HB0682 No Gun Sign Bill

[300winmag]

It looks like a bill that passed the House last year could be making movement in the state senate this year.  Is there any chance this bill can be amended to remove the no gun sign criminal penalty?

[300winmag]

This bill was heard yesterday in the Senate Judiciary committee and made it past committee.  Is there any interest in having this bill amended to remove the criminal penalty for the signs?  It looks like we have the opportunity right now to have the bill amended but that opportunity is not being used by the NRA and other gun groups.

Edited March 2, 2016 by 300winmag

[wawoodwa]

Personally, yes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bronco302]

I know this always opens a can of worms, but I want to look at it from both sides. If there is going to be a penalty then the sign should be very specific, this law covers most of that but some of  wording should be changed because as we have seen the sign will be hidden behind a bush if you don't put your finger on the spot. This should replace the sentence about plainly visible to the advantage person "The notice shall be plainly visible on all doors and prominent locations used for entrance to the building, property, or portion of the building or property,posted". As I said very specific in the finest detail, if this can't be accomplished then the penalty should be removed. I also think a penalty should apply to business owners who do not post properly and plainly then call the law.

 

Joe W.

[E4 No More]

Screw that! Take away the penalty and cover the rest with a danged simple trespassing charge.

[300winmag]

If we want to get the criminal penalty removed and be able to carry legally in a lot more places, folks that live where the bill sponsors represent need to contact them.  We also need to get the NRA and TFA to encourage the bill sponsors to amend the bill to remove the criminal penalty.

 

My view is, if this bill has already made it through the House and now working through the Senate to a floor vote, we have a great opportunity to use this bill to our advantage.  The bill made it through the Senate committee with a 9-0 vote, so it does not have a lot of bad media baggage attached to it.  If we are only get one or two decent 2nd amendment bills past this legislative session, let's get this taken care of.  

 

The House sponsor for HB0682 is VanHuss

The Senate sponsor for SB0774 is Beavers

Edited March 2, 2016 by 300winmag

[macville]

If we want to get the criminal penalty removed and be able to carry legally in a lot more places, folks that live where the bill sponsors represent need to contact them.  We also need to get the NRA and TFA to encourage the bill sponsors to amend the bill to remove the criminal penalty.

 

My view is, if this bill has already made it through the House and now working through the Senate to a floor vote, we have a great opportunity to use this bill to our advantage.  The bill made it through the Senate committee with a 9-0 vote, so it does not have a lot of bad media baggage attached to it.  If we are only get one or two decent 2nd amendment bills past this legislative session, let's get this taken care of.  

 

The House sponsor for HB0682 is VanHuss

The Senate sponsor for SB0774 is Beavers

 

 

So if it was amended to remove section 1359 it wouldn't have to go before a committee again since that's a radical change? If it doesn't, why wouldn't more people do a bait and switch for bills so they can get stuff around committees? Heck, why aren't we doing that more?!

[JohnC]

You might want to ask John Harris of the Tennessee Firearms Association. He's very active and responsive on Facebook.

 

TFA Facebook group here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/TennesseeFirearms/

 

It is private, so you got to ask to join... 

[GKar]

Given recent history, I'm betting that such an attempt wold be torpedoed by leadership and their minions based upon the change in intent from the original caption - which, in the case of this bill, is pretty specific: "rewrites the minimum requirements for phrases and symbols on signs prohibiting firearms in certain places open to the public."  Don't believe you could get away with trying to pigeonhole an attempt to remove the criminal penalty/code within the bounds of the already established caption language, particularly in an atmosphere where such a change is not viewed favorably by those who hold the reins.

Edited March 2, 2016 by GKar

[DaveTN]

Screw that! Take away the penalty and cover the rest with a danged simple trespassing charge.

Trespassing is a more serious charge than carrying past a sign. The way I read the Sign violation it's fine only.

[Oh Shoot]

Trespassing is a more serious charge than carrying past a sign. The way I read the Sign violation it's fine only.

 

It's still a criminal conviction on your record, a Class B Misdemeanor.  And also according to 39-17-1352, suspension or revocation of HCP.

 

- OS

[300winmag]

From what I'm reading, criminal trespass is a Class C Misdemeanor.  It is not a weapons charge.

 

The sign violation is a weapons charge and a Class B Misdemeanor.  Since it is a weapons charge, you could have issues with your handgun carry permit.

[macville]

Trespassing is a more serious charge than carrying past a sign. The way I read the Sign violation it's fine only.

Except you are breaking the law by passing a no weapons sign. You'd only be breaking the law if you refused to leave after asked under trespassing law. I think that is soooo much better. It's also constitutional for a change.

[jughead]

Except you are breaking the law by passing a no weapons sign. You'd only be breaking the law if you refused to leave after asked under trespassing law. I think that is soooo much better. It's also constitutional for a change.

i agree

[DaveTN]

Except you are breaking the law by passing a no weapons sign. You'd only be breaking the law if you refused to leave after asked under trespassing law. I think that is soooo much better. It's also constitutional for a change.

What’s Constitutional about the state saying when and where a special group can carry, but giving property owners no say on their own property?

I am part of a special group that pays the state for the privilege of carrying. I have no problem with that as its better than the alternative. I wish we had Constitutional carry; but we don’t.

Me sending money to the state in no way should allow me to have a say in how a business owner runs his business. If the state wants a say; they can recognize the 2nd amendment as an individual right; and allow all to carry. Saying you can’t carry in a state building, but you can carry in a private building is a thug government.

