HB 0682 No gun sign Bill

[300winmag]

It looks like there is a no guns sign bill that will be heard March 11th.

 

Does anyone know if the sponsor would be willing to add some sort of language to the bill to remove the criminal penalty for the no gun signs?  I figure if someone is going to go to the trouble of writing a bill, it might as well get rid of the weapons charge over the no guns signs.

 

http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/default.aspx?BillNumber=HB0682&GA=109

[macville]

Basically, it makes the posting law clearer. This is a waste of time bill that needs to die because it really doesn't help us. The constitution says 1359 is illegal, I do not understand what our officials can't understand simple english.

[300winmag]

Yep it looks like a waste of time because it doesn't get rid of the posting law or eliminate criminal penalty.  Not much help to people with handgun carry permits.

Edited March 6, 2015 by 300winmag

[K191145]

It should be a simple law, they have the right to post a sign if they want to, if they see you wearing a gun you're violating "THEIR" private property rules but not the state law. Then they have the right to tell you to leave their property, if you refuse "THEN" you're violating the tresspassing law.

I believe in property rights, if a private business tells you to leave their property for whatever reason you must leave or be charged with tresspassing. If someone feels they have been discriminated against they have the right to file civil action. Personally I want to know who doesn't respect the 2nd. Amendment so I can avoid doing business with them so let them have their little signs showing they don't believe in the Bill Of Rights.

[Worriedman]

Seems that it does away with the circle and slash "gun buster" sign.  Makes a place that wants to post, really post.

Edited March 7, 2015 by Worriedman

[JAB]

Seems that it does away with the circle and slash "gun buster" sign.  Makes a place that wants to post, really post.

 

The way I read it, the legislation would require the circle and slash 'gun buster' be a part of the sign along with the phrase 'No Firearms Allowed' and the T.C.A. wording in order for the sign to be 'legal'.  In other words, just the T.C.A wording or the circle/slash would no longer be a legal posting.  Both, along with the 'No Firearms Allowed' phrase would be required.  Further, there are size requirements for the circle/slash symbol (four by four inches) along with color requirements (red circle/slash with a black firearm) and a size requirement for the 'No Firearms Allowed' phrase in order for the posting to be legal.

 

This does seem largely to be a waste of time bill.  To me, it looks like the intent is to make posting a legal sign more complicated and, possibly, more trouble than it is worth for businesses.  One good thing I believe it would do is that it would do away with businesses trying to 'ride the fence' by posting a small circle/slash on a sticker with a clear background in the bottom corner of a glass entry door where it is very difficult to see.  They probably do this to 'welcome' those who oppose carry by being able to point out that they are a posted business while not offending carriers by making the sign so unobtrusive as to be almost invisible.  The real outcome, however,  is that they post in such a way that a person legally carrying a gun might inadvertently break the law by not seeing the sign.  The new posting requirement would do away with that and force a business to post in an obvious way or not post, at all.

 

I am with K191145 on this, however.  Simply remove the weight of law from the sign and let the business file trespassing charges if the carrier is asked to leave and refuses.  Given the hoops we have to jump through, the fees we have to pay and the background checks to which we permit holders must submit in order to receive an HCP there is absolutely no reason for a legally carried firearm to be treated any differently than any, other item that a company might want to restrict by policy but that has no legal restriction beyond charges of trespass.

Edited March 10, 2015 by JAB

[Randall53]

It should be a simple law, they have the right to post a sign if they want to, if they see you wearing a gun you're violating "THEIR" private property rules but not the state law. Then they have the right to tell you to leave their property, if you refuse "THEN" you're violating the tresspassing law.

I believe in property rights, if a private business tells you to leave their property for whatever reason you must leave or be charged with tresspassing. If someone feels they have been discriminated against they have the right to file civil action. Personally I want to know who doesn't respect the 2nd. Amendment so I can avoid doing business with them so let them have their little signs showing they don't believe in the Bill Of Rights.

 

Exellent post in my opinion!!

[rmiddle]

The way I read it, the legislation would require the circle and slash 'gun buster' be a part of the sign along with the phrase 'No Firearms Allowed' and the T.C.A. wording in order for the sign to be 'legal'.  In other words, just the T.C.A wording or the circle/slash would no longer be a legal posting.  Both, along with the 'No Firearms Allowed' phrase would be required.  Further, there are size requirements for the circle/slash symbol (four by four inches) along with color requirements (red circle/slash with a black firearm) and a size requirement for the 'No Firearms Allowed' phrase in order for the posting to be legal.

 

This does seem largely to be a waste of time bill.  To me, it looks like the intent is to make posting a legal sign more complicated and, possibly, more trouble than it is worth for businesses.  One good thing I believe it would do is that it would do away with businesses trying to 'ride the fence' by posting a small circle/slash on a sticker with a clear background in the bottom corner of a glass entry door where it is very difficult to see.  They probably do this to 'welcome' those who oppose carry by being able to point out that they are a posted business while not offending carriers by making the sign so unobtrusive as to be almost invisible.  The real outcome, however,  is that they post in such a way that a person legally carrying a gun might inadvertently break the law by not seeing the sign.  The new posting requirement would do away with that and force a business to post in an obvious way or not post, at all.

