Legal Posting..

[Dolomite`s Breezy]

Doesnt matter. Private or puplic property.. if owner or proprietor asks you to leave for any reason.. you have to leave.. otherwise its tresspasing.

I see it this way.. You have a sign on your door.. doesnt matter if its legal or you made it with crayons.. its that simple. if it says no food.. or water.. or guns.. what does it matter? you should honor that sign....Whoever rents, owns or occupies that store, land or whatnot.. its their rules. you either abide by them or leave..

And BTW.. You dont have to have the sign with the picture of the gun on it to be legal.. a quote of the actualy law is suffient.. displayed where people can actualy read it or see it.

Edited July 5, 2012 by Dolomite`s Ball and Chain

[Dolomite_supafly]

Let's please please please don't get into this specious argument again. It's just not true.

There is most certainly a big difference in how city, county, state, and federal laws affect businesses open to the public compared to true private real property.

You just can't equate the two types of "private property", not by a long shot.

- OS

I still do not see what I posted as being wrong.

There may be differences between the two types of property but a private property owner, business or otherwise, can choose whether a person is allowed to do something on their property or not or even if that person is allowed on the property. They can dictate a guest do anything, providing what they are requiring is not against the law, as a condition of entering the property.

Just because someone is "open for business" doesn't put them lower on the rights ladder than their customers.

Dolomite

[DaveS]

I agree 100%. Would it matter if it was on a "door" of a business, or the end of a "driveway"?

[UncleJak]

I have to prefer the door over the driveway. When I am driving I need to concentrate on driving, not looking for signs(there are enough driving signs I have to pay attention for, like stop signs, yield signs, etc...). UNLESS the sign is neon yellow with a picture of a gun in a circle with a slash through it. Then, I might see it, but I still won't be looking for it.

[bubbiesdad]

I agree 100%. Would it matter if it was on a "door" of a business, or the end of a "driveway"?

If it was at the end of the driveway and you had your handgun, what would you do. You would be breaking the law if you drove past the sign.

[Dolomite_supafly]

Even the law provides that you can store your firearm in your vehicle when you find yourself in an area in which you are not allowed to carry legally.

I know having a firearm on school property IS legal providing the gun is contained in a private vehicle operated by an adult that is not a student.

Dolomite

[DaveTN]

OK...let's refer to the law, if it will increase participation in the disscussiion. But I AM NOT asking what the LAW says.....I am asking how YOU interpet that law, and what YOUR OPINION of a PROPER POSTING is. I think we know what the law says.

Actually "OhShoot" broke the rules, but I was merely stating my opinion on what I thought would be a proper sign. That's all.

Please don't say "the law says what proper signage is". Put the law in your own words for everyone!

Another words...Design a sign!

Dave

If I was a Judge and you came before me on the charge of carrying past a sign, I would ask you if you saw the sign and if you understood the intent of the sign.

But we have an amazing amount of discussion about a charge that to the best of my knowledge has never been used. Unless something has been posted recently we haven’t seen any confirmable accounts of this happening. Usually the person is told to leave or they will be arrested for trespass.

Edited July 5, 2012 by DaveTN

[Dolomite_supafly]

If I was a Judge and you came before me on the charge of carrying past a sign, I would ask you if you saw the sign and if you understood the intent of the sign.

But we have an amazing amount of discussion about a charge that to the best of my knowledge has never been used. Unless something has been posted recently we haven’t seen any confirmable accounts of this happening. Usually the person is told to leave or they will be arrested for trespass.

And that is exactly how it should be.

Afterall carrying past the sign is only a misdemeanor and unless the officer witnesses the commsission of a misdemeanor they cannot issue a citation or make an arrest. There are exceptions to the rule like domestic violence but not so with walking past a legal posting.

If a person walks past a proper sign and is not behind the sign when LE arrives there is nothing LE can do. The owner of the property can have the officer issue a no trespass order preventing the person from ever coming back. But the officer cannot issue a citation or make an arrest unless they witnessed it.

But if they are behind the sign and it is witnessed by LE then they can be charged with a class B misdemeanor. Additionally if the person with the gun refuses to leave they can also be charged with trespass. Sounds to me the the ticket for carrying past a sign could be used as an "a**hole" ticket. Meaning on top of a trespass charge for refusing to leave they could also charge them with violating 39-17-1359 just to put a little more sting to it for the trouble.