Sorry, but I am tired of special groups wanting the government to legislate their agendas. I can support this if it’s attached to legislation acknowledging the right of all citizens to carry. Edited March 3, 2016 by DaveTN

[macville]

What’s Constitutional about the state saying when and where a special group can carry, but giving property owners no say on their own property?

I am part of a special group that pays the state for the privilege of carrying. I have no problem with that as its better than the alternative. I wish we had Constitutional carry; but we don’t.

Me sending money to the state in no way should allow me to have a say in how a business owner runs his business. If the state wants a say; they can recognize the 2nd amendment as an individual right; and allow all to carry. Saying you can’t carry in a state building, but you can carry in a private building is a thug government.

Sorry, but I am tired of special groups wanting the government to legislate their agendas. I can support this if it’s attached to legislation acknowledging the right of all citizens to carry.

 

 

What's constitutional about carving out a special law that allows business owners to make a certain thing illegal if someone walks through their door with it? Our state constitution specifically says that all carry laws have to be done with a view to prevent crime and the posting law does not prevent crime.

 

I am not saying that business owners shouldn't be able to post, but it should not hold more weight than a "no shirt no service sign" or any other "no" sign. Trespassing laws cover all that fine and are the constitutional way to do it.

 

I agree that the state should make all government allow carry in government buildings if code 1359 was removed...but if we removed 1359 there would be no mechanism for governments to ban carry in any building because that's the law they currently use to do so, except for schools as that's covered in a different section. So to me, removing 1359 is the solution for solving a massive amount of issues with carry.

 

Btw, wouldn't business owners be in a special group themselves since they have 1359 carved out as a special provision to the law?

[300winmag]

Eliminating the criminal penalty for the no gun signs does not mean that private property owners will not be able to ask people to leave.  Most states do not have this sort of law and business owners still can ask people to leave their property.  A business owner in Tennessee can ask you to leave right now without any sort of no gun sign because again that is a trespass issue.

 

The weapons charge that is a Class B Misdemeanor is worse than the Class C Misdemeanor trespass charge.  A weapons conviction can cause you to have your permit suspended and your firearm confiscated.  Since trespass is not a weapons issue, the problem probably would not affect your permit or involve your gun being confiscated if you were asked to leave and you did not leave.  

 

Sometimes I wonder why pro gun people would not want restrictions reduced on their ability to carry legally.  Isn't the whole point of paying for the permit so that you do not have to worry about a weapons charge and dealing with your gun being taken?

 

If you go to downtown Memphis or Nashville, you will see what a pain it is to legally carry both in the local government owned buildings and private property due to these no gun signs.

Edited March 3, 2016 by 300winmag

[jughead]

A-MEN 300winmag

[dawgdoc]

While watching the morning news (News Channel 9 in Chattanooga), they had a very brief blurb about this bill passing the Senate.   They had obviously not researched the issue, because an uniformed person would think that the bill gives businesses the power to ban guns which did not exist before.  The opening line was, "Businesses in Tennessee may soon be able to ban guns..."  

 

It's just frustrating when the "news" cannot do very basic research before airing a story.  Their competitor (WRCB-TV) has a small story that gives the correct information that the law would set minimum requirements for signs.

[Worriedman]

While watching the morning news (News Channel 9 in Chattanooga), they had a very brief blurb about this bill passing the Senate.   They had obviously not researched the issue, because an uniformed person would think that the bill gives businesses the power to ban guns which did not exist before.  The opening line was, "Businesses in Tennessee may soon be able to ban guns..."  

 

It's just frustrating when the "news" cannot do very basic research before airing a story.  Their competitor (WRCB-TV) has a small story that gives the correct information that the law would set minimum requirements for signs.

Let them think anything, this is one of those "baby steps" everyone says should be taken.

[300winmag]

The bill passed pretty much unanimously in the house last year and passed unanimously in the Senate yesterday.  That bill could have been changed enough to truly benefit us and you would have probably still had it pass both house and senate.

[dawgdoc]

In regard to the "baby steps"-- at least there might be something close to a standard sign for which to look, and not a 2-inch square, transparent decal (looking at you, Hunter Museum of Art).

 

Of course the small progress from this change could be mooted if the AG opines that the spirit of a "no weapons" law is more important than adhering to some lawfully and specifically-designated standard.

[Oh Shoot]

Eliminating the criminal penalty for the no gun signs does not mean that private property owners will not be able to ask people to leave.  ...

 

Yes, but they'd actually have to, you know, tell you that face to face. They don't want to give up the "right" to simply call a cop on the sly, without having to ever confront the person, swear out a charge, or testify in court.

 

- OS

[mikegideon]

HIDE YOUR GUN

[macville]

So did anyone (I am guessing not) noticed that this passed and was signed by Haslam on March 23d? https://legiscan.com/TN/rollcall/HB0682/id/423991

 

The huge issue I see with this bill (beside not removing the sign provision period) is this little gem in it:

 

 

(4) An individual, corporation, business entity, or government entity that,

as of January 1, 2015, used signs to provide notice of the prohibition permitted by subsection (a) shall have until January 1, 2018, to replace existing signs with signs that meet the requirements of subdivision (b)(3). 

 

So how am I supposed to know if someone had a posting up before Jan 1 2015 that's now not conforming to the law? It's really like they are TRYING to make us break the law by making impossible to tell if we are actually breaking the law. Honestly, I don't think this helps clear up a conforming or non conforming posting until Jan 1 2018!