No Gun Signs Coming Down at Legislative Plaza

[monkeylizard]

You've always been allowed to carry on the Plaza since they passed state parks carry.  It was only restricted inside the building itself.

 

 

Legislative Plaza is not a state park.

[300winmag]

These politicians are just coming up with excuses because it all goes back to that they do not trust people with handgun carry permits.  If they did, then people with permits would be able to carry in the Legislative Plaza and the statehouse.  They want you to buy their permit, but they don't want you to use the permit to carry your handgun.  Instead, they would rather you just leave your gun in your vehicle where it can be stolen.

Edited February 18, 2016 by 300winmag

[quietguy]

Legislative Plaza is not a state park.

The Plaza, Capitol Grounds, etc are treated essentially as parks since the Occupy Nashville "camp out".  Not office space and committee rooms, just the open air areas.  

[Oh Shoot]

The Plaza, Capitol Grounds, etc are treated essentially as parks since the Occupy Nashville "camp out".  Not office space and committee rooms, just the open air areas.  

 

TN State Parks are either officially designated as such or they are not, long before this little battle.

 

If you mean, municipal parks, then yes, the parks statute should allow a permit holder to carry there. But of course we know how this battle over "the definition of a park" is already being contested here and there around the state.

 

- OS

[quietguy]

TN State Parks are either officially designated as such or they are not, long before this little battle.

 

If you mean, municipal parks, then yes, the parks statute should allow a permit holder to carry there. But of course we know how this battle over "the definition of a park" is already being contested here and there around the state.

 

- OS

 

They are not state parks, but under the control of General Services.  To deal with Occupy, General Services issued rules very similar to what DoEC uses to govern parks (curfews, permits required, etc.).  The Capitol grounds and War Memorial Courtyard are governed by the same regulation.

 

There is a lot of confusion because the way the property is structured.  Legislative Plaza, is an open air "park like area", with an office building underground.  I don't believe the open area is posted, only if you pass the security checkpoint into the office and committee rooms is carry not permitted.  "On the plaza" is legal, "in the plaza" is not.  

[Worriedman]

These politicians are just coming up with excuses because it all goes back to that they do not trust people with handgun carry permits.  If they did, then people with permits would be able to carry in the Legislative Plaza and the statehouse.  They want you to buy their permit, but they don't want you to use the permit to carry your handgun.  Instead, they would rather you just leave your gun in your vehicle where it can be stolen.

We will never know what the conversations were as it has been judicially determined that the legislative branch is not a governmental agency for the purposes of the Public Records Act and, therefore, its internal records are not open for inspection pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated §10-7-503.

As in Thanatopsis, they (legislature) have pulled the draperies of their couch about them, and sunshine is not allowed in.  Just as we will never know what Beth and Gerald knew about Durham, they have created impenetrable walls of cover...

A number bandied about for the "changes to LP" for allowing HCP carry was at or in excess of $1,000,000.00, not officially published, but offered as a reason to not "pursue" the issue at this time.

Edited February 19, 2016 by Worriedman

[Worriedman]

The language in the TCA is this:

TCA 39-17-1359

[c](1) It is an offense to possess a weapon in a building or on property that is properly posted in accordance with this section.
(2) Possession of a weapon on posted property in violation of this section is a Class B misdemeanor punishable by fine only of five hundred dollars ($500).

This is where we will start next session, to remove the "offense".  I think the Establishment has encouraged the more Conservative legislators to take the issue on in the next session.  In fact, it should be a question at every stump speech as this is an election year...if we the Citizens are truly interested in seeing a change.


 

Edited February 19, 2016 by Worriedman

[300winmag]

That is great that there is talk in the legislature about fixing 39-17-1359 to actually remove the criminal offense.  The NRA really needs to get behind that because it would legalize a lot of places to carry in but at the same time property owners would still be able to ask people to leave.

[Worriedman]

That is great that there is talk in the legislature about fixing 39-17-1359 to actually remove the criminal offense.  The NRA really needs to get behind that because it would legalize a lot of places to carry in but at the same time property owners would still be able to ask people to leave.

The NRA does not delve into the machinations of the State much.  You and I will have a much better chance of getting something done rather than waiting on the NRA to invest in that small part of Tennessee Gun issues.