Dolomite

[JAB]

For me, there would have to be a gunbuster and/or verbage either exactly like that in the statute, verbage that specifically mentions the statute number or at the very least something that mentions 'state law' (and I am not sure that the latter two would still be technically 'legal' but I wouldn't want to risk it.)

Beyond that, I think I have a slightly different opinion that some folks on here. It doesn't mean that they are wrong, simply that I am of a different mindset.

Personally, I couldn't give a crap if, "It is our company policy not to allow..." as (per the question posed in this thread) I do not see that as a legal posting. I care about not breaking the law. As I don't work for their company, however, and as they obviously don't honor my right to be equipped for self defense, I couldn't care less about their corporate policy if it isn't backed up with signage that at least attempts to meet the minimum, legal requirements. It is my personal policy not to enter a business open to the public unarmed based on signage that doesn't pass legal muster so that I can give them my business/money. Usually that simply means I will avoid the place but if I had to go in there I wouldn't feel 'badly' about what I still see as legally carrying. To me, a posting of any kind is a 'screw you' to people who have gone through the trouble of obtaining a permit to legally carry so I have no problem giving a 'screw you' back to them by staying concealed and walking right past the sign if it isn't a legal posting if for some reason I go in, at all. Generally, though, my 'screw you' will be in the form of not giving them my business, legally posted or not.

Edited July 5, 2012 by JAB

[Guest 270win]

WD,

What kind of sign do you have at your business?

Me, if I have to look all over to see a gun with a slash sign or the TCA code, I don't worry about it. The signs do have to be up at the entrances used by people and prominent and have EITHER a gun with a slash OR TCA.

When I go places that I must go, and the sign does not appear to conform with the law, I carry. My safety that is concealed is more important than someone's views on guns. What is hidden on me and people don't know about does not hurt them. Never had guns jump out of the holster and fire by themselves.

Edited July 5, 2012 by 270win

[Guest 270win]

I don't think property owners should be forced to allow carry, but on the criminal side I don't think those with handgun carry permits should be fined over a sign as long as they leave when asked. A property owner should always be able to ask people to leave. Off duty LEO's can't be fined over a sign unless they are asked to leave and they don't leave. Judges don't even need handgun carry permits in TN and the signs do not apply to them either. Why make a difference?

People forget that any yahoo part time judge can carry a gun without a handgun carry permit in this state. 39-17-1359 only applies to people WITH handgun carry permits. Kind fo nuts if you ask me.

Edited July 5, 2012 by 270win

[DaveTN]

People forget that any yahoo part time judge can carry a gun without a handgun carry permit in this state. 39-17-1359 only applies to people WITH handgun carry permits. Kind fo nuts if you ask me.

I disagree. (2) Specifically includes those with an HCP, it does not exclude anyone. If a Judge without an HCP is excluded it must in another statute.

[DaveS]

For me, there would have to be a gunbuster and/or verbage either exactly like that in the statute, verbage that specifically mentions the statute number or at the very least something that mentions 'state law' (and I am not sure that the latter two would still be technically 'legal' but I wouldn't want to risk it.)

Beyond that, I think I have a slightly different opinion that some folks on here. It doesn't mean that they are wrong, simply that I am of a different mindset.

Personally, I couldn't give a crap if, "It is our company policy not to allow..." as (per the question posed in this thread) I do not see that as a legal posting. I care about not breaking the law. As I don't work for their company, however, and as they obviously don't honor my right to be equipped for self defense, I couldn't care less about their corporate policy if it isn't backed up with signage that at least attempts to meet the minimum, legal requirements. It is my personal policy not to enter a business open to the public unarmed based on signage that doesn't pass legal muster so that I can give them my business/money. Usually that simply means I will avoid the place but if I had to go in there I wouldn't feel 'badly' about what I still see as legally carrying. To me, a posting of any kind is a 'screw you' to people who have gone through the trouble of obtaining a permit to legally carry so I have no problem giving a 'screw you' back to them by staying concealed and walking right past the sign if it isn't a legal posting if for some reason I go in, at all. Generally, though, my 'screw you' will be in the form of not giving them my business, legally posted or not.

OK my friend...what "VERBAGE"???

[Oh Shoot]

Doesnt matter. Private or puplic property.. if owner or proprietor asks you to leave for any reason.. you have to leave.. otherwise its tresspasing.

Hmm, let's see. How bout a biz starts asking all blacks and folks in wheelchairs to leave. How much money do you think a little class action suit would net?

How 'bout telling that county food inspector he has to leave your restaurant. How's that gonna work out for ya?

