Handgun Carry Permit Improvements

[300winmag]

How many of you would like to see the current no gun sign law penalty changed from this:

(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).

To something like this:

(c) Possession of a weapon on posted property shall not be a criminal act but may subject the person to denial to the premises or removal from the premises.

 

I would also add this sort of clause to the school property no gun law so that people with permits cannot be charged with a weapons charge but schools can still ask people to leave. 

In my opinion this is what the legislature should have done this year instead of spending the time on the silly no gun sign liability law that got in the news and also changing up the wording of the no gun signs.  Is there a way that we can get the NRA and TFA to push for this next year at least for the posted property law and possibly for the school property gun law?  I think it strikes a balance between keeping the good people with permits out of legal trouble and also schools and other property owners not losing the ability to ask people to leave.  Missouri and Kansas basically have these sort of exceptions for carrying on school property and other posted property.
 

Edited August 9, 2016 by 300winmag

[MikeW]

What is a correct posting sign?

[300winmag]

(3)  (A) A sign shall be used as the method of posting. The sign shall include the phrase "NO FIREARMS ALLOWED", and the phrase shall measure at least one inch (1") high and eight inches (8") wide. The sign shall also include the phrase "As authorized by T.C.A. § 39-17-1359".

      (B) The sign shall include a pictorial representation of the phrase "NO FIREARMS ALLOWED" that shall include a circle with a diagonal line through the circle and an image of a firearm inside the circle under the diagonal line. The entire pictorial representation shall be at least four inches (4") high and four inches (4") wide. The diagonal line shall be at a forty-five degree (45 degrees) angle from the upper left to the lower right side of the circle.

   (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).

 

From what I understand, if a property had a no gun sign on Jan 1, 2015 that had a picture of a gun or the TCA language, then that sign is valid until Jan 2018.  How in the world anyone would know if a previously valid sign was up in Jan 2015 just adds to the legal trap of this no gun sign law.

[MikeW]

8 minutes ago, 300winmag said:

 

9 minutes ago, 300winmag said:

(3)  (A) A sign shall be used as the method of posting. The sign shall include the phrase "NO FIREARMS ALLOWED", and the phrase shall measure at least one inch (1") high and eight inches (8") wide. The sign shall also include the phrase "As authorized by T.C.A. § 39-17-1359".

      (B) The sign shall include a pictorial representation of the phrase "NO FIREARMS ALLOWED" that shall include a circle with a diagonal line through the circle and an image of a firearm inside the circle under the diagonal line. The entire pictorial representation shall be at least four inches (4") high and four inches (4") wide. The diagonal line shall be at a forty-five degree (45 degrees) angle from the upper left to the lower right side of the circle.

   (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).

 

From what I understand, if a property had a no gun sign on Jan 1, 2015 that had a picture of a gun or the TCA language, then that sign is valid until Jan 2018.  How in the world anyone would know if a previously valid sign was up in Jan 2015 just adds to the legal trap of this no gun sign law.

Thanks  I read code T.C.A. § 39-17-1359  and I guess I am still left wondering if the sign has to list the code to be a "valid" posting. I see restaurants and stores that just have "no firearms allowed" in small print without the ghostbusters sign or the TCA listed.

 

[macville]

8 hours ago, 300winmag said:

How many of you would like to see the current no gun sign law penalty changed from this:

(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).

To something like this:

(c) Possession of a weapon on posted property shall not be a criminal act but may subject the person to denial to the premises or removal from the premises.

 

I would also add this sort of clause to the school property no gun law so that people with permits cannot be charged with a weapons charge but schools can still ask people to leave. 

In my opinion this is what the legislature should have done this year instead of spending the time on the silly no gun sign liability law that got in the news and also changing up the wording of the no gun signs.  Is there a way that we can get the NRA and TFA to push for this next year at least for the posted property law and possibly for the school property gun law?  I think it strikes a balance between keeping the good people with permits out of legal trouble and also schools and other property owners not losing the ability to ask people to leave.  Missouri and Kansas basically have these sort of exceptions for carrying on school property and other posted property.
 

You could remove -1359 entirely and youll do exactly the same thing. property is already covered by trespassing laws so no need to repeat the same thing. make it simple.