The only way it will happen is if someone can talk one of those Conservative legislators into actually writing the change.  I have had a few conversations, come on up and help show that there is impetuous for such an effort on the part of the Citizens.

Edited February 19, 2016 by Worriedman

[btq96r]

I'm probably the odd one out, but I'm fine with the criminal penalty for carrying past a sign.  For sure, the sign needs to be pretty clear, not some small print, or a golf ball size one at the bottom right of the entrance won't cut it.  If a business doesn't want guns on their property, that's on them.  I will say that it would take a helluva product or service to get me in their door, though.  I can find someone that doesn't post, or get by if I feel like making a point.

 

I also think that government buildings shouldn't be posted at all.  They are the places I can't find a market alternative to for services, so they should have to respect carry permits.  The show a permit, skip the metal detector idea works for me.

[dawgdoc]

I'm probably the odd one out, but I'm fine with the criminal penalty for carrying past a sign.  For sure, the sign needs to be pretty clear, not some small print, or a golf ball size one at the bottom right of the entrance won't cut it.  If a business doesn't want guns on their property, that's on them.  I will say that it would take a helluva product or service to get me in their door, though.  I can find someone that doesn't post, or get by if I feel like making a point.

 

I also think that government buildings shouldn't be posted at all.  They are the places I can't find a market alternative to for services, so they should have to respect carry permits.  The show a permit, skip the metal detector idea works for me.

 

What about hospitals?  Every one that I have seen so far (in TN and GA) seems to be posted in some way.  If you or someone else need to go to a hospital, you don't exactly have much choice, usually.

 

Now that I think about it, is knowingly carrying past a sign an element of the crime?  If you were injured, passed out, carrying a gun, and taken into a hospital, does it still count as a violation even if you did not consciously do it?

[btq96r]

What about hospitals?  Every one that I have seen so far (in TN and GA) seems to be posted in some way.  If you or someone else need to go to a hospital, you don't exactly have much choice, usually.

 

Now that I think about it, is knowingly carrying past a sign an element of the crime?  If you were injured, passed out, carrying a gun, and taken into a hospital, does it still count as a violation even if you did not consciously do it?

 

Since most hospitals are either a private businesses, or funded through churches and set up as non-profit organizations I'd have to say leave it as their call.  So, I'd want to respect their wishes, even if their wish was nobody comes in armed aside from their own security.  In the case of religious funded non-profit hospitals, forcing them to allow weapons against their principles could be a slippery slope since they are recognized as non-profit organizations. 

 

Even hospitals are a choice unless you're not capable of telling someone which one to take you to.  I know for my money (literally) I'm directing anyone taking me to one in an emergency to bring me to one that  is in my insurance network.  If I'm unconscious, or otherwise incapable of that, I just have to deal with it.  Bigger priorities at that point.

 

I doubt that you could be held liable for carrying into a hospital if you were coming in on a stretcher or with someone else assisting you in dire straits.  If you were a self-admit and still of sound mind, then I would think there is a case to be made.

Edited February 21, 2016 by btq96r

[Omega]

I'm probably the odd one out, but I'm fine with the criminal penalty for carrying past a sign.  For sure, the sign needs to be pretty clear, not some small print, or a golf ball size one at the bottom right of the entrance won't cut it.  If a business doesn't want guns on their property, that's on them.  I will say that it would take a helluva product or service to get me in their door, though.  I can find someone that doesn't post, or get by if I feel like making a point.
 
I also think that government buildings shouldn't be posted at all.  They are the places I can't find a market alternative to for services, so they should have to respect carry permits.  The show a permit, skip the metal detector idea works for me.

  I have no problem with a business being posted, but it should be a question of tresspassing not merely walking past a sign.  To me it's problematic when a place like a mall is not posted at all entrances but a main store such as Sears(example only) is posted only on their outer door.  And there are times when doors are blocked open or many people entering so you can't see the sign.  
 
 

What about hospitals?  Every one that I have seen so far (in TN and GA) seems to be posted in some way.  If you or someone else need to go to a hospital, you don't exactly have much choice, usually.
 
Now that I think about it, is knowingly carrying past a sign an element of the crime?  If you were injured, passed out, carrying a gun, and taken into a hospital, does it still count as a violation even if you did not consciously do it?

