Can we rid the state of gunbuster signs?

[RobertNashville]

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

I would suggest that the right of an individual to own property and control it is even more basic than freedom of religion or speech and the concept of personal property is what gives a business owner the right to post.

Unfortunately, like many other rights, property rights have been trampled on as well but nevertheless, your right to self-defense, speech, religion don't trump my rights and if they did then I would really not have any real rights at all.

For this very reason, I struggle a bit with the concept of a "parking lot" law which would supersede the right of a business/facility/employer to restrict HCP owners from even being able to leave their weapons in their locked vehicles while, for example, visiting a shopping mall where the mall (and formerly the parking lot itself) would be posted against carry. However, I think in that instance, the right of the public to its own self defense trumps the right of a property owner to restrict firearms even from its parking lot.

[Guest Guy N. Cognito]

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

"the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. "

[Guest clownsdd]

Just to start up a hornets nest, Ya'll wanting the penalty removed: do you want the penalties removed for someone trespassing on your property past your properly posted "no trespassing" signs? Same thing.

/

[Guest Red5]

Just to start up a hornets nest, Ya'll wanting the penalty removed: do you want the penalties removed for someone trespassing on your property past your properly posted "no trespassing" signs? Same thing./

I would want and expect him to be charged with trespassing, but if he is a legal HCP holder, having a pistol should not increase the penalty. I don't think it is the same thing.

[Punisher84]

Just to start up a hornets nest, Ya'll wanting the penalty removed: do you want the penalties removed for someone trespassing on your property past your properly posted "no trespassing" signs? Same thing.

/

It's not the same thing. If you come onto my land, you are trespassing and will be arrested for trespassing. If you walk into a pizza joint and order food, you are not trespassing. If you are asked to leave and refuse, you will be arrested for trespassing.

Removing the legal penalty for carrying past a sign puts thing in the above order, instead of making it an automatic crime for simply walking past a sign.

[Guest clownsdd]

If you are walk past a no guns sign that the property owner has properly put up and is visible to all, you are in the wrong. It's his property. And if you are "forced to leave" in addition to trespassing, you could very well loose your permit. Ya'll are missing my point. Not that I think it's right, hell, I think we should be able to carry anywhere.

[Guest clownsdd]

Lets look at it another way,

How many agree with the smoking ban and fines in privately owned restaurants,bars, offices etc?

[Fallguy]

Just to start up a hornets nest, Ya'll wanting the penalty removed: do you want the penalties removed for someone trespassing on your property past your properly posted "no trespassing" signs? Same thing.

/

Well I was going to say this is one instance where the law does see the difference between private property like my house and private property open to the public based on subsection (a) below

39-14-405. Criminal trespass

(a) A person commits criminal trespass if the person enters or remains on property, or any portion of property, without the consent of the owner. Consent may be inferred in the case of property that is used for commercial activity available to the general public or in the case of other property when the owner has communicated the owner's intent that the property be open to the general public.

However....I went on to read subsections ( and © that deal with denfeses to the above.

( It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:

(1)

A person entered or remained on property that the person reasonably believed to be property for which the owner's consent to enter had been granted;

(2)

The person's conduct did not substantially interfere with the owner's use of the property; and

(3)

The person immediately left the property upon request.

© The defenses to prosecution set out in subsection ( shall not be applicable to a person violating this section if the property owner posts the property with signs that are visible at all major points of ingress to the property being posted and the signs are reasonably likely to come to the attention of a person entering the property.

Subsection © deal with posting "No Trespassing" signs.....and if he does that then you are indeed trespassing the moment you go past that sign. So I guess a reasonable argument can be made that a proper "No Gun" sign is the same thing.

The biggest difference is a violation of 39-14-405 is a Class C misdemeanor while violation of 39-17-1359 is a Class B misdemeanor.

[RobertNashville]

It's not the same thing. If you come onto my land, you are trespassing and will be arrested for trespassing. If you walk into a pizza joint and order food, you are not trespassing. If you are asked to leave and refuse, you will be arrested for trespassing.

