is this sign legal

[DaveTN]

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.

Absolutely

[skipsfirearms]

I think that as Law Abiding citizen's, we who carry need to respect those who do not want guns on their property no matter what the wording. Just a respect thing.

Though to me, Comcast's sign did state:

1) Whose property it was

2)What they didn't want on their property.

The only thing it does not say is the part about "failing to comply" and what that means.

I am all for OP or CC, whatever floats your boat. But when you go into a place that does not want you to carry, that is disrespecting the owner of that business, even if it is a multi million dollar company.

Don't misunderstand me though, I think we should be allowed to carry everywhere we go no matter what. Maybe someday we will be able to, but right now we have to respect those who don't agree, and agree to disagree with them.

I am definitely not putting my future into the interpretation of "SIMILAR" by some wet behind the ears half my age LEO!!! BEEN THERE.

Edited July 19, 2008 by skipsfirearms

[Guest jwp]

Charter here has the same silly sign.

I pay my bill via their "E-Pay" so I don't have to go to their "office."

If I have to visit them I make sure I am covered.

I had a dish. It was crap. I went back to cable. Hated it, but those are the cards I was delt.

[Fallguy]

Regardless of if they have a sign or not....Now that you have been given notice that they do not want you on the property armed....even if they were to take down the sign and you returned armed you could be charged with trespassing.

See AG opinin 07-148

[Guest GLOCKGUY]

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

i would but i cant get my Internet with them and their is no way im going back to phone Internet

Regardless of if they have a sign or not....Now that you have been given notice that they do not want you on the property armed....even if they were to take down the sign and you returned armed you could be charged with trespassing.

See AG opinin 07-148

ya i never thought about that thanks for the reminder Fallguy. I'm going to let mt wife pay the cable bill for now on

[Guest nraforlife]

COMCAST isn't above the law. The law is specific in its requirements and this sign doesn't comply with it. Now it is obvious that they do not want guns in their facility BUT they have to comply with the law else what they want and $5 will get them a gallon of gas. That sign is like putting up a NO FAT CHICK sign at a Wal-mart as neither is valid.

But CC, don't be flashy and get on with your business.

Edited July 19, 2008 by nraforlife

[Guest GLOCKGUY]

COMCAST isn't above the law. The law is specific in its requirements and this sign doesn't comply with it. Now it is obvious that they do not want guns in their facility BUT they have to comply with the law else what they want and $5 will get them a gallon of gas. That sign is like putting up a NO FAT CHICK sign at a Wal-mart as neither is valid.

But CC, don't be flashy and get on with your business.

believe me i will make sure im CC for now on it scared the crap out of my little girl

Edited July 19, 2008 by GLOCKGUY

[bubbadavis]

Regardless of if they have a sign or not....Now that you have been given notice that they do not want you on the property armed....even if they were to take down the sign and you returned armed you could be charged with trespassing.

See AG opinin 07-148

Did the owner ask the OP to leave? It sounds to me like the LEO saw him in line and took it upon themselves to kick him out. Maybe the OP can confirm what really took place -- if he knows.

I'm not a lawyer (by any means) but the AG opinions explicitly states you can be arrested if the owner asks you leave and you re-enter while carrying. I wouldn't push it -- cable is not worth losing my HCP!

[Guest GLOCKGUY]

Did the owner ask the OP to leave? It sounds to me like the LEO saw him in line and took it upon themselves to kick him out. Maybe the OP can confirm what really took place -- if he knows.

I'm not a lawyer (by any means) but the AG opinions explicitly states you can be arrested if the owner asks you leave and you re-enter while carrying. I wouldn't push it -- cable is not worth losing my HCP!

im assuming the owners called them because i was in line their was about 4 people in front of me and the next thing i know two LEOs walk in and mike a friend of mine ask me to step out side and thats when they told me i was not aloud to carry in there. im going to mikes house one of the LEOs today and talk to him about it. they were cool about it. im just wondering what might of happened if i wasn't friends with one of the LEOs

[Guest db99wj]

Let us know what he says.

