Open carry triggers business to post gun buster.

[Tncobra]

A friend that make signs was making a gun buster sign for a business in Jefferson city. ( I will name the business later, if and when it is put up.)

Anyway, I asked why the place was putting up the sign. The sign maker told me someone was open carrying at the business and it freaked out the owners. I don't know if someone complained first or what. This is all I know at this time.

Is open carry really worth freaking out people that don't know any better? If the story is true then I say it isn't worth risking open carry if it causes stores to post.

How many stores post the sign that don't know/care anything about gun rights? Doing what they perceive as the right thing.

I am curious how the person carrying acted, or what he may have said.

This kinda floated around my head today and it needed out.

[Oh Shoot]

One guy, the infamous Voldemort Kwik, was responsible for all Costco stores in TN posting.

- OS

Edited April 29, 2012 by OhShoot

[vontar]

One guy, the infamous Voldemort, was responsible for all Costco stores in TN posting.

- OS

Goes to prove, One person can make a difference.

[Slasher]

I don't think the Costco on Winchester is posted, at least I dont think I have ever seen it.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

[Guest nmil]

I think if done properly, an open carrier can do a lot for us 2A folks. If you're alert to people, and someone looks concerned, go over and have a chat with them, "hey, damn it's hot today, ain't it?... how're you doing today anyway?" If you're the shifty-eyed guy with camo pants OCing a draco, sweating profusely in 70*F weather and not talking to anyone, then yeah, that might cause concern.

[Dolomite_supafly]

A friend that make signs was making a gun buster sign for a business in Jefferson city. ( I will name the business later, if and when it is put up.)

Anyway, I asked why the place was putting up the sign. The sign maker told me someone was open carrying at the business and it freaked out the owners. I don't know if someone complained first or what. This is all I know at this time.

Is open carry really worth freaking out people that don't know any better? If the story is true then I say it isn't worth risking open carry if it causes stores to post.

How many stores post the sign that don't know/care anything about gun rights? Doing what they perceive as the right thing.

I am curious how the person carrying acted, or what he may have said.

This kinda floated around my head today and it needed out.

Now is the time to voice our opinions to the owners, not after he posts. Nothing will change by waiting. If we voice our opinions as well as letting him know we are all trained, licensed and have had backgrounds he might have second thoughts about posting. In speaking with most people who have signs posted they are unaware of what we go through to get our HCP's.

Dolomite

[vontar]

I don't think the Costco on Winchester is posted, at least I dont think I have ever seen it.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

I don't know about that, they made a big deal when they posted, some members even went in and got refunds on on their membership that had just renewed because of the posting.

[EastHipster]

That's a nice sentiment but nah...

People bristle up when they see guns. Even on LEO.

I bristle up when I see guns.

OC definitely sets the cause back.

It creates a dialog that you don't want and mobilizes the opposition.

"People are carrying guns around like it's the Old West...!"

I'm happy to CC and also that I don't get in trouble if I accidentally OC.

Best of both worlds.

It also allows me to Open Carry when I am locking up my business at night if I choose.

I think if done properly, an open carrier can do a lot for us 2A folks. If you're alert to people, and someone looks concerned, go over and have a chat with them, "hey, damn it's hot today, ain't it?... how're you doing today anyway?" If you're the shifty-eyed guy with camo pants OCing a draco, sweating profusely in 70*F weather and not talking to anyone, then yeah, that might cause concern.

[Guest nmil]

whoops double post

Edited September 2, 2011 by nmil

[RobertNashville]

I occasionally open carry but not very often. In general, I see far more potential downside to OC than to CC.

I am happy that we can OC in Tennessee and I don't want to lose that option but I don't think openly carrying a firearm wins us very many friends...although it should not be, carrying a firearm is an emotionally charged issue and few good things happen when emotions get involved in an issue.

[macville]

How about instead of complaining about open carriers, we get our reps and senators to removing the posting law? Heck, it's unconstitutional according to our TN constitution, so let's focus on that!

[RobertNashville]

How about instead of complaining about open carriers, we get our reps and senators to removing the posting law? Heck, it's unconstitutional according to our TN constitution, so let's focus on that!

What's unconstitutional about signage per the TN Constitution?