I doubt you would be charged for something like that unless you brought yourself or someone else in.  And even then, unless you made an issue of it you may just be asked to take out to your vehicle.

[dawgdoc]

So it sounds like the prevailing opinion is the common sense one--that you shouldn't be charged as violating the sign law if you were unconscious.  

 

However, the actual law does not have that wording, and technically you could still be charged, and that is just one of the many problems with signs carrying the weight of law.  It would fall under enforcement discretion, which is OK for most people, but could be used to harass a person when nothing else is available.  Hopefully any unconscious gun toter who enters a hospital won't encounter a bad apple LEO.

 

Using the trespassing statute is better because it would require some type of personal notification, which would necessitate consciousness in order to comply or not. 

[btq96r]

  I have no problem with a business being posted, but it should be a question of tresspassing not merely walking past a sign.  To me it's problematic when a place like a mall is not posted at all entrances but a main store such as Sears(example only) is posted only on their outer door.  And there are times when doors are blocked open or many people entering so you can't see the sign. 

 

Concur that the malls suck on posting properly.  It should be a clear sign, at every entrance, 100% compliance, or you can't charge someone who comes in an improperly posted door.  But if the posting standard is met, I do think there should be a criminal charge because there is a firearm involved, and I have no problem putting standards on those carrying.  We should be able to meet them with no issue. 

 

Right now, it's the criminal charge, and the threat of losing your permit that keeps people from carrying past the signs...for the most part.  If we remove the criminal charge, and make it trespassing only, then how many people do you think would just conceal carry, and ignore what they see, simultaneously ignoring the intent along with it.

Edited February 22, 2016 by btq96r

[Omega]

Concur that the malls suck on posting properly.  It should be a clear sign, at every entrance, 100% compliance, or you can't charge someone.  But I do think there should be a criminal charge because there is a firearm involved, and I have no problem putting standards on those carrying.  We should be able to meet them with no issue. 

 

Right now, it's the criminal charge, and the threat of losing your permit that keeps people from carrying past the signs...for the most part.  If we remove the criminal charge, and make it trespassing only, then how many people do you think would just conceal carry, and ignore what they see, simultaneously ignoring the intent along with it.

I highly disagree, unless the weapon is used in committing a crime it should have no bearing on the charge.  Now if they wanted to create a higher trespass charge when it involves a weapon, then I might support that, specially considering that you would be put on notice when asked to leave.

[btq96r]

I highly disagree, unless the weapon is used in committing a crime it should have no bearing on the charge.  Now if they wanted to create a higher trespass charge when it involves a weapon, then I might support that, specially considering that you would be put on notice when asked to leave.

 

The properly posted sign is the notice not to even come in with a gun, so why would they need an additional notice to leave?

[300winmag]

If someone has paid the money for a pistol license, then that person should not worry about a weapons charge over a sign.  The sign should be treated no different than a no shirt no shoes no service sign.  Our state unfortunately has created several areas where people with licenses can have problems.  Laws should focus on criminals with weapons, not the honest people paying for a license.  I'm all for off duty LEO's being able to carry legally anywhere and people with permits legally carrying anywhere also.  I also think that if there are a few locations like jails where off duty police cannot carry, then the same secure storage provided to them should be provided to people with permits.  The secure storage is already there for police, why not hold weapons for people with permits?  This would be handy for people who do business at jails, prisons, etc.  At most, a public or private property owner should be able to tell someone with a permit to leave just like what is presently done with off duty police.  It works in other states, why not here?

Edited February 22, 2016 by 300winmag

[Omega]

The properly posted sign is the notice not to even come in with a gun, so why would they need an additional notice to leave?

Taking away the force of law, leaving only the trespass law in effect.

[btq96r]

If someone has paid the money for a pistol license, then that person should not worry about a weapons charge over a sign.  The sign should be treated no different than a no shirt no shoes no service sign.  Our state unfortunately has created several areas where people with licenses can have problems.  Laws should focus on criminals with weapons, not the honest people paying for a license.  I'm all for off duty LEO's being able to carry legally anywhere and people with permits legally carrying anywhere also.  I also think that if there are a few locations like jails where off duty police cannot carry, then the same secure storage provided to them should be provided to people with permits.  The secure storage is already there for police, why not hold weapons for people with permits?  This would be handy for people who do business at jails, prisons, etc.  At most, a public or private property owner should be able to tell someone with a permit to leave just like what is presently done with off duty police.  It works in other states, why not here?

