I've boycotted BWW for a long time, now this...

[10-Ring]

I've boycotted them for a long time due to their carry policies.  This is taking it to a new level.  I will continue to not eat their chicken!  I don't know where this was, just got the pic and thought that I would pass it on.

[knewcomb]

I saw a guy open carrying in the Smyrna BWW. No one said anything. Didnt know they didnt allow it. Edited January 22, 2013 by knewcomb

[Sandman]

Not a legal posting.

[Dolomite_supafly]

Not a legal posting.

 

Dolomite

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Never been in one. Increases the odds of my continuing the trend.

 

At first I saw this and evidently my eyesight is failing. I thought at first it said BMW. I had to go look up what they did, this time. I have

two of them and, although some of us are called every name in the book, that ain't all of us. phew! Glad I looked twice! :D Turns out

I haven't had enough coffee this morning. :hat:

[knewcomb]

Whats illegal about it?

[TMF]

[quote name="knewcomb" post="892616" timestamp="1358868806"]Whats illegal about it?[/quote] Don't confuse "illegal" with "not carrying the weight of the law". The signage is not legal in the sense you can't be charged with a crime for carrying passed it. Not that I would want to carry passed it since it is clear the management there has an emotion of hate towards inanimate pieces of metal and plastic. How stupid. Why not just put up a sign that says "No Mass Shootings" or "No Armed Robberies Allowed"? It would be just as effective in stopping criminals.

[GlockSpock]

Not a legal posting.

 

Dolomite

 

I have had a very hard time discerning what is a legal posting and what is an invalid posting. I found this on USACarry:

 

 

 

 

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 wording must be substantially similar. A sign with a picture of a handgun with a slash through it is valid.

 

So does that mean that signs with pictures of a handgun with a slash are valid, as well as signs that reference 39-17-1359? What about something like this:

 

[TMF]

[quote name="CZ9MM" post="892624" timestamp="1358869407"]   So does that mean that signs with pictures of a handgun with a slash are valid, as well as signs that reference 39-17-1359? What about something like this:   [/quote] No, you shouldn't be convicted of a crime if you carry passed that sign. Of course, that doesn't mean they can't tell you to leave for carrying.

[GlockSpock]

No, you shouldn't be convicted of a crime if you carry passed that sign. Of course, that doesn't mean they can't tell you to leave for carrying.

 

So that is the major difference between legit and illegitimate postings? A sign with wording shown above simply means that they are appeasing the cowardly and has no force of the law? So "BWW bans guns on these premises" simply means that they can ask you to leave if they wish? 

 

However a sign with a gun with a slash through it or a sign with wording that is substantially similar to the statute carries the force of the law?

[Oh Shoot]

I've boycotted them for a long time due to their carry policies.  This is taking it to a new level.  I will continue to not eat their chicken!  I don't know where this was, just got the pic and thought that I would pass it on.

 

So what's new? Bigger sign than the last one? Why were you boycotting them before but boycotting them even more now?

 

- OS

Edited January 22, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[Oh Shoot]

So that is the major difference between legit and illegitimate postings? A sign with wording shown above simply means that they are appeasing the cowardly and has no force of the law? So "BWW bans guns on these premises" simply means that they can ask you to leave if they wish? 

 

However a sign with a gun with a slash through it or a sign with wording that is substantially similar to the statute carries the force of the law?

 

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

 

.......

(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.

      ( B )As used in this section, "language substantially similar to" means the sign contains language plainly stating that:

         (i) The property is posted under authority of Tennessee law;

         (ii) Weapons or firearms are prohibited on the property, in the building, or on the portion of the property or building that is posted; and

         (iii) Possessing a weapon in an area that has been posted is a criminal offense.

      ( C ) A building, property or a portion of a building or property, shall be considered properly posted in accordance with this section if one (1) or both of the following is displayed in prominent locations, including all entrances primarily used by persons entering the property, building, or portion of the property or building where weapon possession is prohibited:

         (i) The international circle and slash symbolizing the prohibition of the item within the circle; or

         (ii) The posting sign described in this subdivision ( B )(3).

[KJ48]

Some places are hard to boycott. BWW isnt one of them :)

Edited January 22, 2013 by KJ48

[10-Ring]

So what's new? Bigger sign than the last one? Why were you boycotting them before but boycotting them even more now?

 

- OS

Honestly, I saw this picture before having enough coffee this morning and it just rubbed me the wrong way.  I posted it as a knee jerk reaction, but that's okay because that is how this country operates now, right?  Seriously though, it just seems like they are getting in the face of gun owners and trying to stir something up. 

