is this sign legal

[Guest GLOCKGUY]

i was just at my cable comp. paying my bill i was standing in line and the next thing i know i have two LEOs asking me to step out side. when i got out there they ask me why i was carrying in there when they had a sign. i told them i really never paid attention to the sign. well they let me go with a warning. thank god i was good friends with one of them. but is this sign legal. i never said well i dont think thats signs legal. i just went along with them because i knew they weren't taking me to jail. and the signs was not even on the door it was beside it

[robbiev]

In a strict answer to the question you asked: That sign does not appear to meet the legal requirements set forth in TN law (IMO). The wording (IMO) is not "substantially similar" to the wording in the statute.

Just plain curiousity, not trying to start a flame war: How did they know you were carrying?

Edited July 18, 2008 by robbiev

[Guest GLOCKGUY]

when i got out of my car i forgot to pull my Tshirt over my gun. i was in a hurry trying to beat this old man in. they like to talk way to much when they get to the window i never OP i just messed up today

[Magiccarpetrides]

Legal or not its pretty obvious what it means....whether you choose to stir the pot is up to you.

[Guest GLOCKGUY]

Legal or not its pretty obvious what it means....whether you choose to stir the pot is up to you.

obviously i know what it means. thats not what im asking im asking is it legal or not. ive seen this type of signs on door in other places. im wanting to know if im ever at a place and this happens again with this same type of sign do i have a leg to stand on if i do get took to jail

[Guest bkelm18]

No it is not legal because it is not "substantially similar" to the required wording. The sign say something "substantially similar" (I put that in quotes because that's what the law says) to:

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).

[Guest GLOCKGUY]

No it is not legal because it is not "substantially similar" to the required wording. The sign say something "substantially similar" (I put that in quotes because that's what the law says) to:

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).

thanks bkelm18 i think im going to keep a copy of this in my wallet

[Volzfan]

There is also an Attorney General Opinion that states that the circle with the slash does not qualify as a legal sign. I don't know how to quickly find that but I know that many here will probably post the opinion from the AG.

[Guest eyebedam]

i was just at my cable comp. paying my bill i was standing in line and the next thing i know i have two LEOs asking me to step out side. when i got out there they ask me why i was carrying in there when they had a sign. i told them i really never paid attention to the sign. well they let me go with a warning. thank god i was good friends with one of them. but is this sign legal. i never said well i dont think thats signs legal. i just went along with them because i knew they weren't taking me to jail. and the signs was not even on the door it was beside it

No it is not legal because it is not "substantially similar" to the required wording. The sign say something "substantially similar" (I put that in quotes because that's what the law says) to:

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).

Come on guys. There is a big sign that point blan says weapons are not permitted. I understand its not exactly worded as the 1 above my reply but its pretty dam obvious the company doesnt want weapons on ther property. I would expect this out of Kwik. Pick your battles.

[Guest bkelm18]

Come on guys. There is a big sign that point blan says weapons are not permitted. I understand its not exactly worded as the 1 above my reply but its pretty dam obvious the company doesnt want weapons on ther property. I would expect this out of Kwik. Pick your battles.

Ok well the difference between the two is that the improper one carries no legal weight whatsoever and the most the company can do is ask you to leave. The correctly worded on carries legal weight and can get you in trouble with the law. The only thing an improper sign means to me is that I should double check my weapon is concealed before entering. This has nothing to do with Kwik. He was advocating that he should inform the company that their sign is improper and they should post a legally correct sign. I don't believe the OP said anything to that effect. All the OP wanted to know is if it was legal or not.

[Guest GLOCKGUY]

The only thing an improper sign means to me is that I should double check my weapon is concealed before entering.

what i forgot to do and i need my for forgetting

[Falcon1]

Come on guys. There is a big sign that point blan says weapons are not permitted. I understand its not exactly worded as the 1 above my reply but its pretty dam obvious the company doesnt want weapons on ther property. I would expect this out of Kwik. Pick your battles.

I also pay no attention to signs which do not meet the law, because they give the company no legal leg upon which to stand. I do not care what Charter's corporate policy is. If spotted and asked to leave, I will do so, and take my business elsewhere. The real question is, is Charter Communications the only cable option in town?

[Guest bkelm18]

Here is the full law in case you want it too.

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 GLOCKGUY]

I also pay no attention to signs which do not meet the law, because they give the company no legal leg upon which to stand. I do not care what Charter's corporate policy is. If spotted and asked to leave, I will do so, and take my business elsewhere. The real question is, is Charter Communications the only cable option in town?

their the only cable company here in Dayton

[Volzfan]

Come on guys. There is a big sign that point blan says weapons are not permitted. I understand its not exactly worded as the 1 above my reply but its pretty dam obvious the company doesnt want weapons on ther property. I would expect this out of Kwik. Pick your battles.