Removing the legal penalty for carrying past a sign puts thing in the above order, instead of making it an automatic crime for simply walking past a sign.

While I do think the current law/punishment is overly burdensome, I can see a logical argument for the punishment being more than, say, just a simple trespassing charge...HCP holders are supposed to know the law and I would submit, take on added responsibility when we carry.

[Guest TnRebel]

Florida got red of them early into shall issue.

The anti's tried it there and lost it to a rep. House , Senate and Gov.

My suggestion would be to press your Rep's and senators. day in day out. And have them look at Florida's that is working for them . In Florida, Orlando was our Memphis, with the Mouse there and I-Drive.

Edited January 4, 2011 by TnRebel

[G27]

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.

This.

[Punisher84]

If you are walk past a no guns sign that the property owner has properly put up and is visible to all, you are in the wrong. It's his property. And if you are "forced to leave" in addition to trespassing, you could very well loose your permit. Ya'll are missing my point. Not that I think it's right, hell, I think we should be able to carry anywhere.

I think you are missing our point because you are debating on 2 different levels. As the law stands NOW carrying past a sign is illegal. If the signs had no legal weight as far as the State of TN was concerned, it would be different. You compared a "No Trespassing" sign and the Gunbuster sign. They are not the same. My home and land are not open to the public for business.

I also think you are misunderstanding "forced to leave". I'm not talking about a brawl with the cops, I'm talking about a restaurant worker seeing your gun and telling you to leave. Now, if you did not do that, then you would be arrested and charged with Criminal Trespass.

Lets look at it another way,

How many agree with the smoking ban and fines in privately owned restaurants,bars, offices etc?

As instituted by the State? I'm against it. If a restaurant owner says No Smoking I'm fine with it.

While I do think the current law/punishment is overly burdensome, I can see a logical argument for the punishment being more than, say, just a simple trespassing charge...HCP holders are supposed to know the law and I would submit, take on added responsibility when we carry.

Again, what are we debating here? I think several posters are confusing the law as it stands and what things would be like without the law. If the signs CARRIED NO LEGAL WEIGHT, we would not be breaking the law, just going against the property owner's wishes. At which point if discovered they could ask us to leave and under an entirely separate law (Criminal trespass) we would have to oblige or face arrest.

[RobertNashville]

...Again, what are we debating here? I think several posters are confusing the law as it stands and what things would be like without the law. If the signs CARRIED NO LEGAL WEIGHT, we would not be breaking the law, just going against the property owner's wishes. At which point if discovered they could ask us to leave and under an entirely separate law (Criminal trespass) we would have to oblige or face arrest.

Let me clarify my position; what I'm saying is that I'm NOT opposed to it being illegal/criminal for a person to carry a firearm past a legally posted sign that says that business doesn't allow firearms on/within its property. However, I do think the current law/punishment is more onerous and burdensome than it should be. I think perhaps a simple, minor misdemeanor that does NOT affect your HCP would be more than sufficient punishment for breaking that "law".

[Fallguy]

As of now there is no direct evidence that a violation of 39-17-1359 would affect the status of your HCP.

Yes, there is a provision that says any violation of 39-17-1351 -- 39-17-1360 shall cause it to be revoked/suspended. But there are several steps that would have to occur before it got to that point. Also as we've said....we know of no one that has ever been charged with 39-17-1359 let alone convicted. Also many times those charged with a crime are found guilty of or plead to lesser charges. Also I still maintain that if you are drunk and in a place that serves alcohol and armed...and it is only a 3 year suspension....that a violation of 39-17-1359 should not constitute revocation. Plus...and I could be wrong...I still think even you are made past a legal sign that 99.9% of the time you'd just be asked to leave.

But..even with all that said...I'd still like to see it changed....it's just not that I"m in great fear until it does.

[Punisher84]

Let me clarify my position; what I'm saying is that I'm NOT opposed to it being illegal/criminal for a person to carry a firearm past a legally posted sign that says that business doesn't allow firearms on/within its property. However, I do think the current law/punishment is more onerous and burdensome than it should be. I think perhaps a simple, minor misdemeanor that does NOT affect your HCP would be more than sufficient punishment for breaking that "law".