 

Taking away the force of law, leaving only the trespass law in effect.

 

 

Like I said, I want the force of law behind a no-gun sign, otherwise even the law abiding gun owners will just ignore it.  But I get that's probably not the popular opinion here.

[Omega]

Like I said, I want the force of law behind a no-gun sign, otherwise even the law abiding gun owners will just ignore it.  But I get that's probably not the popular opinion here.

:stare: Just makes no sense to me.  Most will acknowledge that these signs mean nothing to those that are willing to break the law, why target the law abiding?  I thought laws were there to prevent crime, not make criminals. 

[300winmag]

If the 'no guns' sign criminal charges do not apply to off duty police and off duty prison guards (only can be asked to leave), why should it apply to people with permits?  We're all good guys and have paid for our privilege in this state to carry.  It's just an unnecessary law that applies not just to private property but also to public property.  If you live in a small town, you may be able to carry just about anywhere but a school because those signs are not put up by your local government and business owners.  If you go to downtown Memphis or Nashville, good luck legally carrying when you go to all the city owned buildings and other places.

[btq96r]

:stare: Just makes no sense to me.  Most will acknowledge that these signs mean nothing to those that are willing to break the law, why target the law abiding?  I thought laws were there to prevent crime, not make criminals. 

 

I can only imagine how often the signs would be ignored if there isn't that legal consequence behind them, and I don't like the idea of that.  Permit holders want the criminal charges removed so they can ignore the signs by carrying concealed and not be subject to a fine, or worse, losing their permit for it.  And 99.9% of the time they would get away with it, nobody would be the wiser, and life would go on.  But I still think it's wrong, and a violation of property rights.  I want a stricter legal standard placed on HCP holders. 

 

 

If the 'no guns' sign criminal charges do not apply to off duty police and off duty prison guards (only can be asked to leave), why should it apply to people with permits?  We're all good guys and have paid for our privilege in this state to carry.  It's just an unnecessary law that applies not just to private property but also to public property.  If you live in a small town, you may be able to carry just about anywhere but a school because those signs are not put up by your local government and business owners.  If you go to downtown Memphis or Nashville, good luck legally carrying when you go to all the city owned buildings and other places.

 

With off duty police, they are in a special situation where they could be called into work, or in a position to take charge of a crime scene, so that's why they get the exception.  Retired LEO's shouldn't get any special exemptions at all, and same with prison guards, off duty or retired.

 

I'm all in favor of HCP holders being able to carry inside any government building, to include city hall, courthouses, legislative plaza, and yes public schools.  Now if someone doesn't have an HCP and decides to carry, then they're in violation of the law, and should be prosecuted accordingly.

 

I'm just on the side of private property owners with this one, and since a firearm is involved, the force of law and threat of punishment should be applicable.

[macville]

I can only imagine how often the signs would be ignored if there isn't that legal consequence behind them, and I don't like the idea of that.  Permit holders want the criminal charges removed so they can ignore the signs by carrying concealed and not be subject to a fine, or worse, losing their permit for it.  And 99.9% of the time they would get away with it, nobody would be the wiser, and life would go on.  But I still think it's wrong, and a violation of property rights.  I want a stricter legal standard placed on HCP holders. 

 

If people want property rights, then they need stop opening their property to the public. The list of "rights" they give up when opening property to the public is pretty wide already, I honestly don't see why not adding this. Besides, our state Constitution doesn't give the legislature or property owners the right to restrict carry with criminal punishment.  The legislature has unconstitutionally given property owners something they are not allowed to do. Post? Yes. Post with criminal penalty? No.

[mikegideon]

If people want property rights, then they need stop opening their property to the public. The list of "rights" they give up when opening property to the public is pretty wide already, I honestly don't see why not adding this. Besides, our state Constitution doesn't give the legislature or property owners the right to restrict carry with criminal punishment.  The legislature has unconstitutionally given property owners something they are not allowed to do. Post? Yes. Post with criminal penalty? No.

 

But... the government must have control, because uhhhh because