How 'bout telling BATF to get off your property when they come by to do a spot audit on your FFL? Right.

Maybe the ABC guys if you run a liquor store, or County Beer Board guy comes by to check on things? Scram? I doan theeng so Lucy!

How about you tell the ICE guy to get off your place when he drops by to ask about an employee or two? Umm hmmmm.

There are LOTS of encroachments on your public business private property that you don't have on your personal real property at home.

- OS

[Oh Shoot]

.... 39-17-1359 only applies to people WITH handgun carry permits. Kind fo nuts if you ask me.

I hear that from time to time.

Why do you think so?

The law does not say it ONLY applies to those with HCP, only mentions them to make it clear that it does indeed apply to them also.

A person without HCP is guilty of illegal carry possession and carrying past a sign. Would be one Class A (with fine and/or time), and one Class B misdemeanor (with fine only), assuming LEA wants to press it to max.

- OS

[DaveS]

I don't think property owners should be forced to allow carry, but on the criminal side I don't think those with handgun carry permits should be fined over a sign as long as they leave when asked. A property owner should always be able to ask people to leave. Off duty LEO's can't be fined over a sign unless they are asked to leave and they don't leave. Judges don't even need handgun carry permits in TN and the signs do not apply to them either. Why make a difference?

People forget that any yahoo part time judge can carry a gun without a handgun carry permit in this state. 39-17-1359 only applies to people WITH handgun carry permits. Kind fo nuts if you ask me.

My friend...isn't the "No Carry" sign an invitation to "leave" before you enter?

[Guest adamoxtwo]

I think that there should be a sticker in the window that bands it. Not a letter or a document, but a 6" x 6" sign with a Gun centered with a red circle and a with a line through it. Regardless of what the law states, a simple symbol that is loud and proud will do just fine. That or something the size of the Visa/MasterCard/(insert whatever credit card you want) logo on the establishment door. That's just my opinion of what is universal and nobody can confuse.

[Dolomite_supafly]

We are talking about a private party not those there with authority to do so. A private party does not have the authority over the property owner without due process. And that due process isn't inside the property, it is inside a court room.

And yes I can ask a handicapped person to leave from a business I own for any reason or no reason at all. I can also ask a black, yellow, red or even purple person to leave as well. And if any of them refuse they are trespassing.

Just because someone falls into a certain class doesn't

exempt them from following the law. Well except maybe politicians but that is a whole other argument.

Dolomite

[Guest 270win]

Dolomite,

Yeah I think the signs should be no different than the no shoes no service signs up at some stores and gas stations. If you aren't wearing shoes and go into such a business, it is not like the police are going to charge someone with a criminal offense. That person going barefoot would be asked to leave. If he doesn't leave, then he gets charged with trespassing. It should be the same for people carrying guns.

I would have no problem with such signs at the capitol if there wasn't a five hundred dollar fine attached to it. At most, if the gun is discovered, the person should just be asked to leave. Same as showing up to the capitol barefoot or no shirt.

[Dolomite_supafly]

Dolomite,

Yeah I think the signs should be no different than the no shoes no service signs up at some stores and gas stations. If you aren't wearing shoes and go into such a business, it is not like the police are going to charge someone with a criminal offense. That person going barefoot would be asked to leave. If he doesn't leave, then he gets charged with trespassing. It should be the same for people carrying guns.

I would have no problem with such signs at the capitol if there wasn't a five hundred dollar fine attached to it. At most, if the gun is discovered, the person should just be asked to leave. Same as showing up to the capitol barefoot or no shirt.

I think the the punishment for carrying past the sign should be secondary to another charge. And most officers should be doing a cursory pat down of a suspect anyways and that would reveal a weapon. Then the officer can go from there and charge then with a sign violation but only if they are charged with another crime.

Say if the person refuses to leave they get charged with trespassing first then a sign violation secondary to the trespassing charge. Or if they are past the sign and start a fight then they should be charged with assault first then a sign violation next. But walking past the sign should not be the only charge.

Like a seatbelt or speeding violation being used a probable cause to an investigation that leads to further charges. Use the initial charge, unrelated to carrying past a sign, as a means to check for a firearm. Then if the person is carrying and there is a sign then charge them.

And increase the signage pentaly to a SUBSTANTIAL amount because it takes more than just walking past the sign to be charged with it. Afterall they must have broken another law for them to be charged with violating the sign law.

Dolomite

[Dolomite`s Breezy]

Hmm, let's see. How bout a biz starts asking all blacks and folks in wheelchairs to leave. How much money do you think a little class action suit would net?

