Fire Arm Signage

[Guest jackdog]

As fate would have it I ventured from my reclusive wooded acreage, to Clarksville today. Glock 23 Iwb 4 oclock and Kel-tec in my left front pocket. I was dragged by the boss to the mall, a fate I wish on no mortal man

As we entered the mall I read their door sign. the sign was 4" by roughly 18"

It started with a welcome statement and progressed down to the nono's no shirt no shoes ETC.ETC.near the end in not so big letters was no weapons.

OK heres my Question. Does anyone know what the standards are for no weapons signage? What is the penalty for disobeying no weapons signs if they are not with in the state guidelines and what is the penalty for disobeying the signs if they do meet the state standards.

To me the mall was trying to do a little CYA while at the same time not offending the folks that do carry. ( YES I carried in the mall)

Why? Well a couple of weeks ago a fool shot up a mall and killed a bunch of folks. So I really don't want my Obit to read " killed in the mall but obeyed a dumb ass sign.

We live in a state that will gladly take our money for a permit, but then will let anyone and his brother stop us from our right to self defense. :mad:

Jack dog

"Hero's? The only Hero's I know died in combat, we owe it to them to excel with our lives."

[Guest jackdog]

Dang it that was three questions, sorry old with moss growing on brain cells.

But hey if you know the answers post them.

Jack dog

"Hero's? The only Hero's I know died in combat, we owe it to them to excel with our lives."

[Guest Steelharp]

Man... I remember being told at my carry class that if the sign did not meet the legal "requirements" (whatever that may be), you would not have a problem. Everybody has such differing knowledge when it comes to firearms, though... even folks working at ATF seem to have different opinions on things...

[SkWaShDeM]

Below is the section of the code dealing with postings. I am not a lawyer, but the short version is, if they do not post the sign that is very similar to this:

"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)" the sign holds no legal standing and all they can do is ask that you leave. The cute little circle and slash no weapon signs may be used in addition to the above, but not in place of. A simple "No weapons" sign is not legally binding. In short, if it does not say "Pursuant to Chapter & Verse of TCA, so on and so forth", all they can do is ask me to leave. If they ask and I refuse, then I can be charged with trespassing, but since I'm a nice guy and know they don't want my money or patronage anyway if they're asking the nice, responsibly armed citizens to leave, I'll take my money elsewhere.

If they tell you that it's simply a rule that there be no weapons on the property, rather than in the building, they still aren't in compliance. They have to post at the edge of the property. I.E., large, easy to read signs at the entrances to the parking lots that can be read while driving.

I've taken the liberty of highlighting some of the more important parts of this section of TCA by putting them in bold text. And as far as CYA actions on the part of the mall, section B is worth a chuckle.

**************************

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

(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 such individual, corporation, business entity or government entity. Notice of such 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 any such property as well as within the confines of a building located on such 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 such governmental entity.

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

***********************

[Guest GlocKingTN]

I was told the same things as Steelharp, while I was going through class. Even though when I tell someone that, they look at me like Im the Dumb one! I had a couple of buddies that argued the other night for 2 hours about carrying in a bank! We are still not perfectly clear on the legality of it yet!

[Guest Steelharp]

It is perfectly legal to carry in a bank... unless you're planning on robbing it!

[Guest GlocKingTN]

It is perfectly legal to carry in a bank... unless you're planning on robbing it!

The 2 buddies that were arguing about the whole thing, were actually brothers as well. One of which works in a bank. He swares you cant carry in a bank. I told him, as long as it wasn't posted "according to the law", it wasnt legal anyway, even if it was posted! I also told him, all they could do was ask me/us to leave, if they noticed us carrying!

[Guest Archimedes]

Yeah, I've had this discussion before....

"You wear that thing in the bank?!!"

Yah.

"What if they think you are trying to rob the place?"

They'd be pretty dumb to think I'm robbing the place with my check(containing my address, social sec #. and bank account) in hand.

'Course, there have been some pretty stupid attempts at bank robbery.

~Archi

[Guest jackdog]

Skwashdem, Thanks for the info.

[Guest Len]

Excellent info Skwashdem! Ignorance of the law is no excuse folks! This not only applies to legally armed citizens, but also those who exercise their property rights to exclude firearms from their premises.

