Posting Requirement Change..

[Guest nraforlife]

IMHO, the legislature needs to really change the way the off limit postings are done.

I was just a the Regal Theater at Turkey Creek, Knoxville TN area, and it is posted. But the posting is only at the most a 1.5 by 3.5 display of a pistol with a red line through it and the wording firearms are prohibited at this location under it. Now this posting is BS as the only way I saw it was that I had to go out of my way to find it.

Note this posting was

Not at the ticket counter

Not on any of the entrance doors

But is instead on a side panel by one set of doors along with their we take Visa, Master Card, Amex signs.

This makes the place a violation magnet and the law needs to be changed to make posting requirements standard else the posting is invalid and no penalties can be enacted - except the request to ask you to leave.

ALL entrances should have to have the NO Gun posting, all signs should be of a certain min size, 3 x 3 or 4 x 4, I do not think that wording is required just a big enough sign and placed so that they can be seen readily.

[Fallguy]

This does not sound like a legal posting therefore it would not be a violation of the law if you carried inside. Of course they could ask you to leave but IMO you could not be charged with a violation of the law unless you refused to leave.

The law does say it must be posted at every entrance to the area that carry is prohibited. It also says that it must contain wording "substantially similar" to the statute.

In some ways I agree the law does need some tweaking, such as a uniform size of the sign, size of the letters nd maybe the statute 39-17-1359 specifically mentioned in the wording. But I am also worried if the legislature got to messing with this there is no telling what they could come up with to either make it more confusing and/or easier for places to be posted.

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

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

[Guest nraforlife]

Thanks. Did not think it was valid.

[cadillacdude1975]

just like the BS signs at all the Waffle House locations. carry away.

[Guest db99wj]

I have seen one sign no make that 2 signs in person. 1 at every entrance of the Baptist Hospital in East Memphis, it was properly worded and huge and green, the other was recently at the zoo and I was actually reading all the prohibited items, it must says blah blah blah, Firearms, blah blah blah in bullet form.

Other than that, I really don't look for signs, I don't read all the signs on any business that I go into. I know where and where I can't legally carry, other than that.....the sign better be obvious and legal, like it is supposed to be by law or I don't know about any signs.

[saintsfanbrian]

I want the legislature not to say a danged thing about the signs. As long as they are as vague in the wording of the statute as they are and business owners don't understand it I am happy ignoring their wrongly posted signs. A company that truly doesn't want firearms in their establishment will put up metal detectors or will get the legislators to make it a felony.

[Mike.357]

+1 to what Brian says.

I wonder as well if the places that are posted incorrectly do so on purpose. This would appease the million mommies and such and also allows us to carry. The mommies surely are not smart enough to know that incorrect postings do not count.

[Guest canynracer]

I have seen one sign no make that 2 signs in person. 1 at every entrance of the Baptist Hospital in East Memphis, it was properly worded and huge and green, the other was recently at the zoo and I was actually reading all the prohibited items, it must says blah blah blah, Firearms, blah blah blah in bullet form.

Other than that, I really don't look for signs, I don't read all the signs on any business that I go into. I know where and where I can't legally carry, other than that.....the sign better be obvious and legal, like it is supposed to be by law or I don't know about any signs.

Memphis Airport has em too

[Guest canynracer]

+1 to what Brian says.

I wonder as well if the places that are posted incorrectly do so on purpose. This would appease the million mommies and such and also allows us to carry. The mommies surely are not smart enough to know that incorrect postings do not count.

could be...it also appeases the sheep that work there...that is why they freak if they happen to notice it...

[saintsfanbrian]

When did they put them up? The last time I was there, the only properly worded sign that I saw was about smoking within 100 feet of the building or some crap like that.

As long as you are not going to the gate, no one is going to be putting you through a metal detector and if they do, just make sure you are carrying your Glock 7 that day.

[Guest sling]

just make sure you are carrying your Glock 7 that day.

Baahahaha...

[Punisher84]

Those crap signs at the Zoo and malls where is says prohibited items are : Baggy Pants, green hair, Keyboard Neck-Ties, Skateboards, Firearms, Knives, and Smoking Indoors are not legal and the most they can ask you to do is leave. Now, if you refuse to leave you can be charged with Criminal trespass and maybe Disorderly Conduct.

[SkWaShDeM]

Every Regal theater I've ever been to has had a Ghostbuster sign like that.

[PaiMei]

When did they put them up? The last time I was there, the only properly worded sign that I saw was about smoking within 100 feet of the building or some crap like that.

As long as you are not going to the gate, no one is going to be putting you through a metal detector and if they do, just make sure you are carrying your Glock 7 that day.

Ha!

[ame=

]

[/ame]

[Fallguy]

Short of places that are open to the public not being allowed to post...

The two changes I would like to see are...