Are you saying that no business/corporation/private property owner has a right to restrict firearms in/on their property by displaying their policy in the form of a sign? I hope not.

When it comes to "2d Amendment rights vs Private Property I'm all for reasonable accommodation and have argued the same, both here and with a few select TN legislators...however, accommodation doesn't mean forcing businesses/property owners to allow carry (open or concealed) on their property.

I would like to see are some changes made...

1. It should not be a greater crime for a TN HCP holder to carry past a sign than for someone who doesn't have a HCP to do so

2. Type/size/verbage of the signage should be uniform and the rules about where it must be posted/how visible, etc. more specific and less up to interpretation.

3. Same rules apply to ever entity, including government buildings, city parks, etc - no different "signage" laws for one entity compared to another, etc.

Edited September 2, 2011 by RobertNashville

[Guest TresOsos]

How about instead of complaining about open carriers, we get our reps and senators to removing the posting law? Heck, it's unconstitutional according to our TN constitution, so let's focus on that!

I don't like businesses posting any more that anybody else, esspecialy if its a business I would like to patronize.

However I will defend their right to post, they started their business, they put up the money for it and I don't want to shove my believes down their throats anymore than I want them shoving thiers down mine. Yep lets just force people to do what we want,,

yeah a lot of that going on already and where is it getting us.

[Guest PapaB]

What's unconstitutional about signage per the TN Constitution?

Are you saying that no business/corporation/private property owner has a right to restrict firearms in/on their property by displaying their policy in the form of a sign? I hope not.

When it comes to "2d Amendment rights vs Private Property I'm all for reasonable accommodation and have argued the same, both here and with a few select TN legislators...however, accommodation doesn't mean forcing businesses/property owners to allow carry (open or concealed) on their property.

I would like to see are some changes made...

1. It should not be a greater crime for a TN HCP holder to carry past a sign than for someone who doesn't have a HCP to do so

2. Type/size/verbage of the signage should be uniform and the rules about where it must be posted/how visible, etc. more specific and less up to interpretation.

3. Same rules apply to ever entity, including government buildings, city parks, etc - no different "signage" laws for one entity compared to another, etc.

+1

[macville]

What's unconstitutional about signage per the TN Constitution?

Are you saying that no business/corporation/private property owner has a right to restrict firearms in/on their property by displaying their policy in the form of a sign? I hope not.

When it comes to "2d Amendment rights vs Private Property I'm all for reasonable accommodation and have argued the same, both here and with a few select TN legislators...however, accommodation doesn't mean forcing businesses/property owners to allow carry (open or concealed) on their property.

I would like to see are some changes made...

1. It should not be a greater crime for a TN HCP holder to carry past a sign than for someone who doesn't have a HCP to do so

2. Type/size/verbage of the signage should be uniform and the rules about where it must be posted/how visible, etc. more specific and less up to interpretation.

3. Same rules apply to ever entity, including government buildings, city parks, etc - no different "signage" laws for one entity compared to another, etc.

This is why the sign posting law is unconstitutional... because the state only has the power to restrict carry "with a view to prevent crime" How does a business being able to post prevent crime? It doesn't, does it?

What our constitution does (is only supposed to allow) is the state to restrict really who can carry (criminals), not really where. Allowing businesses to post a sign that is an automatic punishment is unconstitutional (at least in regards to arms.) A business can post any other sign (no shirt, no shoes, etc) and just because you walk past that sign doesn't mean you are automatically breaking the law. Only until you refuse to leave, if they ask, are you breaking the law. So yes, they should be allowed to post, but legally, according to our constitution, any no guns sign should have no more power legally, than any other "no whatever" sign. You understand that most states are like this and because there no legal footholds for a no guns sign, there aren't many posted (look at GA.)

BTW, when you actually apply what the constitution says, you realize that school carry ban is unconstitutional, so is the local parks ban, etc. Seems like the only places that crime could be prevented would be carrying inside a jail, and maybe a courtroom.

[Defender]

I also think open carry hurts the cause...shouldn't, and it ain't right, but lets face facts here...a majority of the sheeple are afraid of guns. I only open carry on my own property, but even when concealed, Im sure there are times when I can be "made" by a discerning eye.

