Jump to content
redbarron06

Tennessee Law for posting againt firearm carry

Recommended Posts

In light of the decision last year of a Nashville judge that the restaurant carry law was "unconstitutionally vague" I have been thinking.

 

How vague is the statement in bold? This is the current law for a owner/operator to post property if they do not want weapons carried on their property.

 

39-17-1359. Prohibition at certain meetings — Posting notice. —

 

(a) 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 otherwise authorized by §§ 39-17-1351 — 39-17-1360, at meetings conducted by, or on property owned, operated, or managed or under the control of the individual, corporation, business entity or government entity. Notice of the prohibition shall be posted. Posted notices shall be displayed in prominent locations, including all entrances primarily used by persons entering the building, portion of the building or buildings where weapon possession is prohibited. If the possession of weapons is also prohibited on the premises of the property as well as within the confines of a building located on the property, the notice shall be posted at all entrances to the premises that are primarily used by persons entering the property. The notice shall be in English but a notice may also be posted in any language used by patrons, customers or persons who frequent the place where weapon possession is prohibited. In addition to the sign, notice may also include the international circle and slash symbolizing the prohibition of the item within the circle. The sign shall be of a size that is plainly visible to the average person entering the building, premises or property and shall contain language substantially similar to the following:

 

PURSUANT TO § 39-17-1359, THE OWNER/OPERATOR OF THIS PROPERTY HAS BANNED WEAPONS ON THIS PROPERTY, OR WITHIN THIS BUILDING OR THIS PORTION OF THIS BUILDING. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS PROHIBITION IS PUNISHABLE AS A CRIMINAL ACT UNDER STATE LAW AND MAY SUBJECT THE VIOLATOR TO A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($500).

(b) Nothing in this section shall be construed to alter, reduce or eliminate any civil or criminal liability that a property owner or manager may have for injuries arising on their property.

 

© Any posted notice being used by a local, state or federal governmental entity on July 1, 2000, that is in substantial compliance with the provisions of subsection (a) of this section may continue to be used by the governmental entity.

 

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

 

(e) 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.

 

[Acts 1996, ch. 905, § 11; 2000, ch. 929, § 1; 2009, ch. 428, § 4.]

 

Now can anybody here including the LEOs, property owners, or attorneys give me a legal definition to “substantially similar”? It seems to be to be a bit vague.

 

Now here is what we have for schools

(d) (1) Each chief administrator of a public or private school shall display in prominent locations about the school a sign, at least six inches (6) high and fourteen inches (14) wide, stating:

 

FELONY. STATE LAW PRESCRIBES A MAXIMUM PENALTY OF SIX (6) YEARS IMPRISONMENT AND A FINE NOT TO EXCEED THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($3,000) FOR CARRYING WEAPONS ON SCHOOL PROPERTY.

 

(2) As used in this subsection (d), “prominent locations about a school” includes, but is not limited to, sports arenas, gymnasiums, stadiums and cafeterias.

 

Nothing vague there.

 

How about the parks carry

 

c) (1) Each chief administrator of public recreational property shall display in prominent locations about the public recreational property a sign, at least six inches (6) high and fourteen inches (14) wide, stating:

 

MISDEMEANOR. STATE LAW PRESCRIBES A MAXIMUM PENALTY OF ELEVEN (11) MONTHS AND TWENTY-NINE (29) DAYS AND A FINE NOT TO EXCEED TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($2,500) FOR CARRYING WEAPONS ON OR IN PUBLIC RECREATIONAL PROPERTY.

 

(2) As used in this subsection ©, “prominent locations about public recreational property” includes, but is not limited to, all entrances to the property, any building or structure located on the property, such as restrooms, picnic areas, sports facilities, welcome centers, gift shops, playgrounds, swimming pools, restaurants and parking lots.

 

I don’t see much vague there.

 

So should we a HCP holders file suit because of the vagueness of 39-17-1359? Now don’t get me wrong I think private property owners have all the rights to ban carry on their property if they want to but the way the law is written is vague for the owner, the HCP holder, any responding officer and is pretty much left up to the discretion of the judge the hears the case. In fact it is no vague, that the AG has needed to issue an opinion on the subject. Schools, and Pars are required to state specific verbage, in certain size, on signs at certain places. Why would private property owners not have the same requirment, for clearification for all?

 

Without getting into the argument of individual rights for the property owners should we file suit on this?