[300winmag]

I agree the best solution would be to remove the whole no gun sign law, but I figure if it must be in there might as well make it where it cannot cause a person with a handgun carry permit criminal legal problems.  It might also have the appearance of 'compromise' when the law is left in there but worded differently to benefit us.  It would also benefit people who are carrying handguns under other exceptions such as people (who don't have permits) with handguns in their cars in a posted parking lot.

Edited August 9, 2016 by 300winmag

[conn_air7]

Honestly, how many business are posted properly according to TCA anymore? Every one I have seen is nowhere near the specifications that are listed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[300winmag]

It's still a bad law that needs to be changed or removed.  Not many states have criminal weapons charges for no guns signs.  Bad laws are often used to hassle good people.  Also you'll never have school/college carry in this state legalized if this sign law is not changed along with the school gun law.  You can bet every school in the state will put up no gun signs and you still won't be completely legal to carry just like you presently can't carry at a lot of locations in downtown Memphis that are owned by Memphis city government, Shelby County, or the hospitals because of the signs.

Edited August 12, 2016 by 300winmag

[DaveTN]

Laws that have no penalties are ridiculous. And state governments that think they can outlaw the carry of guns, but force allowing carry down the throat of business owners simply because someone paid some money to the state is an example of a thug government.

I have a carry permit, but I sure don’t think that trumps business owner’s rights to control whether or not guns are carried on their property. If I get caught carrying past a sign; I’ll pay $500. (Even though that has never happened to anyone that we know of here)

I suggest spending all that time and energy on getting our state to recognize the 2nd amendment as an individual right and quit worrying about something that will probably never happen.

[300winmag]

The bad part is that this no gun sign law applies not just to private businesses but to all public property besides rec facilities.  So if you go to your local government office, airport, hospital you could be breaking the law.

You do realize that is a potential criminal weapons charge that can result in your permit being suspended?  Also anyone without a permit that has a gun in a vehicle is breaking the law when they park in a parking lot with legal no gun signs, not just private property but all property.  Armed guards are breaking that law at some locations, both public and private property, because there is no exemption for them either and I'm sure they can get their license suspended by the state also in addition to a weapons charge just like anyone else.

The only folks that have an exception to this bad law are police on and off duty.

No most police would probably not hassle anyone but it only takes one to give someone a bad day and cost you legal fees.  I knew quite a few folks that at one time carried 'illegally' because they knew they would not get hassled.  They can't do that today because a lot of police won't look the other way.

No business in Georgia is forced to allow guns by the state government and there is no force of law behind their signs.  Business owners can still ask you to leave in GA.  GA doesn't really recognize 2nd amendment either because you have to have a permit to carry outside your vehicle, just like Tennessee.  Changing up this law to remove the crime from it would open up a lot of properties, both taxpayer funded like your city government office and private business, to legal carry.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 12, 2016 by 300winmag

[300winmag]

I do agree that we need Constitutional carry, but I don't think we're going to get that with the make up of the legislature and governor anytime soon in this state.  I would rather the NRA and TFA spend time with key folks in the legislature to quietly cut carry restrictions on the handgun carry permit VS the spending time on the political show of running with a Constitutional carry bill that has zero chance of moving through the legislature.  You only get so much time/effort on gun bills.

[ken56]

Trespass law cover this issue. There is absolutely no reason to have this law. Why on earth should a sign absolve a business owner from direct contact with someone he does not want in his business? He could easily just call the police on you if he should notice you have a gun on you without ever saying a word to you. Ya ya, the sign is your notice. I get it. No shoes, no shirt, no service.......so a guy comes in and the business owner is just going to ignore him? The sign said.............no service.  Scary guns. ooohh. A business owner should not have to have direct contact with someone who has a gun. That's too scary. Stupid law.

[DaveTN]

Was this law not part of negotiations in the state legislature to get handgun carry passed?

[Radlink54]

23 hours ago, conn_air7 said:

Honestly, how many business are posted properly according to TCA anymore? Every one I have seen is nowhere near the specifications that are listed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 1)   (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).