[bubbadavis]

im assuming the owners called them because i was in line their was about 4 people in front of me and the next thing i know two LEOs walk in and mike a friend of mine ask me to step out side and thats when they told me i was not aloud to carry in there. im going to mikes house one of the LEOs today and talk to him about it. they were cool about it. im just wondering what might of happened if i wasn't friends with one of the LEOs

Yep, I'd bet they were called too! Now that I know this part of the story, I don't think I'd risk carrying in Charter again. Every time you go in the store, they are going to be looking closely.

I'd hate to think of what could happen if you disarmed, went in and payed your bill, got back in the car and holstered you weapon, and then the cops (that were called) show up. I think you would have a hard time showing you weren't carrying in the store. You should be innocent until proven guilty but...

[Guest nraforlife]

Yep, I'd bet they were called too! Now that I know this part of the story, I don't think I'd risk carrying in Charter again. Every time you go in the store, they are going to be looking closely.

I'd hate to think of what could happen if you disarmed, went in and payed your bill, got back in the car and holstered you weapon, and then the cops (that were called) show up. I think you would have a hard time showing you weren't carrying in the store. You should be innocent until proven guilty but...

But what the frick are the cops going to do, arrest you? The law specifically states what the posting should say period. You can be told to leave but nothing else UNLESS you do not comply forthwith. Please frickin arrest me cause you, as a LEO or store owner, don't know the law. I need extra retirement money.

[Guest GlockRule]

If the sign doesn't follow the letter of the law, then I would ignore it...hey, the law is the law...also, I would NOT tell them it doesn't follow the law either unless you are going to be arrested. Also, I pay all my bills online...nothing against people who pay in person, but I've noticed a lot of seedy characters paying in person for cable and cell phone service...

[saintsfanbrian]

With gas prices what they are, I would much rather pay a bill on line. If Charter doesn't want you to carry on their property and now you have been told this you cannot carry on their property regardless of what the sign says.

[Guest nraforlife]

If the sign doesn't follow the letter of the law, then I would ignore it...hey, the law is the law...also, I would NOT tell them it doesn't follow the law either unless you are going to be arrested. Also, I pay all my bills online...nothing against people who pay in person, but I've noticed a lot of seedy characters paying in person for cable and cell phone service...

There again IF the LEO doesn't know the law he should call his super. If they are both clueless than make the choice, try to enlighten them - right, or get arrested, get an attorney and sue the hell out of the owner and PD. Ignorance of the law is no defense cuts both ways.

[DaveTN]

But what the frick are the cops going to do, arrest you?

Yes. Both the cops that responded and the AG opinion that Fallguy posted reinforces that.

S T A T E O F T E N N E S S E E

OFFICE OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL

POBOX 20207

NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE37202

October 22, 2007

Opinion No. 07-148

Tennessee Handgun Carry Permit Laws

QUESTION

6. Can the holder of a valid handgun carry permit be prosecuted for criminal trespass in violation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-405 if the permit holder reenters the property while armed after the owner has ordered the holder to vacate the premises and not return while armed in cases where the owner has not posted a sign that satisfies the requirements of Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1359?

OPINION

6. Yes. The holder of a valid handgun carry permit can be prosecuted for criminal trespass in violation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-405 if the permit holder reenters the property while armed after the owner has ordered the holder to vacate the premises and not return while armed in cases where the owner has not posted a sign that satisfies the requirements of Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1359.

ANALYSIS

6. An armed handgun carry permit holder who reenters property after being ordered to

vacate does so with knowledge that the reentry is without the effective consent of the owner and would therefore be subject to prosecution for criminal trespass. The fact that the trespasser holds a valid handgun carry permit is not a defense to a criminal trespass charge under Tenn. Code Ann.§ 39-14-405.4

QUESTION

7. Can a property owner regulate the manner in which the holder of a valid handgun carry permit may possess or carry his or her handgun on the owner’s property?