 

Pros and Cons:

Personally I don’t see how this vagueness could be upheld and I think that we would win the suit, especially in light of last year’s suit in Nashville. So if it is ruled as unconstitutional, it would be thrown out just and restaurant carry was last year. This would basically mean that until they fixed the law there would be no way to legally post property and all signs would mean squat (this is currently the law as I understand it in Florida, Georgia and a few other states). I am sure that pressure from anti gun activities would make the assembly address this next session. Here is where the cons may come up. They could pass a law that would say the international sign is all that is needed to post. They could pass a law that says that any posting would suffice. On the other hand they could do the same as they have done for schools and parks and set exact limits on posting requirements (IMHO this is what needs to be done).

 

What are your thoughts?

 

Before sombody sais something this is not meant to be a revenge suit againt the turds that filed the resturaunt bill. This is meant to clearify (or force the state to clearify) the law. If you look around there are all kinds of threads about is this place legally posted, is that place, does this qualify as posting. HCP holders, in many cases, are far more knowledgable that the local police on the subject of carry. I am not blaming them, they have a lot they have to keep up with but the law needs to be more defined for all, HCP, LEOs, property owners, and judges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the law is clear enough. It says that if firearms are banned than a posting shall be placed at all entrances used by the public. It may, but does not have to have the international symbol. It has to be plainly visible, in English, and in some way point out the fact that firearms are not allowed, the legal code allowing that ban, and the punishment you can recieve for disobeying the ban. I hate drawing attnetion to things like this because you might get unwanted attention. TN is very split on the 2nd ammendment. It only takes a couple extra votes on the anti side to make it harder to carry.

 

For example, Rivergate mall. They have it posted on some entrances, but not all. So I enter through a store that is not posted if I have to go in there. I try to avoid that area all together though. They also appearantly have signs on all of road entrances to their propterty. The problem is that the signs are at the side of the road, are the size of a speed limit sign, and the entire sign is covered with type that is about 15 point font. The international symbol at the top of the sign is about the size of a postage stamp. When driving 25 mph it is absolutely impossible to see what the sign says. You would have to get out of your car and walk up to it to read it. So according to the law, that sign is not legally binding. Draw the wrong attention and you will find a lawful sign there, and then you can't go there.

 

Also according to the law, a sign that just has the international symbol is not legally binding. If you are caught carrying at most they can ask you to leave. No legal consequences as long as you leave when asked. A lot of stores and hospitals have these signs. That means when you visit a family member in a hospital you can legally carry, just don't get caught. Get the law changed and those signs will carry weight, and now you can't carry there.

 

I am all for legal carry everywhere. As long as places can ban them though, I want to leave myself openings to not get arrested in case I have to go somewhere that is not properly posted. Sometimes you have to go to these places, so you might as well leave yourself that legal loophole in case you are spotted carrying. So for me the law is clear enough. Is it a verbal posting saying no firearms the legal codes allowing them to ban the firearms and the penalty for disobeying said posting, is it easily visible as I enter, and is it in English? If it meets all three criteria then I either don't carry or I don't enter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all if you go to Rivergate Mall you need to be armed. It seems like every other week there is a problem there. The law itself reads pretty clear to me. Maybe our non-english speaking folks have a problem or at least pretent they do. I think certain establishments have the right to reqeust you be unarmed in their places so I just try not to go there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't read too much into that judges decision. She was a hand picked chrony of Bredesen on a mission to kill a bill forced down the governors throat by our legislature. Even if the wording was clear as a bell, she would have found something else.

 

This was yet another indication if the left can't get their way with the support of legislature and the people, they will use any means to cram their agenda down our throats.

 

Bredesen is a real piece of work. He showed his true colors over the cigarette tax when he sent Tennessee special agents into surrounding states to spy on TN citizens. "Respect my Authority" Eric Cartmen on South Park doesn't have a thing on Governor Phil.

 

Now if you think about this just a minute, you will realize anyone who can't tell a bar from a restaurant is damn fool and has no business holding public office. You know they know the difference as everyone else does so their goal is an agenda which is gun control, not dotting "I"s or crossing "T"s. That's why the new bill is a compromise excluding bars and even then they may pull another fast one, despite the wording passing the mustard in many other CCW states.

 

Our Democrats have joined the Obama bandwagon. Vote them out.

 

Tj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just another example of how TN is NOT gun friendly... its what I call gun tolerant...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...