Can we rid the state of gunbuster signs?

[Guest GlockenVol]

I stay frustrated by wanting to carry on a regular basis, but feeling like half the places I want to go will not allow it. I do not believe other CCW state have the level of prohibition we have in Tennessee. Is there any hope on the horizon that one day the HCP will allow responsible citizens to carry in all normal places of business commerce?

[Fallguy]

My answer is going to be No on getting rid of the Gun Buster signs anytime soon.

I think the best we can hope for is that at some point in the future is removing the criminal penalty for simply carrying past a sign.

[macville]

I stay frustrated by wanting to carry on a regular basis, but feeling like half the places I want to go will not allow it. I do not believe other CCW state have the level of prohibition we have in Tennessee. Is there any hope on the horizon that one day the HCP will allow responsible citizens to carry in all normal places of business commerce?

As Fallguy says, the best we can hope for is removing the penalty. Why? Because any business owner can put up whatever sign they want no matter the law. Just like the Atlanta Ikea has gunbuster signs at it's doors even though there is no law in GA about posting legally. So we may be able to get the law changed, but that won't change idiots. But at that point, it won't matter because we won't be committing a crime to walk past one and we will know what companies to NOT support.

BTW, I am still a firm believer that under the TN constitution, that allowing businesses to post with legal consequences is illegal. The constitution gives them the power to restrict carrying with a "view to prevent crime." Well, how is a business owner deciding if guns should be allowed in their business opened to the public "preventing crime"? Really, under our state constitution only carrying in jails and in active courtrooms would be close to "preventing crime"--besides the restricting people who have committed certain crimes already.

Matthew

[Punisher84]

As Fallguy says, the best we can hope for is removing the penalty. Why? Because any business owner can put up whatever sign they want no matter the law. Just like the Atlanta Ikea has gunbuster signs at it's doors even though there is no law in GA about posting legally. So we may be able to get the law changed, but that won't change idiots. But at that point, it won't matter because we won't be committing a crime to walk past one and we will know what companies to NOT support.

BTW, I am still a firm believer that under the TN constitution, that allowing businesses to post with legal consequences is illegal. The constitution gives them the power to restrict carrying with a "view to prevent crime." Well, how is a business owner deciding if guns should be allowed in their business opened to the public "preventing crime"? Really, under our state constitution only carrying in jails and in active courtrooms would be close to "preventing crime"--besides the restricting people who have committed certain crimes already.

Matthew

Need to read the other parts. The ones about property rights. Carrying in a private establishment has nothing to do with what the state wants, it's what the business owner wants.

I agree about removing the criminal penalty, however.

[creeky]

The ones about property rights. Carrying in a private establishment has nothing to do with what the state wants, it's what the business owner wants.

I agree about removing the criminal penalty, however.

I agree 100%...

[Guest Red5]

Need to read the other parts. The ones about property rights. Carrying in a private establishment has nothing to do with what the state wants, it's what the business owner wants.

^This. Your right to carry ends where the private business owner's right to prohibit it begins, which in this case is his gun-buster posted front door. I think though, as most have said, carrying past a privately posted sign should not be criminal.

[Guest 270win]

We need to remove the criminal penalty for walking past these signs. I have no problem with anyone putting up a sign, but I do with having a five hundred dollar fine on the books.

I also think we need to push for removing the Class A misdemeanor fine possibility from Local Parks.

Also Remove the Class B Misdemeanor and Felony charge for those with permits on School Property.

Make those changes and you've got GREAT gun laws in Tennessee for those with permits.

[Oh Shoot]

We need to remove the criminal penalty for walking past these signs. I have no problem with anyone putting up a sign, but I do with having a five hundred dollar fine on the books....

Not to mention now having a Class B misdemeanor on your record.

Also not to mention having your HCP suspended or revoked upon notification from the court.

Pretty damn stiff penalties for one of the good guys, seems to moi.

- OS

[Fallguy]

Need to read the other parts. The ones about property rights. Carrying in a private establishment has nothing to do with what the state wants, it's what the business owner wants.

I agree about removing the criminal penalty, however.

As I know you know of course (and agree with I think)...

An owner can put a sign that says ANYTHING, but doesn't make a crime if you ignore it. It's only a crime if you don't leave after being told. Should be the same for firearms.

[Fallguy]

Not to mention now having a Class B misdemeanor on your record.

