Legal Posting..

[Guest FIST]

Integrity is doing what is right, regardless of who is looking.

If I know the owner/business/shop etc doesn't want me to exercise my rights then so be it, I will in turn respect their rights. This in no way makes them right or wrong or me right or wrong, I choose to maintain my integrity and not patronize the establishment.

The legal aspects of carrying past a sign not withstanding, as a responsible permit holder you should strive to be a step up on the competition. All they need is the slightest mistake and they will whine and cry about it till it's national news. The handgun you were carrying then becomes an assault rifle that you pulled out and waived while preaching the 2nd Amendment.

No one is forcing you to enter that "posted" location, at that point you made the choice. We will never win the war on gun control if we sink to their level. Just my opinion though. YMMV.

[Hoky_Tonk69]

In my humble opinion, after seeing the sign at the indian lake theater....

Postings should be CLEARLY visible on all entrances and should read something along the lines of: Gun Buster-We do not allow firearms on these premesis per 39-17-1359 with small print below this citing the law. In my opinion, if I cannot clearly see the sign, it is improperly posted.

Indian lake has a sign to the left of the main entrance on one of the side doors. Had I walked into the center door where there was no such sign, I would have been carrying. Once inside, there was a sheriff and to him, I expressed my concerns. I politely asked the man " Why are there no weapon signs clearly visible at the entrance?" He responded with "There is a sign" I replied " There is 1 sign which is to the left, not on the main entrance, which is not proper" He then said something that kinda wowed me "You're right, the sign posted is not 100% legal and there should be VISIBLE signs on the main entrance. I have talked to the manager many times about this issue and about putting up the propper signage" I asked the officer "May I go with you to the manager and express my concerns?" We then walked to the front where the box office was and met with a nice gentleman in a suit. I expressed my concerns with him, explaining that I had a valid carry permit and feel that it is my right to protect myself and others. The manager(I think he was anyway), told me that he had been getting alot of complaints lately about that and told me that he was going to try and do something about it that would possibly allow permit holders to carry... Now, whether or not he was BSing me, is the REAL question.

[Guest Razz]

.. . Now, whether or not he was BSing me, is the REAL question.

I'll be at Indian Lake, every Saturday for the remainder of the summer. I'll stop in and complain every chance I get. Consider it a follow up to your inquiry.

[Viracnis]

Sign I'll OBEY on a "Posted" business: Any assertion that I can't enter armed. Anything from a Gunbuster (as stated by the law) to a "For insurance purposes, no guns, cell phones or pets allowed" sign. "No Firearms", "No Weapons", "No Guns". As others said, if the property owner makes his intent clear, I respect his rights by exercising mine elsewhere.

Sign I PREFER on a "Posted" business: "Going out of Business Sale! Everything must go!"

In seriousness, the only sign I've seen that I really respected as truely "proper" sign was a white aluminum plaque about 18" by 24" with a gunbuster, a knife buster, a leaf (which I assume was intended to be a pot leaf) buster and the full text from the law and the information about the punishment for carrying past the sign. This was at eye level and clearly visible driving past the front door. It was an elementary school in Williamson County - which I didn't think had to be "posted" to be illegal to carry there. If all businesses that "posted" did so as thoroughly, we wouldn't need to be having this conversation and if a business wants me to take their "rules" seriously and respect their rights they need to do the same for mine - which means researching them enough to post proper signage if they're going to limit them. That is my PREFERENCE - my PRACTICE is above.

I know your rules say not to talk about the law, but I'm going to break that rule. I think the verbiage in the law should be changed to state EXACTLY what the sign must say (not merely "substantially similar to:" ) including the size and color of the sign and where it must be posted in relation to each door (not just "at" the door, but on the right side 36" from the bottom threshold") to prevent the types of confusion that can result in my losing my Constitutional Rights because a business owner put their own interpretation of the law into effect and a Judge agreed because of a vaguely written law.

Edited August 21, 2012 by Viracnis

[charlessummers]

I'd rather see the gunbuster sign in a contrasting color to the glass/background/tinting of the window or door that it's posted on. A couple of places that I've eaten and had to return to the car to lock up my carry weapon, the signage was almost transparent. I think the airport has it about right though.

[Guest dfsixstring]

Frankly, I can't stand the tiny signage at Cool Springs Mall parking entrance. It is too small to read. I only noticed it because of this forum pointing it out. It is posted at a busy intersection where it is not legible or feasible to read. If they are going to take this stance, AND post it in the parking lot, then it should be bold enough to see from a distance in a moving vehicle.

Dfsixstring

SR9c

LCP

RST4S

[Guest 270win]

If you can't see the sign easily, then it is probably not prominent. I carry in those places when I don't notice a sign. Of course I conceal so that cuts down on 99.9% chances of problems.

[Guest dfsixstring]

I suppose, as an amendment to what I've already said, in a mall type situation, if the "premises" prohibit, I think EACH entrance should have a clearly marked (in your face) sign outlining weapon prohibition. There is no consistency in public places that prohibit, it seems.

Dfsixstring

SR9c

LCP

RST4S

[Guest Bonedaddy]

This popped up when doing a search but I was wonderin'....With Starbucks putting out a request to not bring guns into their biz, though they say they wouldn't ask you to leave, if ya did...could a LEO in this state initiate the charge of trespassing, if you carried in there, anyway, since they made that request public?

[Oh Shoot]

This popped up when doing a search but I was wonderin'....With Starbucks putting out a request to not bring guns into their biz, though they say they wouldn't ask you to leave, if ya did...could a LEO in this state initiate the charge of trespassing, if you carried in there, anyway, since they made that request public?