I never said that I was up for a confrontation over the sign. I just make mental notes as to where I choose to take my business and who I pass by. I may or may not let that business owner that I am going elsewhere. This sign is Charter Communications and I don't deal with them here in Nashville but if I did I would try to do my business online, if possible.

[Guest eyebedam]

All Im saying is. If a buisness has placed a large sign in plain view that weapons are not permitted even if it is not 100% worded per §§ 39-17-1351 the people dont want guns on their property. Just CC & go on by. All this playin lawyer / word wrangler just makes the problem worse. Im not tryin to get everyone stirred up but sometimes it seems like some folks are just lookin to test/buck the system. Maybe the buisness wouldnt have a leg to stand on if it actually went to court but really would you want the stress & headache to find out? Not to mention the other people in the place of buisness that would be watching like gawkers if you were asked to leave by the police. Then let someone like the News channels get ahold of a story like that & put a funky spin on permit holders showin that sign on the news with a comment like Handgun Carry Permit holders ignore postings & do as they will. Im just kinda looking at the big picture on this topic.

[Guest bkelm18]

All Im saying is. If a buisness has placed a large sign in plain view that weapons are not permitted even if it is not 100% worded per §§ 39-17-1351 the people dont want guns on their property. Just CC & go on by. All this playin lawyer / word wrangler just makes the problem worse. Im not tryin to get everyone stirred up but sometimes it seems like some folks are just lookin to test/buck the system. Maybe the buisness wouldnt have a leg to stand on if it actually went to court but really would you want the stress & headache to find out? Not to mention the other people in the place of buisness that would be watching like gawkers if you were asked to leave by the police. Then let someone like the News channels get ahold of a story like that & put a funky spin on permit holders showin that sign on the news with a comment like Handgun Carry Permit holders ignore postings & do as they will. Im just kinda looking at the big picture on this topic.

You are saying exactly what everyone else has already said. Improper sign= conceal carry and go on about your business. Nobody is saying to "fight the system". And why would I care about the gawkers? What would they be gawking at? A person who has chosen to take their safety into their own hands? I think you are looking at the big picture a little too much.

Edited July 19, 2008 by bkelm18

[Guest GLOCKGUY]

You are saying exactly what everyone else has already said. Improper sign= conceal carry and go on about your business.

and thats what i do 99.9% of the time i just screwed up today. i was just asking because the LEOs there said that i can not go in any business with that sign on it. and the next time i was going to jail. for now on ill let my wife pay this bill. i just wanted to know about other signs like this because i will go in a place that has a sign like this ill just make sure im CC

[Guest bkelm18]

and thats what i do 99.9% of the time i just screwed up today. i was just asking because the LEOs there said that i can not go in any business with that sign on it. and the next time i was going to jail. for now on ill let my wife pay this bill. i just wanted to know about other signs like this because i will go in a place that has a sign like this ill just make sure im CC

Well yeah, the LEO was wrong. The only thing you could be arrested for was if the business asked you to leave and you refused, then it would have been trespassing. Other than that you would have broken no law.

[Guest jmac]

Dish or Directv may be an option for you if Charter is the only cable in town.

[Guest 270win]

Comcast Cable had a similar sign at one of their stores in Little Rock that has no legal meaning in Arkansas either. I carried the few times i had to deal with the cable company. The wording in Arkansas must be exact, none of this 'substantially similar' garbage. I don't worry one bit about signs that aren't worded properly....all that can happen is i be asked to leave and then i quietly go to my car and leave. Then again, it is hard to pick out a small handgun that is pocket carried. No worries.

[Smith]

Come on guys. There is a big sign that point blan says weapons are not permitted. I understand its not exactly worded as the 1 above my reply but its pretty dam obvious the company doesnt want weapons on ther property. I would expect this out of Kwik. Pick your battles.

The tricky part is recognizing when there is a battle. Everyone here is on the same side of this.

[robbiev]

There is also an Attorney General Opinion that states that the circle with the slash does not qualify as a legal sign. I don't know how to quickly find that but I know that many here will probably post the opinion from the AG.

For more info, you can check out:

http://www.rrmemphis.com/posted.html

http://www.rrmemphis.com/laws.html

[DaveTN]

i was just asking because the LEOs there said that i can not go in any business with that sign on it. and the next time i was going to jail.

Well… there you have your answer.

The AG as left the door open with the “substantially similar†language. It’s up to the cop. Obviously the signs conveys the message that they don’t want you to carry.

Trust me; you do not want the cost or the risk of going to trial on a weapons charge. Even if it is dismissed the arrest is still there.

You are the first person that I have heard of actually having an encounter with real cops over a posted building.

[Guest jackdog]

Deep conceal and forget it. Or switch to direct TV. Not going to disarm and risk my life because of a sign. I would damn sure let charter know why they lost my account to boot.