1.) The sign not carry the weight of law. As it is now, if it is a properly worded and placed sign and you carry past it, that is a violation of the law at that moment. In many states if you carry past such a sign it is not a violation of the law, but just of thats company's policy.

2.) A uniform size, coloring, wording of "proper" sign so that it is somewhat obnoxious in appearance. Maybe that way property owners would think twice about posting one. If one was posted it would be obvious to even those that don't carry that the particular property owner was an anti-.

While not exactly related to posting of sign requiremnts.... Two other changes that might help is:

1.) Something that would exempt property owners of any liability of the actions of a HCP holder on their property.

2.) Something that would hold property owners liable for injuries to patrons if the do ban HCP holders from the ability to carry on their property.

[Guest nraforlife]

Short of places that are open to the public not being allowed to post...

The two changes I would like to see are...

1.) The sign not carry the weight of law. As it is now, if it is a properly worded and placed sign and you carry past it, that is a violation of the law at that moment. In many states if you carry past such a sign it is not a violation of the law, but just of thats company's policy.

2.) A uniform size, coloring, wording of "proper" sign so that it is somewhat obnoxious in appearance. Maybe that way property owners would think twice about posting one. If one was posted it would be obvious to even those that don't carry that the particular property owner was an anti-.

While not exactly related to posting of sign requiremnts.... Two other changes that might help is:

1.) Something that would exempt property owners of any liability of the actions of a HCP holder on their property.

2.) Something that would hold property owners liable for injuries to patrons if the do ban HCP holders from the ability to carry on their property.

Agree 100%.

Could not a bill stating something to the effect that if a permit holder was injured/killed or another was injured/killed due to the permit holder following the law and not carrying in a State law prohibited location that the state would; incur all medical expenses and loss of income resulting from such incident. In the case of death(s), a tax free death benefit payment would be issued to each victims family of no less than $5 million adjusted for inflation as of the enactment of this law.

Note that I state State Law prohibited location, private business could still post if they wanted to and be immune from this law. The State could not mandate no carry locations unless willing to assume medical and financial responsibility for those time when injuries, murders, rapes, etc could have been prevented had permit holders had the ability to defend themselves or others but were denied so by State mandated no carry location designations. This would be beneficial for those who are supposedly protected by a piece of paper called a restraining order.

I mean who could actually go back to their constituents, besides King Naifeh, and defend why they voted against such a common sense law.

[strickj]

Yall need to watch that second to last video.I have it in my favs and been meaning to post it here for a while.The baiotch gets pwnd

[Guest SUNTZU]

I thought that this card was a good way to educate businesses that prohibit weapons.

I wonder if we can make something similar?

[Guest nraforlife]

I thought that this card was a good way to educate businesses that prohibit weapons.

I wonder if we can make something similar?

Easily done by anyone with MS Publisher or similar software.

[Guest UofM Matt]

I have seen one sign no make that 2 signs in person. 1 at every entrance of the Baptist Hospital in East Memphis, it was properly worded and huge and green, the other was recently at the zoo and I was actually reading all the prohibited items, it must says blah blah blah, Firearms, blah blah blah in bullet form.

I was there today and only saw the ghostbusters signs on the sliding doors leading to the main lobby. I didn't see green signs...perhaps I didn't look close enough.

Edited May 13, 2008 by UofM Matt

[Guest db99wj]

I was there today and only saw the ghostbusters signs on the sliding doors leading to the main lobby. I didn't see green signs...perhaps I didn't look close enough.

Hmm, I re-read my post, let me clarify, it was the Baptist East Women's Hospital that had the no gun sign, we were having a baby. Sorry. I actually took a picture of it. I will post it in a minute.

Edit: here is the picture.

[Guest nraforlife]

Ok, properly posted and worded. I can live with that, don't like it BUT it is their right to post and the BG will leave the premises upon seeing the sign so I feel all safe and secure.

[Guest db99wj]

While we were there, some BG's were breaking into cars out on the lot. But we felt safe.

[Guest UofM Matt]

Hmm, I re-read my post, let me clarify, it was the Baptist East Women's Hospital that had the no gun sign, we were having a baby. Sorry. I actually took a picture of it. I will post it in a minute.

Ok, right. I was in the actual Baptist East, not the Women's Hospital. I'm thinking that perhaps I didn't look close enough, because it would be logical that if it were posted on one, it would be on the other, although I swear I didn't see anything. Good to see an example of a proper posting though. Now I definitely know what to look for.

[Guest db99wj]

Ok, right. I was in the actual Baptist East, not the Women's Hospital. I'm thinking that perhaps I didn't look close enough, because it would be logical that if it were posted on one, it would be on the other, although I swear I didn't see anything. Good to see an example of a proper posting though. Now I definitely know what to look for.

You would think that they would have them on both. I usually don't "look" for signs, ignorance is bliss and concealed is concealed;), but that sign was on the the main entrance and the entrance between the building and the parking garage. Very visable.