Hooter's in the 'Boro

[Guest Glock23ForMe]

Okay, first off...

§39-17-1359

a) 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 otherwise authorized by §§ 39-17-1351 — 39-17-1360, at meetings conducted by, or on property owned, operated, or managed or under the control of the individual, corporation, business entity or government entity. Notice of the prohibition shall be posted. Posted notices shall be displayed in prominent locations, including all entrances primarily used by persons entering the building, portion of the building or buildings where weapon possession is prohibited. If the possession of weapons is also prohibited on the premises of the property as well as within the confines of a building located on the property, the notice shall be posted at all entrances to the premises that are primarily used by persons entering the property. 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).

( 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.

© Any posted notice being used by a local, state or federal governmental entity on July 1, 2000, that is in substantial compliance with the provisions of subsection (a) of this section may continue to be used by the governmental entity.

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

(e) 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.

Okay, I went to Hooter's last night in the 'Boro. And, as always, when I walked in, I was carrying, and the girls in modest clothing held the secondary set of doors open for me. IDK, if this makes sense, but there was the set of "Front Doors" a little foyer like breezeway, and then the Secondary Set of doors. We sat down, killed some hot wings, and then went out on the front porch to talk. I noticed a Gunbuster sign on the Second Set of doors. It was just the sign, no verbage, no nothing. I also noticed a Gunbuster sign, with verbage, inside both sets of doors, on a post at the bar.

My question:

Legal posting or No?

Honestly, I don't think it is, because you are already inside the building when it is posted, and if they are holding the doors for you, it isn't plainly visible. And the posting inside the business is INSIDE and you're already inside when they attempt to prohibit.

I posted the TCA above, for this question: Does a Gunbuster sign have to have verbage with it, to be properly posted. I read the TCA, again, for the umpteenth time, and it says,

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: (verbage requirements)

To me, it seems it needs both. What do you guys think?

Thanks,

Drew.

[southernasylum]

Who would notice if it's not printed across their shirts? I don't know if that will hold up in court though.

[Guest Glock23ForMe]

Who would notice if it's not printed across their shirts?

My point exactly...

I don't know if that will hold up in court though.

Would it have to be? If something bad happened, (For the record, if they asked me to leave, I would, and never go back), and you convinced the officer that it wasn't a legal posting.... Or if he/she knew it wasn't a legal posting....

???

Think on that...

[Guest strelcevina]

you must be regular in hooters

just carry Mexican and lady's wont suspect anything , gloch23forme you must be happy to see us

[Guest Glock23ForMe]

you must be regular in hooters

just carry Mexican and lady's wont suspect anything , glock23forme you must be happy to see us

FTFY

[Will Carry]

What is carrying Mexican? I need to know this.

[Loon160T]

What is carrying Mexican? I need to know this.

Google-Fu is a good thing.

Mexican Carry

"Mexican carry: misunderstood as to both history and application, this common practice can cause some well-documented problems

In the 2004 American Handgunner Annual, in an article on concealed handgun carry, I made the point that there were a lot of reasons not to simply stuff the pistol into the waistband without a holster. This practice is known colloquially as Mexican Carry. One reader wrote, shocked, to ask why I would use such a "racist" term. I was reminded that we old, gray gunnies can't take for granted that the new generation knows where our ancient lingo came from.

Honorable History

If you go back to the roots of this term, you find that there is no racism, nor anything else pejorative in "Mexican Carry." The lore of the gun tells us that back in the 19th Century, the Mexican vaquero, much like the American cowboy, was an independent and self-reliant sort who often made it a point to carry a handgun. Alas, the history of 19th century Mexico was entailed one despot rising after another. The day came when the average citizen was stripped of his former right to go armed when he wished.

This did not sit well with the fiercely freedom-loving caballeros. They grudgingly took off their gun belts and holsters, because possession of those accoutrements would be seen as evidence that they had violated the draconian new laws that disarmed them. However, they defiantly kept their handguns, simply stuffing them into the waistband behind their ordinary belt. If the Federales hove into view, the citizen would simply slip his revolver into some discreet place where he could retrieve it later.

Thus, as I understand the history of the matter, there's nothing culturally negative about "Mexican Carry," as it became known. When we use the term, we're paying homage to generations of men south of the border who refused to give up the right to protect themselves and their families because petty tyrants attempted to make them helpless."

[Guest Glock23ForMe]

Okay, first off...

§39-17-1359

Okay, I went to Hooter's last night in the 'Boro. And, as always, when I walked in, I was carrying, and the girls in modest clothing held the secondary set of doors open for me. IDK, if this makes sense, but there was the set of "Front Doors" a little foyer like breezeway, and then the Secondary Set of doors. We sat down, killed some hot wings, and then went out on the front porch to talk. I noticed a Gunbuster sign on the Second Set of doors. It was just the sign, no verbage, no nothing. I also noticed a Gunbuster sign, with verbage, inside both sets of doors, on a post at the bar.