 

That isn't a bad thing in my option.  Maybe I have spent too much time in crackpot states like Maryland but I could easy see a business ran but Anti that calls the cops and have someone arrested with a tiny little clear sign that no one can see but meets the current requirement of the law.  This sounds like a compromise bill were someone is tiring to address the issue were people could find themselves in trouble because the sign is small and hidden and force business to make it clear where they stand well still getting it past the anti as it wont prevent business from still posting a signs.

[2.ooohhh]

Yep. IL's new carry law is crap in many ways compared to ours but one thing I'm jealous of is that in their law EVERY prohibited business has to be clearly posted and with signs that are both distinct and large enough to see from the parking lot of most businesses. No walking up to a business's door and turning back due to some miniscule posting in a lower corner of the door you didn't see until you were right up on them, or the clear sticker on a glass door crap.

 

TN compliant-

Untitled by systemdelete, on Flickr

 

IL compliant

Edited March 10, 2015 by 2.ooohhh

[300winmag]

We just need to get the bill sponsors to modify the bill so that the whole sign issue is changed from a criminal weapons charge to a civil trespass issue.  Most states treat signs as a trespass issue and not a weapons charge.  It is a pain in TN to even get a license but you can go across into Alabama and buy a pistol license from the county sheriff with no training and carry just about anywhere, including schools, legally.  Signs do not mean anything there either, except you can be asked to leave.

[JAB]

That isn't a bad thing in my option.  Maybe I have spent too much time in crackpot states like Maryland but I could easy see a business ran but Anti that calls the cops and have someone arrested with a tiny little clear sign that no one can see but meets the current requirement of the law.  This sounds like a compromise bill were someone is tiring to address the issue were people could find themselves in trouble because the sign is small and hidden and force business to make it clear where they stand well still getting it past the anti as it wont prevent business from still posting a signs.

 

I agree that this bill would improve things over allowing almost invisible signage to be considered 'legal'.  I simply think that - given the limited energy and time available for addressing firearms issues - a bill that removes the weight of law from a stupid, printed piece of paper taped to the front door of a business would be a much better use of that time and energy.

[Oh Shoot]

We just need to get the bill sponsors to modify the bill so that the whole sign issue is changed from a criminal weapons charge to a civil trespass issue....

 

Trespass is not a civil issue, still a criminal one.

 

- OS

[dawgdoc]

So what's the worst sign y'all have seen?  So far, the worst that I saw was at the Hunter Arts Museum in Chattanooga--a clear 2 inch square gun buster posted in the center section between to sliding automated doors so that either door could temporarily cover it.

 

I agree that removing the signs law would be best, but second best would be to make the legal requirement of the signs to be burdensome enough that a business would have to really want to prohibit guns.   South Carolina's version has very explicit requirements on the sign size, word size, etc. such that it is easy for a sign to not carry legal weight.  Of course, we would need to the law to be explicit so that the AG couldn't give the opinion that you could be charged even if the sign did not match the requirements of the law.

[DaveTN]

It a crime to carry a gun in our state; until it becomes a right the state doesn’t have jack to say about what a business does. Us buying a privilege from the state does not trump the rights of property owners.

Now if the state wants to recognize it as a right they can start having a say about what businesses do; until then if they are properly posted it’s a criminal offense.
 

Most states treat signs as a trespass issue and not a weapons charge.

Trespass is a misdemeanor for which you can receive jail time. Carrying past a sign is criminal also, but as I understand it; it’s a $500 fine only.

[Oh Shoot]

It a crime to carry a gun in our state; until it becomes a right the state doesn’t have jack to say about what a business does. Us buying a privilege from the state does not trump the rights of property owners.

Now if the state wants to recognize it as a right they can start having a say about what businesses do; until then if they are properly posted it’s a criminal offense.
 
Trespass is a misdemeanor for which you can receive jail time. Carrying past a sign is criminal also, but as I understand it; it’s a $500 fine only.

 

Plus, according to 39-17-1352, mandatory suspension or revocation of the HCP.

 

- OS

Edited March 11, 2015 by Oh Shoot

[300winmag]

It looks like this bill has made it out of committee in the House.  If anyone knows the sponsor of this bill, see if you can get the sponsor to amend the bill in order to remove the criminal penalty for carrying past a sign.  That would greatly help those of us with a handgun carry permit.

[LagerHead]

No matter what happens with this law, we'll still have 13 posts a week asking if "this sign is legal."

[GKar]

It looks like this bill has made it out of committee in the House.  If anyone knows the sponsor of this bill, see if you can get the sponsor to amend the bill in order to remove the criminal penalty for carrying past a sign.  That would greatly help those of us with a handgun carry permit.

 

That likely would not be allowed, as I'm pretty sure such an amendment would be deemed "outside the caption"...another handy little trick seeing great use of late.