As far as property owners deciding if guns are ok or not on their property...I'm pulled in a couple different directions on this. One solution would be to structure the posting law so that if a owner posts, then he would have no legal protection if someone was shot, i.e. lawsuits against him for removing the ability to self protect while not providing adequate protection to guests...

[Guest ArmaDeFuego]

It should not be a crime to carry past a posted sign.

It should be the same in Tennessee as it is in other states. If I carry past a sign they can ask me to leave. At that point I can leave or risk a trespassing charge. That is how it should be. Its stupid that they can put up a sign & take away our rights & turn it into a crime.

I dont understand why private property laws supposedly give a private business the right to deny some rights but not others.

[macville]

As far as property owners deciding if guns are ok or not on their property...I'm pulled in a couple different directions on this. One solution would be to structure the posting law so that if a owner posts, then he would have no legal protection if someone was shot, i.e. lawsuits against him for removing the ability to self protect while not providing adequate protection to guests...

What is sad is that the law doesn't already protect business owners from being libel for one customer hurting another. I kinda understand if an employee hurts a customer, but even that has issues. What happened to a PERSON being libel for THEIR actions, instead of everyone else being libel? It's like how every gun owner is somehow libel for every criminal's use of a firearm.

[Guest bkelm18]

This is why the sign posting law is unconstitutional... because the state only has the power to restrict carry "with a view to prevent crime" How does a business being able to post prevent crime? It doesn't, does it?

"With a view" means with the intention of preventing crime. It doesn't mean the law will prevent crime. Of course the signs don't prevent crime. No gun control law actually prevents crime. But as far as constitutionality is concerned, the sign law is legit. I'm 100% supportive of property rights. Just remove the penalty for carrying past the sign and I'll be ok with it.

[RobertNashville]

This is why the sign posting law is unconstitutional... because the state only has the power to restrict carry "with a view to prevent crime" How does a business being able to post prevent crime? It doesn't, does it?

The signage is simply a way for a business/property owner to make his policy known to the public and a business/property could post such signs whether there was any specific language in the code regarding a "firearm's sign" or not. I agree that the "special" criminal charge for HCP holders currently associated with such as sign may be "unconstitutional" but even if it is, I don't think we'll ever get very far with changing the law simply by crying that it's "unconstitutional".

A couple of weeks ago, the question of controlling trespassing/soliciting came up in our Neighborhood Watch meeting - I don't know if it's true throughout the state but both the sheriff's deputy and the police lieutenant who came to our meeting stated that if we, as individual home owners, post our property with "no trespassing" or "no soliciting" signs then anyone who does trespass or solicits has already, technically, committed a crime. However, no such crime has been committed on a property that isn't so posted until/unless the homeowner tells the person to lave and they don't. I see a "no firearms" sign in the same light - when you see a no firearms sign at the doorway to a business you are, in my mind, already guilty of criminal trespass because you already know you aren't supposed to be there and you intentionally entered the business anyway and such would be true whether there was any special verbage in the code about "firearms" or not.

Now, as a practical matter, whether it's a solicitor or a HCP holder carrying past a sign, I think it unlikely in the extreme that law enforcement is going to arrest anyone for criminal trespass unless the person makes a fuss/refuses to leave. However, I still think such a person has already broken the law because, except for circumstances where the government has said otherwise, a business owner/property owner has the very basic right to control what happens on/in his property.

Moreover, whether or not a person thinks their right to carry is "more important" than the rights of a property owner why would you walk into a business and give your custom to a business that obviously doesn't support your 2ND Amendment rights? I live by the motto that if my gun is welcome then my money isn't welcome either.

[macville]

"With a view" means with the intention of preventing crime. It doesn't mean the law will prevent crime. Of course the signs don't prevent crime. No gun control law actually prevents crime. But as far as constitutionality is concerned, the sign law is legit. I'm 100% supportive of property rights. Just remove the penalty for carrying past the sign and I'll be ok with it.

But how does posting having any intention of preventing crime? If it was a posting with metal detectors at the door and everyone search, it could prevent crime with "traditional" arms, true, but otherwise does nothing. The "view" to prevent crime is in regards to being able to limit weapons from people who have a history of crime, or metal illness, etc. In regards to places, it makes no sense for 99.9% of places because posting won't even have a view to prevent crime if their are no measures to make sure no one can carry.

