Open carry triggers business to post gun buster.

[Dolomite_supafly]

As far as trespass goes it isn't in the criminal charge itself it is in the defense for that charge. You may be initially charged with trespass but it doesn't mean you are guilty of it. It is perfectly legal for you to walk onto someone else's property providing one of the following conditions are met:

( 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.

As far as signs go it is the same as being told to leave or not enter the property:

© 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.

But the prosecution would have a hard time proving you saw the signs prior to entering. It would be very difficult to prove what someone saw or knew. Now if the sign was posted all over a door and you walked through that door it would be hard but if there was a small sign 100 yards away it would be very difficult.

Dolomite

[macville]

BTW, I still have yet to have anyone (on here or anywhere else) who's been able to explain how criminal penalties for walking past a sign, or carrying into a school/park are constitutional when you consider "with a view to prevent crime." When you have laws that require a permit to carry legally, there's no good argument, that I've heard yet, on how preventing a law abiding citizen from carrying certain places amounts to "with a view to prevent crime." I believe that this argument (using the TN constitution) is a good way to help open people's eyes to the fact that law abiding citizens are not the criminals and shouldn't be treated like them.

[RobertNashville]

...

How can one infer consent to enter a business if the business has said if you are doing/carrying "X" you are not welcome here? If the sign says you can't there is nothing to infer.

I see nothing unconstitutional about the signage nor do I see any reason to eliminate all penalties for someone who walks past a "No Firearms" sign. What does need to change is the seriousness of the charge...there is nothing fair or equal when the criminal charge against an HCP holder who walks past a sign is more harsh/different than a non-HCP holder who does the exact same thing. As long as the HCP holder isn't brandishing his weapon, threatening people, etc. then simple trespassing is as serious as the change needs to be.

I'm sorry that you don't like your local hospitals' policies or their security provisions...I sympathize...but your "right" to carry a firearm does not and should not trump the hospital's right to set the rules that they want to set.

In some states, you can use deadly force to protect property but that's not the issue - "property rights" is not about the "property" nor does the property have rights...it's the entity (person/business, etc.) that has the rights to enjoy their property and set the rules for their property as they see fit.

[RobertNashville]

BTW, I still have yet to have anyone (on here or anywhere else) who's been able to explain how criminal penalties for walking past a sign, or carrying into a school/park are constitutional when you consider "with a view to prevent crime." When you have laws that require a permit to carry legally, there's no good argument, that I've heard yet, on how preventing a law abiding citizen from carrying certain places amounts to "with a view to prevent crime." I believe that this argument (using the TN constitution) is a good way to help open people's eyes to the fact that law abiding citizens are not the criminals and shouldn't be treated like them.

It seems that you are operating under the belief that we have an absolute right to go armed in Tennessee. However, under the Tennessee Constitution; we do not...our ability to legally carry a weapon on our person is an exception to the law as it currently exists. As such, concentrating on the "with a view to prevent crime" with regards to the constitutionality of signage, and where we should be allow to carry is, I think, a read hearing.

I do think that we (anyone who hasn't lost their rights through due process) SHOULD, per the U.S. Constitution, be able to carry any type of arm at any place and any time but we can't do so under the Tennessee Constitution and we can't even do so under the U.S. Constitution at the present time as the courts and the federal govt is applying the laws (otherwise, we could all be walking around with fully automatic weapons).

[Oh Shoot]

....

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 ...

It's not. Law says owner is "authorized to prohibit the possession of weapons by any person", so person without an HCP is guilty of this also, as I read statute.

HCP holders are mentioned specifically to be clear they are included in the "any person" category.

So a non-license holder could just be convicted of 1359 in addition to 1307.

- OS

[macville]

How can one infer consent to enter a business if the business has said if you are doing/carrying "X" you are not welcome here? If the sign says you can't there is nothing to infer.

I see nothing unconstitutional about the signage nor do I see any reason to eliminate all penalties for someone who walks past a "No Firearms" sign. What does need to change is the seriousness of the charge...there is nothing fair or equal when the criminal charge against an HCP holder who walks past a sign is more harsh/different than a non-HCP holder who does the exact same thing. As long as the HCP holder isn't brandishing his weapon, threatening people, etc. then simple trespassing is as serious as the change needs to be.