Ok I gotcha now. I think a simple fine would be plenty if we HAVE to have the law. I don't make it a habit, see never, of passing gun buster signs, but I certainly wouldn't want to have a misdemeanor on my record because I missed a sign and happened to be a test case.

[Guest 270win]

Someone shouldn't be fined when he walks past a silly sign and already has a permit. What is the point of getting a permit? Isn't the point of getting a permit is to keep from getting fined in the first place when getting fined when carrying a gun?

I don't have a problem with someone putting up a sign and asking someone to leave should the gun be discovered, then that person be fined (trespass) for not leaving. That law is already on the books. I do have a problem with a fine for someone with a permit, Class B Misdemeanor on top of that, over a silly sign, for just having a gun on the person, and walking past a SIGN. What a complete joke.

Remove that Class B Misdemeanor. And then get rid of the Class A Misdemeanor risk for the local parks over those stupid signs. I swear what is it with signs and fining LEGIT people in Tennessee? It almost makes you shake your head and just want to carry a gun you don't mind losing, not get a permit, and forget it. I understand why people don't mess with getting a permit, and just carry without one, considering how people with permits, under the law, can be screwed when we are the good guys. Thank goodness these signs aren't enforced by the book as far as we know and people are just asked to leave with these B Misdemeanor signs.

[RobertNashville]

Someone shouldn't be fined when he walks past a silly sign and already has a permit. What is the point of getting a permit? Isn't the point of getting a permit is to keep from getting fined in the first place when getting fined when carrying a gun?

I don't have a problem with someone putting up a sign and asking someone to leave should the gun be discovered, then that person be fined (trespass) for not leaving. That law is already on the books. I do have a problem with a fine for someone with a permit, Class B Misdemeanor on top of that, over a silly sign, for just having a gun on the person, and walking past a SIGN. What a complete joke.

Remove that Class B Misdemeanor. And then get rid of the Class A Misdemeanor risk for the local parks over those stupid signs. I swear what is it with signs and fining LEGIT people in Tennessee? It almost makes you shake your head and just want to carry a gun you don't mind losing, not get a permit, and forget it. I understand why people don't mess with getting a permit, and just carry without one, considering how people with permits, under the law, can be screwed when we are the good guys. Thank goodness these signs aren't enforced by the book as far as we know and people are just asked to leave with these B Misdemeanor signs.

What's the point of telling business/property owners that have a "right" to restrict firearms on their property if there is no force of law to enforce it? That's akin to setting a speed limit but telling people they if they do happen to get caught speeding all that will happen is that they'll be asked nicely not to speed anymore.

Do we believe in ALL rights, including those of property owners, or do we just believe in the rights that are important to us and are willing to tell everyone else that their rights are not really rights at all; at least not if I want to walk into their store.

[Guest buttonhook]

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

freedom of speech?????

[Guest 270win]

The signs should be compared to the no shoes, shirt, no service. These are not a criminal penalty. That is a CIVIL issue. A business owner can ask someone to leave. If you do not leave, then it becomes a CRIMINAL issue as in trespassing. You do not charge someone who already has a handgun carry permit a WEAPONS CHARGE. That is completely stupid! I paid the piper in two different states to keep from getting a weapons charge already and shouldn't over a sign. Now if someone sees my handgun and doesn't like it, well that's ok I can just leave.

[RobertNashville]

The signs should be compared to the no shoes, shirt, no service. These are not a criminal penalty. That is a CIVIL issue. A business owner can ask someone to leave. If you do not leave, then it becomes a CRIMINAL issue as in trespassing. You do not charge someone who already has a handgun carry permit a WEAPONS CHARGE. That is completely stupid! I paid the piper in two different states to keep from getting a weapons charge already and shouldn't over a sign. Now if someone sees my handgun and doesn't like it, well that's ok I can just leave.

Don't mean to state the obvious here (well...actually I do ) but why not avoid the "weapon's charge" but not carrying in a business that doesn't wand you (with your gun) in that business?