[TMF]

[quote name="10-Ring" post="892684" timestamp="1358872482"]Honestly, I saw this picture before having enough coffee this morning and it just rubbed me the wrong way.  I posted it as a knee jerk reaction, but that's okay because that is how this country operates now, right?  Seriously though, it just seems like they are getting in the face of gun owners and trying to stir something up. [/quote] Was this the one in Clarksville?

[Oh Shoot]

Honestly, I saw this picture before having enough coffee this morning and it just rubbed me the wrong way.  I posted it as a knee jerk reaction, but that's okay because that is how this country operates now, right?  Seriously though, it just seems like they are getting in the face of gun owners and trying to stir something up. 

 

Looks like same decal type sign that was on the one here on the UT strip. Although that particular  BWW shut down a year ago or so.

 

- OS

[knox]

In my carry class, we were told the sign could be crayon on cardboard simply stating "No Guns", and it was legal.

 

It's the intent of the sign, not the exact wording.  That's what we were told, anyway.

[Oh Shoot]

In my carry class, we were told the sign could be crayon on cardboard simply stating "No Guns", and it was legal.

 

It's the intent of the sign, not the exact wording.  That's what we were told, anyway.

 

Not what the statute says and we haven't had a test case we know of yet where that has been contested -- so the instructor was only opining, like the rest of us.

 

- OS

[maroonandwhite]

It's the intent of the sign, not the exact wording. 

I tend to agree with this. Not on a legal or illegal standpoint but it's pretty clear the owners don't want your business. Although we could pretty clearly interpret the law as it is written I am sure some prosecutor could argue differently. TN is good about leaving a gray area in these laws.

[10-Ring]

Man if I had a dime for every time I've heard about false information being provided in a carry class...  It's pretty ridiculous, seems that these people who are required to get certification to teach these classes would at least have to provide accurate information to their students.  My wife has argued with me about where I can carry, duty to inform, etc, I can't remember where she took her class, it was before she met me.  It's sad really that these instructors are misinforming so many people.  I guess a lot of times they are the exact same people that dispense their knowledge from behind the counter of a gun store and we all know how unreliable those guys can be.

[TMF]

[quote name="knox" post="892728" timestamp="1358875526"]In my carry class, we were told the sign could be crayon on cardboard simply stating "No Guns", and it was legal.   It's the intent of the sign, not the exact wording.  That's what we were told, anyway.[/quote] I looked over the law and nowhere does it say that a sign's "intent" makes anything a crime. Your instructor was putting out bad information purposefully, or he is just incapable of reading the law. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't suppose one has to be in order to understand the very simple bullets of the law on this.

[knox]

I had my class at Coal Creek - Richard Newstrom was the instructor.  

 

Just throwing out what was thrown at me.  I make no claim to know either way.

[knox]

Regardless... If the establishment makes its preference known, even with an unlawful sign, why would anyone make "a donkey" of themselves by carrying inside, just to make a point?

[maroonandwhite]

This has probably been discussed at least ten times (maybe not in a dedicated thread) but it really just boils down to the individual. Some of us would feel a duty to not give them any business until they change their policy while others have no problem walking past the incorrect posting and having a meal,buying stuff,etc. That is just up to the individual and I don't judge either way.

 

I will say that while I am of the "they don't want my business" camp I have found it awful hard to fight off the cravings for some wings from time to time.

Edited January 22, 2013 by maroonandwhite

[TGO David]

In my carry class, we were told the sign could be crayon on cardboard simply stating "No Guns", and it was legal.

 

It's the intent of the sign, not the exact wording.  That's what we were told, anyway.

 

Honestly, I agree with the spirit of what your instructor said.  The bottom line is that an establishment doesn't have to post a sign on their door at all.  It's private property, and if someone spots you carrying a handgun on your person and the management tells you to leave, you have to leave.  Period.

 

If you refuse, the police can be called and they will have no choice but to make you leave.  They may not like it either given that the establishment wasn't posted, but the bottom line remains it's private property and your ability to be there relies strictly on their permission to do so.

 

Unless we are talking about a location that is strictly prohibited by law for you to carry within, you have a fundamental decision to make when you see any sort of anti-firearms posting:

 

a.)  Take your money elsewhere

b.)  Ignore the sign, risk being "made" and risk a misdemeanor charge of trespass.

 

 

Option "B" is what you'd open yourself up to if you simply didn't notice the sign to begin with and had no clue they were posted.