Once can infer consent because the law doesn't speak (except with regards to weapons due to -1359) to consent being conditional on if you are wearing something, color of your skin, etc. The law only talks about posting no trespassing signs, nothing else. It's pretty clear in that regards. If a business is open to the public and isn't posted "no trespassing", until you are asked to leave you have a defense to trespassing.

I disagree that there should be any trespassing charge for carrying past a sign. Since it's not a crime to walk past any other "no sign" in TN (except for no smoking signs due to a statewide law), it shouldn't be any sort of crime either. We need to stop looking at objects designed as weapons as something special and instead focus on people. You can make a weapon out almost anything, and many thing make pretty good weapons in a pinch. Law abiding citizens are that and we need to focus on that. If we can get that through people's thick skulls you aren't going to see any gunbuster signs because people aren't going to worry.

So if a hospital is going to set the rules, then why can't they be libel for my safety? If someone comes in and shoots me when I could have defended myself, how are their actions not directly affecting me, therefore making them libel. Come on, we've got people winning lawsuits over hot coffee, why not something even more clear cut like that?

The other question to ask is, are insurance companies telling businesses to post. From a few recent stories, it sounds like they may.

[DaveTN]

Guns, liquor and cigarettes. Three things you don’t ever have to worry about being forced to allow on private property or in a private business.

[redstategunnut]

libel= printing a falsehood about a person

liable= responsible for

not from Black's, but close enough for use in a forum.

carry on

[Dolomite_supafly]

Guns, liquor and cigarettes. Three things you don’t ever have to worry about being forced to allow on private property or in a private business.

Free speech as well. There is no obligation to allow someone to say what they want on your private property.

Dolomite

[RobertNashville]

It's not. Law says owner is "authorized to prohibit the possession of weapons by any person", so person without an HCP is guilty of this also, as I read statute.

HCP holders are mentioned specifically to be clear they are included in the "any person" category.

So a non-license holder could just be convicted of 1359 in addition to 1307.

- OS

I don’t claim any particular expertise in Tennessee code and if anyone knows I'm wrong in my understanding, please feel free to correct but but I think you are incorrect.

The specified criminal charge against an HCP holder who enters a properly posted location is a class B misdemeanor; the same person without a HCP (first offense) is a class C misdemeanor.

With regards to trespass in Tennessee when trespass occurs without force to enter the premises, it’s not a criminal offense at all; it’s strictly a civil matter…if the incident is raised to criminal trespass it’s still just a class C misdemeanor.

Now, maybe this is all academic…maybe no HCP holder has ever or will ever be charged under that code (at least not if he/she doesn’t make an ass of him/herself) but I do think we have a disparity here…I see no convincing rational for starting at the class B level for an HCP holder but class c for a non HCP holder and/or someone committing criminal trespass.

[RobertNashville]

Free speech as well. There is no obligation to allow someone to say what they want on your private property.

Dolomite

Or on a website/forum or any other medium of communication that the speaker isn't paying for.

[RobertNashville]

Once can infer consent because the law doesn't speak (except with regards to weapons due to -1359) to consent being conditional on if you are wearing something, color of your skin, etc. The law only talks about posting no trespassing signs, nothing else. It's pretty clear in that regards. If a business is open to the public and isn't posted "no trespassing", until you are asked to leave you have a defense to trespassing.

I disagree that there should be any trespassing charge for carrying past a sign. Since it's not a crime to walk past any other "no sign" in TN (except for no smoking signs due to a statewide law), it shouldn't be any sort of crime either. We need to stop looking at objects designed as weapons as something special and instead focus on people. You can make a weapon out almost anything, and many thing make pretty good weapons in a pinch. Law abiding citizens are that and we need to focus on that. If we can get that through people's thick skulls you aren't going to see any gunbuster signs because people aren't going to worry.

So if a hospital is going to set the rules, then why can't they be libel for my safety? If someone comes in and shoots me when I could have defended myself, how are their actions not directly affecting me, therefore making them libel. Come on, we've got people winning lawsuits over hot coffee, why not something even more clear cut like that?

The other question to ask is, are insurance companies telling businesses to post. From a few recent stories, it sounds like they may.

I think you are really grasping at straws here...if a business says you with your firearm aren't welcome then you KNOW you aren't welcome and that you don not have consent to enter with your firearm...you don't have to be an attorney to figure that out.

