Properly posted locations question

[Volzfan]

Does a properly posted business also mean that the business owner is also prevented from having a weapon on the property?
A friend asked me and I wasn't sure.

[monkeylizard]

<<as Oh Shoot points out later, 39-17-1359 applies to everyone, not just HCP holders. I'm leaving my original post here as it was, but I'm wrong in this post about it only applying to HCP holders>>

 

 

 

Here's the way I see it.

 

If the shopkeeper is not an HCP holder, then no, they are not prevented. 39-17-1359 only applies to HCP holders.

 

If they're an HCP holder, then it gets sticky. 39-17-1308 is where we derive the defenses to a loaded weapons charge under 39-17-1307. Among them are 39-17-1351 (HCP) and a person's place of business. Note that it also lists 39-17-1315 which is where LEOs derive their legal defense to carry loaded. So this question equally applies to any LEO who also has an HCP, not just a business owner.

 

39-17-1359 simply says it applies to any person who is authorized to carry a firearm by authority of § 39-17-1351. AFAIK, an HCP holder is authorized under 1351 so long as the HCP is valid. You don't cease to be 1351 (HCP) authorized when also being authorized by 1315 (LEO, etc) or another 1308 (place of business plus more defenses) authorization or vice-versa. You just have more than one defense to 39-17-1307. 39-17-1359 doesn't make any reference to 39-17-1307 and creates its own misdemeanor charge totally separate from 39-17-1307. If I'm right then anyone with an HCP would violate 39-17-1359 if the location is posted and they carry, regardless of what other 39-17-1307 defense they have.

 

That bold part above doesn't say "who is carrying pursuant to 1351". It just says "who is authorized". I wouldn't think that HCPs jump in and out of validity based on someone having more than one 1307 defense.

 

 

Here's an idea...

If you know the shop keeper also has an HCP, call in a complaint and be an eye-witness of the misdemeanor. Maybe this can be a way to get a different kind of 1359 test case.  :popcorn:

 

 

*Does "the person's place of business" extend to employees too, or just the owner?

 

 

Edit: To add disclaimer at the top

Edited July 30, 2013 by monkeylizard

[DaveS]

Uh....You are not required to have a permit on your property no matter what sign is on the door. PERIOD! As a business owner I may carry and at the same time, prohibit you from carrying. Just one of the perks of owning a business!

 

DaveS

Edited July 29, 2013 by DaveS

[Oh Shoot]

...If the shopkeeper is not an HCP holder, then no, they are not prevented. 39-17-1359 only applies to HCP holders.

 

I continue to disagree, as statute doesn't say that.
 

....39-17-1359 simply says it applies to any person who is authorized to carry a firearm by authority of § 39-17-1351.

 

Again, it does not say it only applies to permit holders however. I think the intent of the mention of permit holders is just to make it clear it applies to us also.

 

Further evidence of intent is in the opening statement in statute: "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...".   Hence, I see no reason a person without a permit couldn't be charged with violation of 39-17-1307 and 39-17-1359 under the wording of both statutes.

 

- OS

Edited July 29, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[monkeylizard]

Uh....You are not required to have a permit on your property no matter what sign is on the door. PERIOD! As a business owner I may carry and at the same time, prohibit you from carrying. Just one of the perks of owning a business!

 

DaveS

 

Right, but that exemption for the person at their place of business is in 39-17-1308 which provides defenses to 39-17-1307. The question in the OP is if it's also an exemption to 39-17-1359, which is a separate offense from 39-17-1307. Nothing in 39-17-1359 says the person posting/business owner is exempt from 39-17-1359.

Edited July 30, 2013 by monkeylizard

[monkeylizard]

I continue to disagree, as statute doesn't say that.
 

 

Again, it does not say it only applies to permit holders however. I think the intent of the mention of permit holders is just to make it clear it applies to us also.

 

Further evidence of intent is in the opening statement in statute: "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...".   Hence, I see no reason a person without a permit couldn't be charged with violation of 39-17-1307 and 39-17-1359 under the wording of both statutes.

 

- OS

 

Yeah, I see what you mean. a-1 says it applies to everyone, and a-2 expressly includes HCPers.

I'd ammend my earlier post then to remove the HCP requirement and say, yeah, it appears that by the letter of the law a posted property is off-limits to everyone.

 

There are a couple of exemptions that 39-17-1359 includes, but none of that would exclude either the person who posted the meeting or property, or LEO. I don't see anything in 39-17-1315 (the LEO stuff) that expressly overrides 39-17-1359. I'm not suggesting a LEO would be charged, or a shopkeeper in their own shop, but as a purely cerebral exercise in how the laws are written, yeah, it looks like 1359 applies in both cases. Yet another example of how screwed up our gun laws are.

 

(e ) The provisions of this section shall not apply to title 70 regarding wildlife laws, rules and regulations.

(f ) This section shall not apply to the grounds of any public park, natural area, historic park, nature trail, campground, forest, greenway, waterway or other similar public place that is owned or operated by the state, a county, a municipality or instrumentality thereof. The carrying of firearms in those areas shall be governed by § 39-17-1311.

Edited July 30, 2013 by monkeylizard