That MAY eventually improve things.  I just returned from TX where their recent debates about concealed and open carry seem to have resulted in every business that wants to post, to indeed use the very obvious and detailed posting signs they have required.  You can't really miss them.  Right now, absent the changes this new law MAY eventually create, it is unfair for someone to be charged with a Class B misdemeanor because they did not see a 3 inch gun buster sign in the bottom left corner of some door or window.

So if you believe that the fine is justifiable, hopefully those of us that do not, will have a valid defense from the fact that the business does not have a compliant sign.  Until Jan 1, 2018 we are at risk regardless if someone just scrawls in crayon on the door frame "no guns". 

22 hours ago, DaveTN said:

Laws that have no penalties are ridiculous. And state governments that think they can outlaw the carry of guns, but force allowing carry down the throat of business owners simply because someone paid some money to the state is an example of a thug government.

I have a carry permit, but I sure don’t think that trumps business owner’s rights to control whether or not guns are carried on their property. If I get caught carrying past a sign; I’ll pay $500. (Even though that has never happened to anyone that we know of here)

I suggest spending all that time and energy on getting our state to recognize the 2nd amendment as an individual right and quit worrying about something that will probably never happen.

2)  "Possession of a weapon on posted property shall not be a criminal act but may subject the person to denial to the premises or removal from the premises."

 

The "penalty" is removal/denial or arrest for trespass.  It would not be a law without a penalty.  But it would give you the option before being charged.  As I have previously stated for some people it may be fine to "pay a fine if I have to".  Many of us have jobs that require we pass frequent background checks,  frequent re-credentialing, etc .  Even a Class B misdemeanor on our record would at the least raise eyebrows with our co-workers and employers.

We would be much better served in the interim to change the penalty clause of the sign post law.  

That is a real world incremental improvement that should not be ignored in an effort to get eventual constitutional carry.

[300winmag]

Yeah people forget that this sign law is a criminal weapons charge just like carrying without a license.  That does involve possible permit suspension, handgun confiscation, and hiring a lawyer to go to court with you, so it can turn into more than a 500 dollar fine.  Even someone without a permit who has a firearm in his vehicle can go through that same process besides the permit suspension problem.  Local and state government buildings use this law to frequently stick signs up and add to the minefield of being legal when you carry or have a gun in the vehicle.  That is a whole lot more hassle legal carriers have to deal with than 90% of other states that do not have this same garbage law.

I'd say if the state is not through criminal law enforcing 'no shirt no shoes no service' signs, then there is no need for the state to get in the middle of 'no guns' signs.  The trespass laws are sufficient to deal with this issue.  There is no need for an additional weapons charge to trap people with handgun carry permits and potentially cost us time and legal fees.

 

Edited August 13, 2016 by 300winmag

[Oh Shoot]

3 hours ago, 300winmag said:

Yeah people forget that this sign law is a criminal weapons charge just like carrying without a license.  That does involve possible permit suspension...

TCA 39-17-1352 already says your permit will be suspended or revoked for a 1359 violation.

- OS

[Radlink54]

(3)  (A) A sign shall be used as the method of posting. The sign shall include the phrase "NO FIREARMS ALLOWED", and the phrase shall measure at least one inch (1") high and eight inches (8") wide. The sign shall also include the phrase "As authorized by T.C.A. § 39-17-1359".

      (B) The sign shall include a pictorial representation of the phrase "NO FIREARMS ALLOWED" that shall include a circle with a diagonal line through the circle and an image of a firearm inside the circle under the diagonal line. The entire pictorial representation shall be at least four inches (4") high and four inches (4") wide. The diagonal line shall be at a forty-five degree (45 degrees) angle from the upper left to the lower right side of the circle.

 

Not to mention a class B misdemeanor could include 6 months in jail.  If you think in the right situation (anti gun city leadership like we have here in Nashville,  "make a name for yourself" assistant DA) that it cannot happen you are dead wrong.  An attitude of "I'll take my chances and pay a fine if I have to" simply does not cut it for many of us.

 

 So once 1/1/18 comes around I would say that it is a positive that the new law appears to require a specific sign posting requirement.  That is indeed a big improvement over the previous "post whatever" like many resturarants in  Nashville that simply post "no guns allowed" or similar.  