I know you don't think that it should be against the law to walk past a "No Firearms" sign...I've no doubt that a lot of people agree with you...I just don't see it your way.

I can't help your hospital situation...if something actually happens...if you ARE hurt and the hospital knew there was significant risk to its patrons and did nothing then you may have a good civil liability case. However, that doesn't mean they are obligated to allow you to carry a firearm into their hospital.

[Oh Shoot]

...The specified criminal charge against an HCP holder who enters a properly posted location is a class B misdemeanor; the same person without a HCP (first offense) is a class C misdemeanor....

Without a permit, it's 1307 for a non HCP holder, Class A misdemeanor (place open to the public where 1 or more folks are present). The posting is immaterial in this charge.

One without HCP would also be guilty of violating 1359, an additional Class B misdemeanor.

- OS

Edited September 3, 2011 by OhShoot

[macville]

I think you are really grasping at straws here...if a business says you with your firearm aren't welcome then you KNOW you aren't welcome and that you don not have consent to enter with your firearm...you don't have to be an attorney to figure that out.

I know you don't think that it should be against the law to walk past a "No Firearms" sign...I've no doubt that a lot of people agree with you...I just don't see it your way.

I am solely going what the TN code says and doesn't say. Except when it comes to weapons, there is no law in TN that makes it automatically trespassing if you walk past a "no whatever" sign (smoking doesn't bring up a trespassing charge though, just a civil fine.) The only way you can tell someone they are not welcome automatically is to put up a no trespassing sign. Otherwise, you have the defense that consent was given, even if there is a "no shoes/no service" sign and you walk in with no shoes on. Nothing in the TN code lists anything that allows any such "no" signs to hold any force except for a "no trespassing" sign--which a no "whatever" sign does not mean "no trespassing." That is the point I am trying to get you to understand. Why should a no guns sign hold force of law when a "no shoes, no lamas, no polkadot sweaters" sign doesn't?

Thank you redstategunnut for point out my word error about "liable".

[RobertNashville]

I am solely going what the TN code says and doesn't say.

And the TN code says that if you carry a firearm into a properly posted property you've committed a crime - it is automatic and it doesn't need interpretation...it's a SIGN that says you aren't welcome if you are carrying a firearm.

I can't help that criminal charges aren't attached to "other signs"...however, even if there were; I doubt it would affect your position regarding the charges attached to a no firearms sign.

Why should a no guns sign hold force of law when a "no shoes, no lamas, no polkadot sweaters" sign doesn't?

Maybe there needs to be a criminal penalty (how serious a penalty is another matter) attached because if there wasn't, people would just ignore the signs and the rights of the property owner and walk right past them walk - right past them even though they know, because of the signage, that they with their firearm aren't welcome and that they don't have consent to enter the property with their firearm.

I don't believe that carrying a firearm into a business that is posted against it should be a serious crime...I also know that there are many firearm enthusiasts who think there shouldn't be any penalty at all. However; when I hear people take that position it implies to me that what they really want is the ability to break the law with no consequences and with no regard to the property rights of others - I find that a little disquieting.

Firearm enthusiasts; especially those who carry a firearm for their own protection, make a lot of noise about their rights and how they are law-abiding citizens but yet they seem to want to violate the law and ignore the rights of others if obeying the law and respecting the rights of others is inconvenient.

Edited September 3, 2011 by RobertNashville

[Guest bkelm18]

Firearm enthusiasts; especially those who carry a firearm for their own protection, make a lot of noise about their rights and how they are law-abiding citizens but yet they seem to want to violate the law and ignore the rights of others if obeying the law and respecting the rights of others is inconvenient.

+1. We can't always have our cake and eat it too.

[Fallguy]

It's not. Law says owner is "authorized to prohibit the possession of weapons by any person", so person without an HCP is guilty of this also, as I read statute.

HCP holders are mentioned specifically to be clear they are included in the "any person" category.

So a non-license holder could just be convicted of 1359 in addition to 1307.

- OS

Hmmmm..interesting (especially as you know the discussion on another board)

I guess this is techinically possible, but I would think most of the time somoene would just be charged with 1307 if they didn't have a HCP since the penalty for 1359 is a $500 fine and a conviction of 1307 could be even more than that and jail time.