Also not to mention having your HCP suspended or revoked upon notification from the court.

Pretty damn stiff penalties for one of the good guys, seems to moi.

- OS

At some point I think that is something else that needs to be addressed.

Although as of now a moot point I guess.

My argument would be that if being intoxicated in a place that serves alcohol dictates only a suspension (3 years) No way should carry past a 39-17-1359 sign be cause for revocation.

[Punisher84]

As I know you know of course (and agree with I think)...

An owner can put a sign that says ANYTHING, but doesn't make a crime if you ignore it. It's only a crime if you don't leave after being told. Should be the same for firearms.

Exactly. My thinking has always been if I go to a restaurant with family or co-workers, get to the door, and see a gunbuster sign I don't want to have to choose between leaving my gun in the car or breaking the law. I'd prefer to conceal, eat, then never patronize the business again. I don't think the signs should have legal weight, just operate under Criminal Trespass and maybe stick something else on them if they refuse to leave while carrying a firearm and act like an ass lol

[Guest HexHead]

Need to read the other parts. The ones about property rights. Carrying in a private establishment has nothing to do with what the state wants, it's what the business owner wants.

I agree about removing the criminal penalty, however.

+1 on the penalty thing. But a business open to the public should not have the right to dictate what the public can have in their pockets or on their person. Period.

[Guest Guy N. Cognito]

+1 on the penalty thing. But a business open to the public should not have the right to dictate what the public can have in their pockets or on their person. Period.

I couldn't disagree with this more. While I may not like it, I believe a property owner should have the right to allow or ban just about anything or anyone they choose.

[Guest HexHead]

I couldn't disagree with this more. While I may not like it, I believe a property owner should have the right to allow or ban just about anything or anyone they choose.

Good luck putting up a "No Queers" sign.

[Fallguy]

Good luck putting up a "No Queers" sign.

I think he (and you) know that sign would probably be found to be illegal or unenforceable for civil rights reasons. He said he "believed", not that it was his legal opinion.

But his point is it shouldn't be. That a property owner should be able to put a sign that says "No __Fill in the Blank__" But again we all know that legally that is not allowed.

[bigwakes]

Has anyone been charged in violation of a gun buster sign yet?

[macville]

I couldn't disagree with this more. While I may not like it, I believe a property owner should have the right to allow or ban just about anything or anyone they choose.

But do you not give up rights to do certain things? According to the TSA, I give up my right to a warrant search of my body if I choose to fly (not that I agree with that.) So does someone opening up their property not give up some rights because they are "open to the public"? We do have a constitutional right to be armed, correct?

While I agree with you in principle, in reality, we business owners have lost many "rights". Owners should be able to hire only who they want to, but can't always (affirm action.) Shouldn't have to put in handicap stuff if they don't want to. Shouldn't have to ban smoking if they don't want to. The list goes on. So why shouldn't they be forced to acknowledge a constitutional right?

Here's the issue that it really comes down to for many businesses. Lawsuits. Owners are afraid of letting the public and their employees carry because they don't want to get sued. We need to get a law passed that squarely puts blame on the shooter, and that's it. The law would say that unless a business hires an armed guard or tells an employee with a HCP in writing that they need to be armed, they can not be held responsible. The same would go for a customer that shoots inside a business.

Matthew

[Guest HexHead]

I think he (and you) know that sign would probably be found to be illegal or unenforceable for civil rights reasons. He said he "believed", not that it was his legal opinion.

But his point is it shouldn't be. That a property owner should be able to put a sign that says "No __Fill in the Blank__" But again we all know that legally that is not allowed.

Title VIi of the Civil Rights Act doesn't prohibit discrimination based on sexual preference in the workplace. Metro may in their workplaces, but it doesn't apply to private businesses. So again, let's see a business post that and then tell me about property rights.

[Guest HexHead]

But do you not give up rights to do certain things? According to the TSA, I give up my right to a warrant search of my body if I choose to fly (not that I agree with that.) So does someone opening up their property not give up some rights because they are "open to the public"? We do have a constitutional right to be armed, correct?

While I agree with you in principle, in reality, we business owners have lost many "rights". Owners should be able to hire only who they want to, but can't always (affirm action.) Shouldn't have to put in handicap stuff if they don't want to. Shouldn't have to ban smoking if they don't want to. The list goes on. So why shouldn't they be forced to acknowledge a constitutional right?