OPINION

7. Yes. A property owner has the right to regulate the manner in which the holder of a valid handgun carry permit may possess or carry his or her handgun on the owner’s property. In exercising such right, the property owner may allow a handgun carry permit holder to carry the handgun concealed but not openly, openly but not concealed or in any other manner that the property owner deems appropriate.

ANALYSIS

7. Owners of property have the right to possess, enjoy and use their property. State ex rel.

Elvis Presley Foundation v. Crowell, 733 S.W.2d 89 (Tenn. App. 1987). Such a right carries with it the right to set the terms and conditions governing the use of property. The right to set terms and conditions governing the use of property rests with both private parties and federal, state and local governments. See, e.g., United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171 (1983); Adderly v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39 (1966); State v. Lyons, 802 S.W.2d 590 (Tenn. 1990).

A property owner’s right to set terms and conditions governing the use of property would

naturally include the right to determine whether others may enter or remain on the property while armed. In situations where the owner permits the possession of firearms on the property, the right to impose restrictions would also include the right to determine whether firearms may be carried openly, concealed or either openly or concealed.

The law specifically states what the posting should say period.

The AG for the state of Tennessee does not agree with you.

Opinion No. 07-43

Posting Notices that Handguns Are Not Permitted in Private Buildings

QUESTIONS

1. In order to prohibit handgun permit holders from carrying their handguns in a nongovernmental building, must the sign contain the exact language set forth in Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1359(a)?

1. No. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1359(a) requires the posting of a notice which uses language that is “substantially similar†to the language provided in the statute.

You can be told to leave but nothing else UNLESS you do not comply forthwith.

What part of this says you get a warning other than the sign?

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.]

Please frickin arrest me cause you, as a LEO or store owner, don't know the law. I need extra retirement money.

Well I have not heard of anyone being arrested for carrying in violation of a sign, but the AG has certainly cleared the way for it to happen. If it does we will see if the person arrested retires off his settlement. If I thought there was a snowballs chance in hell of that happening I would jump on it. But I don’t think that is how it would play out.

[Guest bkelm18]

The AG specifically stated in an opinion that a picture of a handgun with a slash through it does not constitute a legal sign. If you're going to post an AG opinion, you might as well post the one that actually pertains to this thread.

Opinion No 07-43

2. May a property owner use the international circle and slash symbol in lieu of a sign that uses the language prescribed by Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1359(a)?

2. No. The international circle and slash symbol may not be used in lieu of a sign that uses the language prescribed by Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1359(a).

Edited July 19, 2008 by bkelm18

[DaveTN]

The AG specifically stated in an opinion that a picture of a handgun with a slash through it does not constitute a legal sign. If you're going to post an AG opinion, you might as well post the one that actually pertains to this thread.

Is the sign just a gun with a slash though it? No, it contains the language “Weapons are Not Permitted on the property of Charter Communication.â€

Does reading that leave you unclear as to its meaning or their intent?

[robbiev]

Is the sign just a gun with a slash though it? No, it contains the language

Just a personal curiosity question:

Is

“Weapons are Not Permitted on the property of Charter Communication.”

substantially similar to the wording in the statute?

I'm not saying a cop couldn't or wouldn't arrest someone in this case, but personally, I don't feel (and it's merely MO) that this one sentence is substantially similar to the paragraph given in the statute.

Edited July 19, 2008 by robbiev

[DaveTN]

Just a personal curiosity question:

Is

“Weapons are Not Permitted on the property of Charter Communication.â€

substantially similar to the wording in the statute?

I'm not saying a cop couldn't or wouldn't arrest someone in this case, but personally, I don't feel (and it's merely MO) that this one sentence is substantially similar to the paragraph given in the statute.

Yes. It is substantially similar in that it conveys exactly the same message as the language in the code.