For business owners to post, that's their right, but criminal penalties and unconstitutional under our State Consitution.

[macville]

The signage is simply a way for a business/property owner to make his policy known to the public and a business/property could post such signs whether there was any specific language in the code regarding a "firearm's sign" or not. I agree that the "special" criminal charge for HCP holders currently associated with such as sign may be "unconstitutional" but even if it is, I don't think we'll ever get very far with changing the law simply by crying that it's "unconstitutional".

Umm, so you can't sue about an unconstitutional law? Isn't that what both our TN Supreme Court and the Federal SC deal with every day? The issue is not about suing, but having the money to sue and fight it.

A couple of weeks ago, the question of controlling trespassing/soliciting came up in our Neighborhood Watch meeting - I don't know if it's true throughout the state but both the sheriff's deputy and the police lieutenant who came to our meeting stated that if we, as individual home owners, post our property with "no trespassing" or "no soliciting" signs then anyone who does trespass or solicits has already, technically, committed a crime. However, no such crime has been committed on a property that isn't so posted until/unless the homeowner tells the person to lave and they don't. I see a "no firearms" sign in the same light - when you see a no firearms sign at the doorway to a business you are, in my mind, already guilty of criminal trespass because you already know you aren't supposed to be there and you intentionally entered the business anyway and such would be true whether there was any special verbage in the code about "firearms" or not.

Here's the difference, you are talking about private property not open to the public. Therefore, there is no "given" consent that you are allowed to come onto the property. However, when you run a business open to the public, used for commercial activity, consent is given until you ask a person to leave. Nothing in TN Code 39-14-405, or any other part of the TN code that I can find, says that you may post signs against certain things that would then make walking past them criminal trespass. Basically, it's an all or nothing thing. Unless you post "no trespassing" signs, if someone walks past your no shoes sign, then only way they are trespassing is if you ask them to leave and they don't. Otherwise that, and any other sign (except currently weapons signs) hold no weight of the law.

BTW, not everything has to do with no supporting businesses. Other states show that when a no guns sign holds no weight, there are less. Plus, there are situations like hospitals. I have visited people in hospitals where I have had to disarm. Or here in Knoxville, there's not one hospital which I have found isn't posted (yet all have poorly trained, unarmed guards.) Do I have to chose between getting treated for stuff or being unarmed?

[Guest 270win]

We should get the law changed that these signs at local parks and at other properties are not a criminal offenses. I don't mind a property owner asking me to leave if the property mgmt sees my gun, but to have a handgun carry permit and still risk a criminal offense over a sign is stupid. You remove the criminal offense for the local parks and the other properties and we'd have it pretty good for people with handgun carry permits. The next thing would be to fix it where folks with handgun carry permits can carry on school property, and I mean a clean exception and we would have it good here.

[RobertNashville]

Umm, so you can't sue about an unconstitutional law? Isn't that what both our TN Supreme Court and the Federal SC deal with every day? The issue is not about suing, but having the money to sue and fight it.

Where did I say or imply that you "couldn't sue"??? Please feel free to sue as much as you want.

I just don't agree with your assessment that the signage is unconstitutional nor do I think that suing based on alleged unconstitutionality is the way to go about making changes but feel free to pursue that course if that's what you want.

Here's the difference, you are talking about private property not open to the public. Therefore, there is no "given" consent that you are allowed to come onto the property. However, when you run a business open to the public, used for commercial activity, consent is given until you ask a person to leave. Nothing in TN Code 39-14-405, or any other part of the TN code that I can find, says that you may post signs against certain things that would then make walking past them criminal trespass. Basically, it's an all or nothing thing. Unless you post "no trespassing" signs, if someone walks past your no shoes sign, then only way they are trespassing is if you ask them to leave and they don't. Otherwise that, and any other sign (except currently weapons signs) hold no weight of the law.

I don't agree.

When did it become a requirement that something must be "in the code" to be allowed?

Where in the code does it say that with regards to a "business open to the public, used for commercial activity", consent is "given" until taken away? Is that just your belief or is there something in the TN code that says that?

I think that the "difference" you cite is a difference in your viewpoint but not necessarily a difference in law.

