked if you're carrying basically the same thing as admitting? If you didn't you'd say no and then not leave right?

No because then you'd be charged with criminal trespass.

Razorback just curious but how is offering your HCP when pulled over "incriminating yourself"? I understand the two schools of thought on informing, but you're not admitting to a crime. Some states actually require you inform. Arkansas being one actually.

[Guest Drewsett]

Well isn't leaving immediately if asked if you're carrying basically the same thing as admitting? If you didn't you'd say no and then not leave right?

Reasonable doubt. You could've decided that you didn't want to be there at the very moment they asked you a question.

Or any other number of reasons. If you keep your mouth shut, you have reasonable doubt. If you open it, you just incriminated yourself.

[Fallguy]

No because then you'd be charged with criminal trespass.

Razorback just curious but how is offering your HCP when pulled over "incriminating yourself"? I understand the two schools of thought on informing, but you're not admitting to a crime. Some states actually require you inform. Arkansas being one actually.

Well just showing your HCP is not incriminating yourslef, but it is obvisouly going to tell the LEO you are armed and then you may find out you're not on a public road but on Univeristy property, that the handgun you just bought is stolen, that a clerical error has caused your HCP to show it is expired or any number of reasons that could come up and you find out your ilegally carrying when you didn't know you were.

I'm not saying don't and definetly not saying lie, but I can see how bringing up the subject on your own could cause more trouble than if you didn't and it wasn't brought up at all.

[monkeylizard]

+1

Or that a bus-load of kids is miliing about the property on a field trip that you didn't know about. After reading the roaming felony zone thread, it makes me nervous to carry anywhere.

Edited September 29, 2010 by monkeylizard

[wipfel]

Hopefully not a thread hijack, but does anyone know of a summary of the new state law in regards to posting requirements?

I saw the specific language of the law above, but I'm not sure how I'd determine if a sign had all of those elements and thus was legal. My understanding at the moment is it has to have the old, very specific verbage or the gun busters sign. Can anyone clarify that for me?

[Fallguy]

Hopefully not a thread hijack, but does anyone know of a summary of the new state law in regards to posting requirements?

I saw the specific language of the law above, but I'm not sure how I'd determine if a sign had all of those elements and thus was legal. My understanding at the moment is it has to have the old, very specific verbage or the gun busters sign. Can anyone clarify that for me?

The gunbuster sign alone is now a legal posting.

If wording only is used it must include:

1) That the property is posted Under the Authority of TN law (Basically saying per 39-17-1359)

2) It must say what is prohibited and where it is prohibited

3) That violation is a criminal offense.

A sign that simply says "No Guns" does not tell you that is posted per the law, where guns are prohibited or that it is a criminal offense if you do have a handgun.

As far as knowing for 100% sure only the judge will. But as has been dozens and dozens of times, no one on here knows of a single court case involving carry past a 39-17-1359 sign.

Edited September 29, 2010 by Fallguy

[monkeylizard]

I seem to recall that Nashville parks are all off-limits, but that they are not posted and don't have to be. Is that true? 39-17-1311.e.2 is clear that it needs to be posted.

[Guest 270win]

What fallguy said is exactly why I will not inform the police that I am carrying. It is not out of being mean towards the police, it is just trying to protect myself.

Arkansas does not require informing police when carrying a weapon when 'on a journey'. As far as I knew, there was also no need to inform/show license when carrying a handgun, unless asked for your license.

I don't know why handgunlaw.com says that Arkansas is a 'duty to inform' state when the state law does not require it. I took my concealed handgun license class there. When I had my license in Arkansas, I never ever informed police there. The Arkansas CHL issued by the State Police is linked to the Arkansas DL, so there is no need to inform anyway.

When I had a license in Arkansas it was a blue paper license (I laminated mine) and you had to carry an Arkansas ID, Arkansas DL, or a passport and show BOTH when asked for your CHL by the police. This is the law below. It is still the same as when I lived in Arkansas when you didn't have to inform.

§5-73-315. Possession of license — Identification of licensee.

(a) Any licensee possessing a valid license issued pursuant to this subchapter

may carry a concealed handgun.

( The licensee shall:

(1)

Carry the license, together with valid identification, at any time when

the licensee is carrying a concealed handgun; and

(2)

Display both the license and proper identification upon demand by a

law enforcement officer.

History. Acts 1995, No. 411, § 2; 1995, No. 419, § 2; 2007, No. 827, § 102.

[wipfel]

The gunbuster sign alone is now a legally posting.

If wording only is used it must include:

1) That the property is posted Under the Authority of TN law (Basically saying per 39-17-1359)

2) It must say what is prohibited and where it is prohibited

3) That violation is a criminal offense.

A sign that simply says "No Guns" does not tell you that is posted per the law, where guns are prohibited or that it is a criminal offense if you do have a handgun.

As far as knowing for 100% sure only the judge will. But as has been dozens and dozens of times, no one on here knows of a single court case involving carry past a 39-17-1359 sign.

Thanks Fallguy. I was at Sunset Grill in Nashville two weekends ago and saw their sign prohibiting guns, so i didn't carry. Best I can remember it's not a legal posting, though.

[Guest 270win]

The signs are supposed to be on all the entrances primarily used by people entering too. If you really look hard, most properties don't put up signs everywhere on all the entrances. I noticed that at a Regions a while back. Also, some of the signs may be hard to see. What is easy for one person to see may be hard to another.

This is where keeping quiet and keeping concealed and leaving with no words if the concealing doesn't work is the best game plan. Don't talk to the police if they come. Just try to leave and go to your car. Ask to leave. If you talk the whole situation can get worse.

[Fallguy]

I seem to recall that Nashville parks are all off-limits, but that they are not posted and don't have to be. Is that true? 39-17-1311.e.2 is clear that it needs to be posted.

If they passed a resolution (under 39-17-1311) to prohibit carry, then yes, legally they are supposed to post signs per 39-17-1311 to prohibit carry.

However their is an AG opinion saying that you coudl still be charged even if no signs are posted. I think he uses flawed logic in that opinion, but I have gone on about that in other threads.

No Knoxville doesn't have to post signs, because there parks are off-limits per a pre-1986 ordnance. When the new HCP law went into effect they allowed any local ordnances in effect at the time to remain in effect.