 

A FaceBook post sufficing for some sort of binding legal public notice? Doubt it seriously.

 

- OS

[Guest Bonedaddy]

Add that to the vid of the company CEO and could it still not be considered public posting? They'll sho' use FB as evidence against in court. I know if one newpaper runs the story as fact then it is.

 

Either way, I just wanna know if the officer can initiate the charge without the biz owner pressing it, if he wanted to be a peckerwood, ya know?

Edited September 18, 2013 by Bonedaddy

[cannoncocker]

As I understand the law, the property must be properly posted in order to be charged.  If not posted, you may legally enter the property until verbally told to leave.  If you refuse to leave, you may be charged.

[Guest Bonedaddy]

That's why I'm kinda up in the air 'bout this "request". Is it an "asking" or what? providing it is legally posted.

[Oh Shoot]

That's why I'm kinda up in the air 'bout this "request". Is it an "asking" or what? providing it is legally posted.

 

In this state, statutorily compliant posting already has force of law. And it may not have to even be compliant, no case law, as the statute does not specifically exonerate you in the case of a non-compliant notice. A "legal" posting is rather a misnomer, as it is not "illegal" to put up any kind of posting, statutorily compliant or not.

 

Barring that, existing trespassing laws would prevail here, and in all states.

 

No court would ever rule that information disseminated on the Net could be binding in any way, would have to presuppose that everyone has access, and further is even basically obligated to also be aware of everything that is on it!

 

- OS

Edited September 18, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[Guest Bonedaddy]

Well, it's in the NY Times and the net. That would be accessible public notice, I'm thinkin'. Either way, I'll look at it as being asked to leave, since they haven't posted, otherwise. Don't matter, anyhoo, 'cause I hate their coffee and don't buy it.

[TMF]

This popped up when doing a search but I was wonderin'....With Starbucks putting out a request to not bring guns into their biz, though they say they wouldn't ask you to leave, if ya did...could a LEO in this state initiate the charge of trespassing, if you carried in there, anyway, since they made that request public?

 

No.

[DaveTN]

This popped up when doing a search but I was wonderin'....With Starbucks putting out a request to not bring guns into their biz, though they say they wouldn't ask you to leave, if ya did...could a LEO in this state initiate the charge of trespassing, if you carried in there, anyway, since they made that request public?

Add that to the vid of the company CEO and could it still not be considered public posting? They'll sho' use FB as evidence against in court. I know if one newpaper runs the story as fact then it is.
 
Either way, I just wanna know if the officer can initiate the charge without the biz owner pressing it, if he wanted to be a peckerwood, ya know?

That's why I'm kinda up in the air 'bout this "request". Is it an "asking" or what? providing it is legally posted.

 

Schultz didn't out-and-out "ban" guns from Starbucks 12,000-plus U.S. stores. That, after all, would require some sort of enforcement. And he's unwilling to put Starbucks store managers or employees in the uncomfortable position of asking someone packing heat in their hip pocket to take their Venti latte elsewhere.
 
No, there won't be any NO GUNS signs next to the NO SMOKING signs in Starbucks. In fact, if a customer waltzes in with a gun, in states where guns are permitted, they will still be served with a smile — no questions asked, says Schultz.

So no, if there are no legal postings, and you are not ask to leave; you are good. If store personnel ask you to leave and you refuse; it’s no longer a posting or carry issue, it’s a trespass issue.

But so far we haven’t seen a verifiable case of anyone with a HCP charged with carrying past a sign anywhere. So the chances seem pretty slim it would be tried on a non-posted property.

There is little doubt this is fallout from the three stooges in Texas trying to make a point. Everyone gets to pay for it.

[TMF]

So no, if there are no legal postings, and you are not ask to leave; you are good. If store personnel ask you to leave and you refuse; it’s no longer a posting or carry issue, it’s a trespass issue.

But so far we haven’t seen a verifiable case of anyone with a HCP charged with carrying past a sign anywhere. So the chances seem pretty slim it would be tried on a non-posted property.

There is little doubt this is fallout from the three stooges in Texas trying to make a point. Everyone gets to pay for it.

 

There was actually a post by a newer member a few weeks back regarding a friend of his who was charged and given some kind of deferred sentence for carrying past a posting.  Can't determine the veracity of the statement, but there's nothing about the story that stood out to be considered suspect.  I guess the posting was at a location that had previous gun violence (Memphis) and they had a security officer make the carrier.  The guy was wrapped up before he had a chance to even leave, then was transferred over to police.  The location was legally posted.

 

Based on the way the story sounded, the guy never saw the posting and could have likely fought it, but didn't for whatever reason.  I'd rather drop a few thousand on a lawyer than to donate to the state in the form of a fine or even be given a deferred ruling for a BS law I didn't intentionally break.

[Jonnin]

If the business cannot bother to follow the letter of the law, I also cannot be troubled. 

I prefer not to enter/spend/etc at such places, but there are exceptions and I am grateful for their inability to follow the rules.

 

A few examples of places I have used their inability to post correctly include:

a local theater, the sign is tiny and white on transparent and not on or even near the door.  I actually had to spend about 5 min looking for it because I knew it HAD to be there.  After finding it, I decided no one would ever have seen it making it invalid.

 

A local shoe store had the sign 2 windows down from the door at ankle level, also white on transparent.   Found that one 3 trips later and after having bought my shoes. I won't go back there. 

 

A fun food/game place has it on the inside wall, only visible as you exit the building.  Being dragged there a couple of times  a year, I just do not see it on the way inside unfortunately.

 

My local car maintence shop has the unusual posting "no concealed weapons".  I offered to carry it openly in my hand and they *cheerfully* said they would be *much happier* if I left it where it was.