Fallguy

Welcome

I sort of like what Synghyn said about parking lots, calling them "interim property". I have no problem with any employer restricting items within their building or on the property where the actual business is conducted. However, they employer provides the parking lot to you for you to park your property (car), should they be allowed to restrict what is kept in that car? I mean they have set aside that piece of property (parking lot) for you to place your personal property (car) there. So couldn't one say that maybe they are giving up some of their rights by designating that area for the personal property of their employees? FWIW, the Louisiana AG just issued an opinion saying that firearms in parking lots does not violate and regs of OSHA or that or some other agencies. See here.

At least one of us thinks so.....

Dave, you and I don't always agree, but I can't argue with anything above.

Thanks for taking it in the spirit intended....

...,get out my Iphone, log on to TGO, go back and find one of the many previous threads on this topic (or very similar) and see what everyone said to do.

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/firearms-law-faq/21580-tca-39-17-1359-tennessee-prohibition-carry-notice.html

Not so sure...double talk about double talk would be quadruple talk....and not sure we could take that....lol

I agree I don't think the case he sites is 100% on point, as you say...ALL schools are off-limits, by default, regardless. Parks are legal by default....they are only off limits if the local government passes an ordnance or resolution. How in the world are you supposed to know if it is not posted? I mean 39-17-1359 used to say post or announce, now it only says post. If you follow his logic, he is saying that private business don't have to post, basically he is saying that any place that is legal, by default, does not have to post. He has been known to revisit opinions if knew information is offered, surely there is a state legislator or lawyer that can point out some of these discrepancies to him?

Hmmmm.....you may be right. However I think one difference in what he sights about schools as compared to parks is that all schools are off limits, so everyone should know that. There is not a chance that some are ok to carry and others are not. So I could see how not having a sign in that case really doesn't make a difference. But if some parks are ok and others are not.....how are you supposed to know if there isn't a sign?

Here is a link to the opinion. The first 4 questions have to do with the constitutionality of the new law. He basically says the legislature has broad powers to determine and that they only have to have a plausable view to prevent crime. Also that they don't have to show how would prevent crime. Question 5-8 have to do directly with parks. 5. Ask if the must post signs if the pass a resolution or ordnance to prohibit carry and he says, Yes. 6. Ask if a permit holder could be convicted if no signs are posted. He says they could, if the prosocution (state) can show the lack of signs were not an element of the crime. I'm not sure but I take that to mean if you were violating another part of 39-17-1311 or that for some reason you should have still known that park was off limits. But I take him to basically say that state would have to show that you knew you were breaking the law even though there were no signs. So if there aren't any signs you have a pretty good chance in court. 7. Ask about travelling a public roadway....as has been stated on TGO before...a pubilc roadway is a public roadway...it doesn't matter what you are passing through. As long as you stay on the roadway and don't enter a posted park, you could not be convicted. 8. Says counties and cities are not liable for any injuries to you that may occur because the park is posted. At least that is how I take it...

Multiple threads merged....

Yep...catfight would have been better. I too am wondering how things are going to go with Hale now...

Almost all places But the cities and counties I have lived in...the Beer Board meets first, then the County Commissioners or City Councilmen. However isn't the OP saying the place said the sign was "required" by the state level board that issues liquor license and not the local level board that issues beer license?

I thought violation of 39-17-1359 only carried a $500 fine and no jail time? However I could be wrong...have been before.

Welcome

Welcome

Welcome

Welcome

Their arguments is the law is to vauge to be understood and/or enforced. They contend that the average HCP holder can not know if a place meets all the qualifications to be deemed a restaurant per the law. Such as if it is open 5 days a week, if it's primary purpose is serving meals, if they have enough sitting capaicty, a kitchen and so on. My suggestion is to simply repeal 39-17-1305 or not limit carry to restaurants, but allow it in all places that serve alcohol, unless they post. That would take care of that.

There won't be any action on either until the legislature is back in session next January. The bill on parking lots is HB1793/SB1607 (Note Rep West had health issues and missed a large part of the session, that is one reason this has been delayed) As far as parks, not sure what the state will do. It would require a new bill to be introduced. Also some cities may cite that they have incurred expenses from posting new signs, to comply with the new law. The House sponsor of the park bill has said he's not sure he would back a new bill to take away the authority from local governments. It will be interesting to watch.

Of course you're in NC (for others that may not know) not NM like where this ruling was issued. Different laws, in different states of course mean different ways things are handled.

Yep, no reason for LEOs to go by court rulings.....they can do as they please. But your right, the ruling doesn't directly affect a LEO in TN or NC, but that wasn't the topic of discussion in this thread. My comment wasn't directed at anyone specific unless they don't plan to go by court rulings that do affect them. ...and that is what I'm discussing....a US district court judge's ruling, not my own personal, armchair musings. Always glad to be or service, even if it is only as a waste of someone's time.

...and apparently you don't understand the judge's ruling. see here He compares a call of man OCing a gun in NM as the same as if there was a call a man possed a wallet. Not quite as nice a site a bubble blowing though You can do whatever you want, maybe the next court case we read about will be about someone from this board violating a citizens rights.

If your answer is to detain and search ever OCer you come across, apparently your answer will not fly in NM though. I agree a call to LE will/should result in a response, but that doesn't allow LEOs to violate the constitution once they get there. I understand OCing a gun will result in more calls than bubble blowing, I'm just saying that in NM if either on of those things are all a person is doing, they are not commiting a crime and can not or at least should not have their rights violated.