Here's the issue that it really comes down to for many businesses. Lawsuits. Owners are afraid of letting the public and their employees carry because they don't want to get sued. We need to get a law passed that squarely puts blame on the shooter, and that's it. The law would say that unless a business hires an armed guard or tells an employee with a HCP in writing that they need to be armed, they can not be held responsible. The same would go for a customer that shoots inside a business.

Matthew

+1. Matthew gets it.

[Guest Guy N. Cognito]

But do you not give up rights to do certain things? According to the TSA, I give up my right to a warrant search of my body if I choose to fly (not that I agree with that.) So does someone opening up their property not give up some rights because they are "open to the public"? We do have a constitutional right to be armed, correct?

While I agree with you in principle, in reality, we business owners have lost many "rights". Owners should be able to hire only who they want to, but can't always (affirm action.) Shouldn't have to put in handicap stuff if they don't want to. Shouldn't have to ban smoking if they don't want to. The list goes on. So why shouldn't they be forced to acknowledge a constitutional right?

Here's the issue that it really comes down to for many businesses. Lawsuits. Owners are afraid of letting the public and their employees carry because they don't want to get sued. We need to get a law passed that squarely puts blame on the shooter, and that's it. The law would say that unless a business hires an armed guard or tells an employee with a HCP in writing that they need to be armed, they can not be held responsible. The same would go for a customer that shoots inside a business.

Matthew

Last time I checked, the constitution does not give you the right to beat arms on private property, despite the wishes of the owner.

[Guest HexHead]

Last time I checked, the constitution does not give you the right to beat arms on private property, despite the wishes of the owner.

And where in the Constitution does it give a business owner the right to post?

[Fallguy]

But do you not give up rights to do certain things? According to the TSA, I give up my right to a warrant search of my body if I choose to fly (not that I agree with that.) So does someone opening up their property not give up some rights because they are "open to the public"? We do have a constitutional right to be armed, correct?

Not exactly the same thing...you are choosing to use the private property (jet) of someone else. Even without the TSA I'm sure airline owners would put restrictions/conditions on flying on their plans. If you don't want to be searched, don't fly their plane. But it should be the owner, not the TSA/Gov that does such things.

While I agree with you in principle, in reality, we business owners have lost many "rights". Owners should be able to hire only who they want to, but can't always (affirm action.) Shouldn't have to put in handicap stuff if they don't want to. Shouldn't have to ban smoking if they don't want to. The list goes on. So why shouldn't they be forced to acknowledge a constitutional right?

I think we all agree that in reality things aren't the way they should be.

Here's the issue that it really comes down to for many businesses. Lawsuits. Owners are afraid of letting the public and their employees carry because they don't want to get sued. We need to get a law passed that squarely puts blame on the shooter, and that's it. The law would say that unless a business hires an armed guard or tells an employee with a HCP in writing that they need to be armed, they can not be held responsible. The same would go for a customer that shoots inside a business.

Matthew

Completely agree the majority of postings are because of a liability reason, not so much an anti- belief.

[Fallguy]

Title VIi of the Civil Rights Act doesn't prohibit discrimination based on sexual preference in the workplace. Metro may in their workplaces, but it doesn't apply to private businesses. So again, let's see a business post that and then tell me about property rights.

Ok...even if it is not illegal...it very could be unpopular in some areas, maybe not in others. So that goes back to the belief that a property owner "should" be able to do what he wants and customers can choose to patronize or not.

If a business owner post a No XXXX sign and it hurts his business, he may remove it....or he may leave it and not worry about it and be happy he can choose who comes in. But either way it should be his choice not the governments.

[Punisher84]

This is why gun owners tend to be single issue voters. Property rights are property rights. It is my firm belief that your right to carry a gun stops at my right to determine who I want in my business. I believe that is how the founding fathers intended it as well. It says "keep and bear", it doesn't say anything about going wherever you please on private property.

[Fallguy]

Well I admit I still struggle a bit with the difference between Private Property like my home and Private Property that is open to the public.

I used to feel that if a property owner chose to open his place to the public, he was willing to let the rights of his patrons supersede his (at least to some degree) to gain their business.

However I am starting to back away from that a bit and do a feel he should have more control.

But...this is all academic really when it comes to the current laws.