My question:

Legal posting or No?

Honestly, I don't think it is, because you are already inside the building when it is posted, and if they are holding the doors for you, it isn't plainly visible. And the posting inside the business is INSIDE and you're already inside when they attempt to prohibit.

I posted the TCA above, for this question: Does a Gunbuster sign have to have verbage with it, to be properly posted. I read the TCA, again, for the umpteenth time, and it says,

To me, it seems it needs both. What do you guys think?

Thanks,

Drew.

Back on topic.... Please

[strickj]

Back on topic.... Please

Says the guy who derails more threads then anyone else.

[Guest Glock23ForMe]

Says the guy who derails more threads then anyone else.

WOOOOOW!

I've never derailed a thread... Ever.

[Jasongar8]

Says the guy who derails more threads then anyone else.

^^^^This is truth.^^^^

But I think this will help you out. The way I read it the "gunbuster" sign alone is a legal posting. The business can post one or the other and still be legal.

39-17-1359 Prohibition at certain meetings — Posting notice.

(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

[hardknox00001]

Says the guy who derails more threads then anyone else.

WOOOOOW!

I've never derailed a thread... Ever.

:)

[Guest Glock23ForMe]

What about the fact that it isn't posted on the outermost entrance? Does that have any bearing?

[Oh Shoot]

Okay, first off... .

Well, actually, don't think it's been clearly pointed out, FIRST OFF, that's the OLD statute you posted.

Under the current one, the gun buster sign alone is binding.

Whether it being on the second set of doors makes it legit, who knows. But it needs no words at all.

- OS

[Oh Shoot]

What about the fact that it isn't posted on the outermost entrance? Does that have any bearing?

The "bearing" will be determined by the first person we ever hear of arrested for it.

- OS

[Guest Glock23ForMe]

Well, actually, don't think it's been clearly pointed out, FIRST OFF, that's the OLD statute you posted.

Under the current one, the gun buster sign alone is binding.

Whether it being on the second set of doors makes it legit, who knows. But it needs no words at all.

- OS

Yeah, I didn't notice that for a minute....

I thought Mitchie's was nice and up-to-date

[Jasongar8]

It is clear that they don't want you to have a firearm when you are in the business. Why push the issue? You are asking for trouble by doing so IMO.

[Guest Glock23ForMe]

It is clear that they don't want you to have a firearm when you are in the business. Why push the issue? You are asking for trouble by doing so IMO.

I wasn't planning on pushing the issue... However, I do have some friends that are getting their HCP soon, and they were asking me about it. I told them I would find out and get back to them... 99% of the time I'm there for Hot Wings, I'm drinking, so I can't carry anyways. I just did last time, because I did not choose to drink due to $$ issues.

[Chucktshoes]

I wasn't planning on pushing the issue... However, I do have some friends that are getting their HCP soon, and they were asking me about it. I told them I would find out and get back to them... 99% of the time I'm there for Hot Wings, I'm drinking, so I can't carry anyways. I just did last time, because I did not choose to drink due to $$ issues.

Is Hooters really the best option you got for wings in Mufreesboro?

Memphis looks better every day...

[Guest Glock23ForMe]

Is Hooters really the best option you got for wings in Mufreesboro?

Memphis looks better every day...

The only reason we go is AYCE Wings... Wed night, I ate 38 wings for 12 dollars.

[Guest strelcevina]

The only reason we go is AYCE Wings... Wed night, I ate 38 wings for 12 dollars.

eider you got strong stomach acid if you can eat 38 hot wings in one night

guy stuffing himself with hot wings and steering at lady's hooters, carrying a plastic gun on posted property is illegal and uncool at a same time.

Edited September 3, 2010 by strelcevina

[Guest Glock23ForMe]

I like steering at Hooters.... Who doesn't?

[molonlabetn]

I've been in that particular Hooters many times and seen armed MPD officers at the bar eating lunch or dinner... noone seemed to mind and the weren't asked to leave or arrest themselves (since they weren't there on official business it was 'technically' just as illegal, regardless of whether they are considered off-duty or not during personal time).

With that in mind, I always adhere to the law at least as strictly as those who write them and those who enforce them, since I'm realistic about the whole process being arbitrary. That's just me though.

[Chucktshoes]

eider you got strong stomach acid if you can eat 38 hot wings in one night

guy stuffing himself with hot wings and steering at lady's hooters, carrying a plastic gun on posted property is illegal and uncool at a same time.

[memphismason]

Under the new law it was legally posted.

Chucktshoes - I have been searching for some GOOD hot wings in Memphis. Tell me where to go and get some. Please, kind sir.