Maybe the better question is why does anyone want to spend a single penny in any business that doesn't want it's customers to be able to defend themselves?

[Guest GlockenVol]

Boycotting anti-gun businesses is in an exercise in futility...imho. I think all of us throughout the state petitioning our legislators could get the punishment component of the bill removed. Can Fallguy, or some other wise one, provide the legal language we call all rally behind?

[Guest 270win]

Should I be fined when I go to the Shelby County Clerk's office in Memphis five hundred bucks because I walk past their sign? What about running into Baptist Memorial Hospital in Memphis because I have to see a loved one that is sick? Sometimes, I am not spending money (who likes to pay taxes), but I have to go to local and state government buildings and hospitals (see sick folks or help people). These places are not illegal to carry in per state law. Why should I then be slapped with a fine? Leaving a handgun in a car in Memphis is not the wisest move and walking in Memphis unarmed I am not a fan of either. So it all goes back to, should people with permits be slapped with five hundred dollar fines, Class B Misdemeanors, while people who are going bare footed into stores risk nothing when violating a sign. If I didn't have a permit, at least I technically wouldn't get slapped with that Class B Misdemeanor because it only applies to those with permits! Kind of funny that magistrates and judges with NO PERMITS can walk right past these signs carrying handguns. Does that make sense?

[Fallguy]

What's the point of telling business/property owners that have a "right" to restrict firearms on their property if there is no force of law to enforce it? That's akin to setting a speed limit but telling people they if they do happen to get caught speeding all that will happen is that they'll be asked nicely not to speed anymore.

Do we believe in ALL rights, including those of property owners, or do we just believe in the rights that are important to us and are willing to tell everyone else that their rights are not really rights at all; at least not if I want to walk into their store.

I think the point is, even without 39-17-1359 they do have the right (with the force of law) to tell you to leave if they don't like what you're doing. Whether it is carrying a gun or picking your nose. They can tell you to leave and if you don't trouble.... It's just that 39-17-1359 makes it a crime to enter in the first place for something you have got a permit for. If a place puts up a "No Nose Picking" sign and you walk in digging for gold you're not violating the law at the moment, they can ask you to leave though (with the force of law)

Also as mentioned 39-17-1359 doesn't only apply to private property, but public property as well. The same people who have given you a permit to carry in Wal-Mart can restrict you from carry in a place that you have to go to do business.

[Guest clownsdd]

"Someone shouldn't be fined when he walks past a silly sign and already has a permit."

So, if you miss the speed limit sign on the interstate going from 70 to 60, It's not your fault and you shouldn't get a speeding ticket?

[RobertNashville]

I think the point is, even without 39-17-1359 they do have the right (with the force of law) to tell you to leave if they don't like what you're doing. Whether it is carrying a gun or picking your nose. They can tell you to leave and if you don't trouble.... It's just that 39-17-1359 makes it a crime to enter in the first place for something you have got a permit for. If a place puts up a "No Nose Picking" sign and you walk in digging for gold you're not violating the law at the moment, they can ask you to leave though (with the force of law)

As I stated earlier, I think the current law is too harsh and should be altered. For that matter, I certainly wouldn’t object to the type of change where there was nothing “illegal†about carrying past a sign and moving this into a simple trespass situation. However, as a philosophical issue, I don’t see a problem with it being “against the law†to walk past a “no guns†sign when you are carrying; at least not if the punishment fits the crime.

I don’t know…maybe I’m just a little “too†on the side of personal property rights for my own good???

Also as mentioned 39-17-1359 doesn't only apply to private property, but public property as well. The same people who have given you a permit to carry in Wal-Mart can restrict you from carry in a place that you have to go to do business.

Government (whether it be local, state or federal) has always retained the power to decided what can and can’t happen on “public propertyâ€; that doesn’t just apply to firearms. Things may change for such places as parks and recreation areas if we elect the right people into office but I expect that no matter who is in office we’ll never be allowed to carry a firearm in a post office or a federal office building or a courtroom.