I can picture a Judge asking you if you were unclear on the intent of the sign.

[robbiev]

Yes. It is substantially similar in that it conveys exactly the same message as the language in the code.

Therein lies one of the problems: the AG throws out "substantially similar" but doesn't say who gets to decide. Unfortunately, if a HCP holder believes the wording is not ss, it doesn't mean much.

And it could be argued that "intent" is irrelavent (I'm not saying you'd win, I'm just saying it could be argued). If a business owner doesn't comply with what the law says he has to do, it could be argued that I didn't break any law.

ETA:

IE: A business can post a big sign with a picture of a gun and a slash through it. It's pretty clear that the intent is no guns, but the AG has specifically said that doesn't count.

Edited July 19, 2008 by robbiev

[DaveTN]

Therein lies one of the problems: the AG throws out "substantially similar" but doesn't say who gets to decide. Unfortunately, if a HCP holder believes the wording is not ss, it doesn't mean much.

I think the AG was trying to make a point that this is not a word and punctuation game. Police officers, Prosecutors, and Judges look at the intent of the law.

The intent of this law is to let you know that business owners can post their property and your carry permit is no good there. They have rights; you have a privilege. Rights trump privileges every time.

Someone does get to decide. And it goes in this order… The Cop that responds, the DA that gets the case, and eventually the Judge.

And it could be argued that "intent" is irrelavent (I'm not saying you'd win, I'm just saying it could be argued). If a business owner doesn't comply with what the law says he has to do, it could be argued that I didn't break any law.

Anything can be argued. I could argue the intent of the law is clear.

On a different note… I’m not familiar with Tennessee’s arrest procedures (thank God ), it appears that this is a fine only, so it doesn’t appear that you would be taken into physical custody just given a summons. ???

[DaveTN]

ETA:

IE: A business can post a big sign with a picture of a gun and a slash through it. It's pretty clear that the intent is no guns, but the AG has specifically said that doesn't count.

I would guess because of these…

We get so use to seeing “No Smoking†signs everywhere who really looks anymore to see if that’s a cigarette in the sign?

But thats just a WAG.

[robbiev]

Someone does get to decide. And it goes in this order… The Cop that responds, the DA that gets the case, and eventually the Judge.

Yes, I understand that, and in fact, it was my point. As an HCP, I'm on my own deciding what I think a law means because it isn't up to me. The best way to figure it out, IMO, is to avoid places that have any type of sign. There are very few places I *HAVE* to go, so if I see somewhere that has a sign, I can just go somewhere else.

Anything can be argued.

Yes, which is why I stated you wouldn't necessarily win.

On a different note… I’m not familiar with Tennessee’s arrest procedures (thank God ),

That's always a good thing.

...it appears that this is a fine only, so it doesn’t appear that you would be taken into physical custody just given a summons. ???

I'm not sure about every circumstance, but that appears to be correct. I was watching someone on TV a while back day where they were talking about arrests for prostitution. They used the phrase "under arrest" for the "customers" but the police officers were shown only giving a summons (which looked remarkably like a traffic ticket) to the person.

The statute says, "FAILURE TO COMPLY...IS PUNISHABLE AS A CRIMINAL ACT UNDER STATE LAW AND MAY SUBJECT THE VIOLATOR TO A FINE..."

I'm guessing you could be arrested, but it may just depend on the police officer and what he feels he wants to do.

Edited July 19, 2008 by robbiev

[robbiev]

I would guess because of these…

(deleted pic of cig sign)

We get so use to seeing “No Smoking” signs everywhere who really looks anymore to see if that’s a cigarette in the sign?

But thats just a WAG.

I can see this argument: I'm sorry your honor. I wasn't paying attention. I thought they didn't want any ghosts.

http://www.armyofinbetween.com/images/films/ghostbusters.jpg

(unable to get pic to post, so just put link)

Edited July 19, 2008 by robbiev