How 'bout telling that county food inspector he has to leave your restaurant. How's that gonna work out for ya?

How 'bout telling BATF to get off your property when they come by to do a spot audit on your FFL? Right.

Maybe the ABC guys if you run a liquor store, or County Beer Board guy comes by to check on things? Scram? I doan theeng so Lucy!

How about you tell the ICE guy to get off your place when he drops by to ask about an employee or two? Umm hmmmm.

There are LOTS of encroachments on your public business private property that you don't have on your personal real property at home.

- OS

We are talking about private entities.. Not Federal Agents with warrant in hand

The condencending undertones really dont sit well with me.. I thought you where better than that.

I am pretty well aware of laws surrounding me and my property since 1. I have to since I am not a citizen and I can get deported for certain thing and 2. I dealed with people tresspassing on my land before and had police involved numerous times.

But OK .. you win.. you are right.....

[jtmaze]

I need a sign that has a BIG picture of a gun in a circle with a slash through it. It needs to be posted between my waist level and eye level and right on the door that I am walking in. If I have to search for it, it isn't good enough. I think that bright orange or yellow would be a good color for my sign, but I would also accept any other neon/highlighter color. My sign would be so well seen that there would be no mistaking the feelings of the business regarding handgun carry.

Preferably visible from the road.

JTM

Sent from my iPhone

[JAB]

OK my friend...what "VERBAGE"???

Just as the law says (sorry, can't answer your question without quoting the law):

(3) (A) If a sign is used as the method of posting, it shall contain language substantially similar to the following:

AS AUTHORIZED BY T.C.A. § 39-17-1359, POSSESSION OF A WEAPON ON POSTED PROPERTY OR IN A POSTED BUILDING IS PROHIBITED AND IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE.

No need to put it in my own words because if I don't see the circle/slash or something very close to the phrase outlined in the law, I do not consider it to be a legal posting. As I said, even though I still wouldn't technically consider them to be 'legal' postings, I probably wouldn't take a chance on a sign that said something along the lines of:

PER T.C.A. 39-17-1359, WEAPONS ARE PROHIBITED ON THIS PROPERTY

or even a sign that reads:

PER STATE LAW, THIS PROPERTY IS POSTED TO PROHIBIT THE POSSESSION OF WEAPONS

If, however, there is no circle/slash and the language reads along the lines of the following phrases:

It is our policy not to allow weapons on our premises;

Firearms prohibited;

Weapons prohibited;

You are welcome. Your guns are not.

In the interest of the safety of our customers, no firearms are allowed on these premises

or any such phrase that does not in some way mention T.C.A. 39-17-1359 or, at minimum, make reference to 'state law' then - if for some reason I don't just go somewhere else simply to avoid giving them my business and as long as I am carrying in a well concealed manner at the time - I would not be deterred from legally carrying by such a sign.

Edited July 6, 2012 by JAB

[Oh Shoot]

We are talking about private entities.. Not Federal Agents with warrant in hand

None of those folks mentioned would need a warrant to enter your business and carry out their jobs (maybe the ICE agent but I doubt it, certainly not the others). Obviously, they would need one to enter your home.

That's why a biz open to the public simply just does not have the same sanctity as your personal real property. Just like city or country fire marshal doesn't need warrant to check your biz. But he doesn't come out and insist on checking your home at all. Why? Because there's a big diff in safety codes, seating capacities, etc for biz open to public than your home, ie a matter of perceived public liability.

Simply put, there are dozens of restrictions on a biz open to the public that aren't placed on your home and lands.

Also, about the third protected class "private entity" you kick out of your biz,, maybe even the first, is gonna get you discrimination scrutiny, whether you mention the reason or not. It just will; there's money to be made. Even if you win, you lose some money, if you lose you lose a lot of money. Punitive damages are rather cut and dried in discrimination cases, it's a mucho PC country now.

My main point: that you simply can't claim you can manifest all the same behaviors at a biz as at your home. Some things, maybe, many things, absolutely not. And the business regs/laws stay in flux; and you know what, they never get more lenient.

The condencending undertones really dont sit well with me.. I thought you where better than that.

Good Lord P, was not my intention at all; the lady doth protest too much methinks , just trying to make some points without being boring.

Seriously, you really surprised me with that, but since you took it that way, certainly here's my apology..

Edited July 7, 2012 by OhShoot

[Oh Shoot]

oops

Edited July 6, 2012 by OhShoot