At the least if I am at risk for a class B misdemeanor it is a big improvement that the signage requirement has been standardized.  I still have a big hassle but even up front I can argue the signage does not meet TCA requirements.

I agree that any business has the personal right to restrict firearms from their premises.  But I don't  understand that if you believe ultimately that constitutional carry is a right (like you might believe that a business open to the public must admit any race, creed, religion or sexual preference), that UNTIL you can get that constitutional carry right passed ( which I heartily endorse) that you would not be in favor of the improvement of "decriminalizing crossing the sign".  It IS worth the legislative effort in the interim.

Yes this is a hot button with me, and I am very unhappy that the NRA and TFA don't seem to care!

[300winmag]

Yes I am surprised that the nra and tfa have never sponsored a bill to fix this problem in the past several years but have supported open carry and constitutional carry bills.   To me, you can't have successful open or constitutional carry without removing the criminal penalty of these signs.   The minute  you get any kind of unlicensed carry in this state you will see a ton of no gun signs on both businesses and local and state government properties .   You will be running back and forth to your car so much in order to try to be legal with your gun that carry will be impractical.  Yeah you can risk it and probably not be caught kind of like people did here a few years ago at restaurants and parks but good folks should not have to worry about that.

Edited August 13, 2016 by 300winmag

[Oh Shoot]

1 hour ago, Divotmaker said:

....

Not to mention a class B misdemeanor could include 6 months in jail.

Not for carrying past a sign however.

- OS

[chances R]

So today I found that the TDOS has an 'outpost' off Gleason Rd.  They will do new HCP, letting one avoid the hassle at the Strawberry Plains office.  This builiding/door had a gunbuster sign per  1359.  Unless there is a judicial proceeding or meeting, I was under the impression one could carry inside State buildings.  Any thoughts?

[Oh Shoot]

20 minutes ago, chances R said:

So today I found that the TDOS has an 'outpost' off Gleason Rd.  They will do new HCP, letting one avoid the hassle at the Strawberry Plains office.  This builiding/door had a gunbuster sign per  1359.  Unless there is a judicial proceeding or meeting, I was under the impression one could carry inside State buildings.  Any thoughts?

State, county, and city buildings have the same option for posting as any other establishment open to the public (with exception of civic recreational areas/facilities). Always have.

BTW, don't you teach HCP classes?

- OS

Edited August 18, 2016 by Oh Shoot

[chances R]

8 hours ago, Oh Shoot said:

State, county, and city buildings have the same option for posting as any other establishment open to the public (with exception of civic recreational areas/facilities). Always have.

BTW, don't you teach HCP classes?

- OS

Yep, but for some reason this one just threw me a curve....guess I got it confused with recreational facilities and some portions of gov'mt overstepping things.  Part II is that I didn't know some of these smaller offices were now available to process new applicants.  Sometimes I have to use TGO as a resource.

[300winmag]

Yeah you are only guaranteed legal in state or local government owned rec facilities.  Anything else, like a driver license office or place to pull a building permit, they can stick up 'no gun' and you risk a weapons charge.  With a weapons charge comes possible attorney and court fees, handgun forfeiture to the court, and permit suspension.  So no it is not just a 500 dollar fine like a traffic ticket.

This is just another reason why this bad law needs to be either removed or modified to more of a trespassing issue.  It's stupid that you've paid for a permit but can still have some of the same problems as someone who is carrying without permit.

 

[chances R]

I honored the sign.  Like always one can chose go elsewhere.  I agree the sign law needs changed.  The other thing I would like to see on a mail-out, email or a web site is official state communication with the public and instructors regarding carry laws.  Especially when a new law goes into effect.  Fortunately these laws are discussed and debated on TGO, but they are not necessarily known throughout the State.  Individual research and interpretation is the main source of this information. 

[JayC]

Not that I'd suggest knowingly breaking the law....  but nobody gets charged under 39-17-1359 unless they try to carry into the security zone at an airport, and that has only happened a couple of times.

It's a bad law, so is the prohibiting school carry, and we have examples of that law being abused for political reasons.  We should focus on removing the school carry law first, or drastically limiting it.

39-17-1359 just isn't being used as a weapon yet, and unlike the school law you won't loose your gun rights forever over making a mistake.