I am NOT a lawyer, but from what I understand, unless the signs conform to the TCA sections listed by Skwashdem, the do NOT have legal standing.

That said, if you are approached by an empoyee of a business that is improperly posted and are asked to leave, it is prudent to do so. Private property owners/managers have great discretion over allowing people to be on or not on their property. You certainly may complain to the property owners, point out the TCA code, etc. Often times, a mention to the owner/manager will be enough to lift the "ban." Friend of mine who carries 24/7 (yeah, I'm pretty sure he sleeps with his Glock 17 attached to him in some way...) was asked to leave a large home improvement store (forget which one), he later called the manager, had a nice chat, and now is allowed in (as are all legal permit holders). Sometimes a little education is all it takes. Next step of course is to take your business elsewhere.

As for the mall, I also dread even driving by the place. However, if one must venture forth, be aware that -in Nashville at least- there has been documented gang activity in certain malls. If you are a legally armed citizen and the property is not legally posted, it is prudent to know your rights and exercise them accordingly.

Len

[SkWaShDeM]

Just a note, properly posted properties can prevent permit holders from carrying as well. Only LEO's are exempted everywhere they go. The language of the sign determines if permit holders may carry on the property. If it says: "Persuant to TCA C&V, no weapons are allowed on this property unless law enforcement or licensed by the state." Or something along those lines, you can carry anyway, but if it's just like it's written in TCA, nobody but LEO may carry.

[Guest GlocKingTN]

That was my understanding too skwashdem!

[Guest db99wj]

No legal law that says you can't carry in a bank. The bank can have policy like other business owners but there is not a law. My branch is pro gun by the way . My bank on the other hand says employees can't carry into work or while on bank business. Haven't seen anything yet that says the public can't.

I have yet to see a sign that says no guns. From what I remember at the malls, haven't been in a long while, thank goodness, that there is a list of things not allowed, drinking, skateboarding, weapons etc, seems that they have listed things that are illegal in activity. Open container, loitering, armed robbery, law biding citizens with a license of the state are doing none of those so carry is allowed. This is my interpretation. If it says no handguns including permit holders and the sign meets the letter of the law, than that is a different issue. If I happen to show my concealed weapon and am asked to leave, than so be it.

That's my:2cents:

[Guest GlocKingTN]

Well, at least in Memphis, if your asked to leave that Mall, you can go down the street to the next one!

[Guest jackdog]

If I was in Memphis, I'd be carrying period, sign or not. I do not go into a combat zone with a whistle and a Frisbee.

[saintsfanbrian]

That is my point exactly, Jackdog. Very few places I don't carry.

[Marswolf]

Have to watch the surrounding states on bank carry. I know it is banned in North Carolina, but Tennessee is OK.

My wife and I ended up being out at lunch today, so we ate in a nice restaurant. I think they serve beer, although I didn't see any signs about it or anyone drinking anything alcoholic. My gun was concealed on me. While I do have a super-identity card, I'm not technically law enforcement. I'm carrying anyway. We had a couple of cars get broken into in the Tri-Cities at restaurants a couple of nights ago. The public is safer with the guns on the patrons.

[Guest jackdog]

Mars I agree with you, technically we should not be carrying in a lot of circumstances, but the other options are some times far worse. We try to avoid places where guns are taboo. But If you conceal properly it will probably not be an issue. What good is a gun if you can't carry it. I think my worst fear is that if I were to get caught by happen stance it would give the anti gunners more ammo. But then protecting my wife and my life has to take precedence over that issue as well. I will do all in my power to obey the laws, but I refuse to sacrifice my safety for laws that are written more often or not to be politically correct, or to appease the anti gun crowd.

[Guest Phantom6]

Columbine in Littleton, Co (1999), Heath High School in Paducah, KY (1998), Beslan, North Ossetia, Russia(2004), Trolley Square Mall (2007), Tacoma Mall (2005), Atlanta brokerage offices (1999), Lubby's restaurant in Killeen, TX (1991), Washington, DC (any given day), and the list goes on and on and on. As has been shown time and time again, "Weapons Free Zones" are the biggest killing zones.

As a DOS Certified Instructor I would never advise someone to break the law but rather, I would submit that they should listen to their "inner voice". If in doing so they run contrary to the law then they should be prepared to face the consequences which would of course, be far less severe than the fate suffered by the innocents in the incidents listed above.