[Fallguy]

Guns, liquor and cigarettes. Three things you don’t ever have to worry about being forced to allow on private property or in a private business.

True.....

but reminds me of one of my favorite sayings...

[Guest justluck]

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.

This was said way back on the first page.

There is a place for open carry, but I don't think it is in urban settings and in/around gatherings of multitudes of people. I prefer concealed carry; it causes far less problems for gun owners and our right to bear arms. I also only carry on a few occasions, situations where I consider it a necessity.

And, private property owners and store owners should have the right to refuse firearms on THEIR property if they choose. Also, you can choose to not frequent that store if you choose, but you'll just be cutting your own nose off to spite you own face. That store owner will probably lose more people than just you if he lets you OC in his store.

Edited September 3, 2011 by justluck

[Oh Shoot]

Hmmmm..interesting (especially as you know the discussion on another board)

I guess this is techinically possible, but I would think most of the time somoene would just be charged with 1307 if they didn't have a HCP since the penalty for 1359 is a $500 fine and a conviction of 1307 could be even more than that and jail time.

Yah, I dunno.

Tell ya the truth, I've always sort of assumed that 1359 was aimed only at HCP holders, but since that other discussion trailed off, I actually more closely read and considered the statute. And see no reason why someone without an HCP might not be charged with it as an additional count.

Folks are routinely charged with multiple criminal charges all related to the same act, some with more severe penalties than the other, not just the most serious one. There seems no question that one would be guilty of both.

Up to the arresting officers and the DA's office, always, so I wouldn't necessarily expect any consistency across the state in such a situation.

- OS

Edited September 3, 2011 by OhShoot

[Fallguy]

Yah, I dunno.

Tell ya the truth, I've always sort of assumed that 1359 was aimed only at HCP holders, but since that other discussion trailed off, I actually more closely read and considered the statute. And see no reason why someone without an HCP might not be charged with it as an additional count.

Folks are routinely charged with multiple criminal counts, some with more severe penalties than the other, not just the most serious charge. There seems no question that one would be guilty of both.

Up to the arresting officers and the DA's office, always, so I wouldn't necessarily expect any consistency across the state in such a situation.

- OS

Well I don't disagree...the way I read 1359 a property owner can ban any or all weapons, like knives, batons etc... and since you either don't need a HCP for those and/or it doesn't cover some of those it would seem it could apply to anyone. Like someone carrying a knife if the owner has said No Weapons, No Knives or as a Circle and Slash symbol with a knife in it (Have seen one with a knife and gun both in it).

Yes, Fold are charged with multiple counts, but not usually for exactly the same thing....like if someone is swerving then stopped and found to be DUI, they're not usually charged with failure to maintain control as well.....

But I also agree on the lack of consitency...depending on what is posted in the other forum, I am already wording some questions to possible pose to the AG through my Rep.....

[Oh Shoot]

...Yes, Fold are charged with multiple counts, but not usually for exactly the same thing....like if someone is swerving then stopped and found to be DUI, they're not usually charged with failure to maintain control as well.....

No, but if applicable, they are charged with DUI and driving on revoked license, etc., both charges stemming from the same act, ie driving.

Certainly, if would be normal to charge a felon with both illegal carry and possession of weapon by a felon. Or a non HCPer toting an unlicensed short barreled shotgun or pistol with silencer with illegal carrying of a weapon and possession of an prohibited weapon. Casey Anthony was charged with both first degree murder and aggravated manslaughter etc etc.

- OS

[Fallguy]

No, but if applicable, they are charged with DUI and driving on revoked license, etc., both charges stemming from the same act, ie driving.

Certainly, if would be normal to charge a felon with both illegal carry and possession of weapon by a felon. Or a non HCPer toting an unlicensed short barreled shotgun or pistol with silencer with illegal carrying of a weapon and possession of an prohibited weapon. Casey Anthony was charged with both first degree murder and aggravated manslaughter etc etc.

- OS

Yeah...but DUI and Driving on revoked are clearly two different things although caused by the same action.

If you don't have a HCP I agree that you could be charged with 1307 and 1359, I just don't think it is likely. However that isn't based on anything but opinion since as far as we know, not even a HCP holder has been charged with 1359.

[Curiousgb]

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

- OS

I haven't seen my local Costco's posted.

[gl19gobang]

ye ha !!!

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!