That said, I agree with you to a point...I think the state, as a matter of good public policy, can and should reach reasonable accommodations between "property rights" and "2ND Amendment rights" but one "right", in my opinion, should never be allowed to run roughshod over the other.

BTW, not everything has to do with no supporting businesses. Other states show that when a no guns sign holds no weight, there are less. Plus, there are situations like hospitals. I have visited people in hospitals where I have had to disarm. Or here in Knoxville, there's not one hospital which I have found isn't posted (yet all have poorly trained, unarmed guards.) Do I have to chose between getting treated for stuff or being unarmed?

So what is your answer? Is the state supposed to force hospitals to allow firearms inside their buildings?

Most of the time, when I have a choice in the matter, I will go somewhere else as I don't like having to disarm in some places. However, sometimes it's necessary I do so and that's just the way it goes sometimes...we can't all get what we want; at lest not all the time.

[macville]

Where did I say or imply that you "couldn't sue"??? Please feel free to sue as much as you want.

I just don't agree with your assessment that the signage is unconstitutional nor do I think that suing based on alleged unconstitutionality is the way to go about making changes but feel free to pursue that course if that's what you want.

Sorry, you didn't say you couldn't, you just made it sound silly when it's not. Suing is the far better way to get a precedent over getting a law passed. If it is ruled constitutional, it's much harder to get around than a silly law. Plus, laws have to be constitutional (or are at least supposed to be.) If you got the law ruled constitutional, then you would have easy cases against school/park/etc carry. Instead of fighting multiple battles and gaining very little ground, you fight one big battle that doesn't hurt you if you lose and can still chip away at the small laws.

Note that when I am talking about the posting law I am simply talking about the penalties. Businesses can still post whatever they want, but it wouldn't hold any weight of the law until you are asked to leave.

I don't agree.

When did it become a requirement that something must be "in the code" to be allowed?

Where in the code does it say that with regards to a "business open to the public, used for commercial activity", consent is "given" until taken away? Is that just your belief or is there something in the TN code that says that?

I think that the "difference" you cite is a difference in your viewpoint but not necessarily a difference in law.

Umm actually section A of -405 says " (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."

That pretty clearly says that by opening up for public business you are allowing people to come onto your property until you tell them to leave. Read the whole section at mitchie.com and tell me where "things" can be prohibited (besides weapons.) Under current TN law, signs for things like clothing/etc can not lead to a trespassing charge unless you are asked to leave and don't. I believe the only way for signs to be trespassing enforceable are signs like, "employees only - no trespassing." You can restrict people, but not "things"

That said, I agree with you to a point...I think the state, as a matter of good public policy, can and should reach reasonable accommodations between "property rights" and "2ND Amendment rights" but one "right", in my opinion, should never be allowed to run roughshod over the other.

Wouldn't removing the crime of walking past a sign be the accommodation between people with HCP's and business owners? (which I am one myself, BTW) Handguns will be treated just like ANY other object in this world (which they are) and business owners can still post and ask people to leave if they want.

So what is your answer? Is the state supposed to force hospitals to allow firearms inside their buildings?

Most of the time, when I have a choice in the matter, I will go somewhere else as I don't like having to disarm in some places. However, sometimes it's necessary I do so and that's just the way it goes sometimes...we can't all get what we want; at lest not all the time.

They are already force them to treat people they know can't pay their bills. What's the difference? People will say, "it's to save lives" What the crap do I carry my gun if it's not to save a life-mine or my family's? Where do their property rights trump my right to be able to protect myself and my family? I have far less of an issue in places that are posted and are secure areas (like the city/county building here in knoxville.) But all the hospitals I've visited in Knoxville are a joke when it comes to security. When my daughters were born at Park West (where the shooting happened a year ago) this past march I heard one of the guards saying to a nurse that all they would give them was a taser. Yep, still can walk through the front door carrying anything you can remotely conceal (never seen a guard at the front door, only the ER doors) and their guards only carry a taser??? IT's a joke and a half! If they are going to force me to give up my right to self defense with proper tools, then they need to provide a secure area with armed guards, because that's the only way security is remotely close to a firearm on my hip.

The question it comes down to are, what's more important, humans or property? Maybe that's a little generalization, but isn't that the reason we can't shoot people over stealing things? Only if our life is threatened?