CCW Off limit thoughts?

[Mousegun]

We all know that we are taking a good beating from "King Jimmy" when it comes to restaurant, school, and park carry but I would like a few opinions about off limit carry in posted areas.

Now I know all the arguments about doing business elsewhere and a business' right to post etc. but what about the many states where the sign carries no legal value unless you are asked to leave and you refuse (then a trespassing or disturbing the peace could be issued).

In my opinion a posted sign upstages your right to self defense as well as the State's granted "legal" ability for you to carry after going through the process even though the State made this the law, it could have gone the other way. I would love to see Tennessee become one of those states where the poster does not have the effective right to write the law and make a person a criminal if they get made carrying.

Some may say you get what you pay for if you violate the sign but there may be situations where the practicality of storing a firearm vs. the need to patronize an establishment becomes extremely difficult. EG: while out and about, I encountered a business with such sign and was nearly a mile from my vehicle. I had to do some fast double talking to the people I was with, much to the chagrin of my wife, why I wouldn't go along with the group. I got out of that one relatively unscathed but it did get me thinking about this condition.

I know that issues like restaurant carry is more in the forefront of our arguments but this is one that may make for a good change also ---- after getting rid of the "Jimmy".

[GLOCKMEISTER]

out of sight out of mind.....

[Guest nraforlife]

out of sight out of mind.....

10-4 on that. Why I love a concealment shirt. Nothing on the belt to catch ANYONE's eye, no awkwardness in the bathroom, no issues turning twisting, lifting, bending, etc.. Nobody but God and I know if I have a firearm or not.

It is NOT the fastest draw, far far from it, but....

[Guest jackdog]

your choice your safety, tough call, but one we all must make.

[DWARREN123]

Like the military, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".

[Fallguy]

Like the military, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".

[jay1313g]

Would the same people that post the sign be the same ones to thank you for saving their life?

[Guest Chisum]

It's nobody's business but mine, so I won't answer whether or not I would ignore the signs. That said, something I've given a lot of thought to lately is how it would affect our right to carry if people started getting busted for carrying off-limits.

[Guest kwikrnu]

You shouldn't carry where it is illegal. If caught it may affect your future rights to carry.

[Guest nraforlife]

It's nobody's business but mine, so I won't answer whether or not I would ignore the signs. That said, something I've given a lot of thought to lately is how it would affect our right to carry if people started getting busted for carrying off-limits.

I have thought the same thing and I always obey the law and would advise everyone to do the same. But this opens up a whole line of thought in that is it your right to protect yourself/family or the responsibility of some faceless third party? If you cannot defend yourself/family due to this third party not being right there when needed are they/it NOT responsible for all injuries/damages incurred? Courts have already ruled that the police have NO responsibility to protect you as an individual but to society as a whole. So we now have a situation where we cannot 'legally' defend ourselves, in certain gun free zones, which are gun free only by the law abiding and NOT the vermin we are worried about, NOR hold those who stripped us of the ability - our elected officials, state government, fed gov't, responsible and/or accountable should something tragic happen.

Edited May 10, 2008 by nraforlife

[Guest canynracer]

your choice your safety, tough call, but one we all must make.

Yep!!

[Guest bkelm18]

I do what is right. 'Nuff said.

[Guest Grout]

Don't ask,don't tell and conceal well.I like pocket carry because it is low key and fast to draw from.

[Mousegun]

I love your comments on my first post guys but what disturbs me is being put into the category of a common criminal due to a stupid law and a stupid sign that sets that law into motion and the potential problems that could arise if you get made.

OTOH if you were in violation of the sign, something went down, and you came out victorious, the events that took place after that (jail, judges, lawyers, and law suits etc.) could almost be considered anti-climactic, cause you would still be around.

It should still be a fight to consider after getting restaurant carry.

[Guest nraforlife]

...

It should still be a fight to consider after getting restaurant carry.

As I said in another post, we need to get one of the pro-carry legislatures to draft an amendment saying something to the effect that the State will incur all expenses, including medical, physical and psychological, and lose of income, to any HCP holder and/or other victim(s) of crime that take place in a State mandated gun free zones that could have been prevented had the HCP holder been able to carry in that area. Death benefits of no less than $10 mil per family, adjusted for inflation, would also be paid as/if needed.

Notice I said State mandated. Private businesses should be able to do as they please, post or not post.

Now how could Naifeh be against that?

[Fallguy]

Short of places that are open to the public (whether publicly or privately owned) 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 BG38357]

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.

That's already in "Posting Notice", I believe.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[Fallguy]

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.

That's already in "Posting Notice", I believe.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

Property owners are some what responsible for the safety of patrons on their property, if they know a dangerous condition exist and don't take corrective action. But not sure the law would say that posting a property creates a dangerous situation (although I know most of us feel that way).

What wording in the posting notice do think makes a property owner responsible for injuries to patrons?

[Guest 270win]

A sign should have no criminal penalties beyond if a property owner finds out you are carrying and wants you to leave and you don't leave, then get you for trespassing. It is silly that a sign could get you fined up to $500. Private and public property should fall under the same rules as far as signs not having any legal weight.

Adding handgun carry permits as exempt for carrying in places that serve alcohol, school grounds, and wildlife management areas, then you'd have pretty good gun laws here...even if we can't ride down the road all the time with a loaded 12 gauge in the gunrack.

[Guest jackdog]

well crap if we are gonna talk about stupid. How about a bunch of lilly livered politicians that have turned a right into a f&%king privilege, now that that is really sad and stupid

[Guest BG38357]

Property owners are some what responsible for the safety of patrons on their property, if they know a dangerous condition exist and don't take corrective action. But not sure the law would say that posting a property creates a dangerous situation (although I know most of us feel that way).

What wording in the posting notice do think makes a property owner responsible for injuries to patrons?

Section ( below may be your answer.

---------------------------------------

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.

[Acts 1996, ch. 905, § 11; 2000, ch. 929, § 1.]

[Fallguy]

( 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.

This does not say a property owner is responsible for injuries because of banning weapons. It just leaves in place whatever liability a property owner MAY have for injuries on their property like from wet floors, etc...

What I was talking about was specifically making a property owner liable for injuries/damages occurring to someone in the event the could not use their handgun because the property owner banned handguns.

[Guest nraforlife]

This does not say a property owner is responsible for injuries because of banning weapons. It just leaves in place whatever liability a property owner MAY have for injuries on their property like from wet floors, etc...

What I was talking about was specifically making a property owner liable for injuries/damages occurring to someone in the event the could not use their handgun because the property owner banned handguns.

Do not think that, private businesses, will fly BUT the State should be held responsible for any injuries in State banned areas.

[Fallguy]

Do not think that, private businesses, will fly BUT the State should be held responsible for any injuries in State banned areas.

I really don't see it happening for either anytime soon. Just on my wish list.

[Guest GLOCKGUY]

Like the military, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".

i agree