Fallguy

Maybe he's waiting to get restaurant carry, long gun and park carry all on his desk and sign them at the same time? Well...nice thought anyway...

So you read it the same way I do?

I think so, as I posted in post 70, what passed yesterday says.. ...and this is what 39-17-1311©(1) says, It doesn't say anything about similar or the like, it gives exact minimal dimensions and wording. Nothing in the new bill/law changes the signage in 39-17-1311© The bill also added this to 39-17-1359.... So to me that means 39-17-1359 will not apply to postings for parks, that you must refer to 39-17-1311 for posting a park.

The way I read it, in 39-17-1311, the wording and size have to be exact.

That's pretty much it. The law was sort of in conflict before. When they updated the self-defense laws a few years ago, the use of deadly force was allowed in some situations in which you may also be defending property. However the law specifically forbade the use of deadly force to protect property and did not give any exceptions. So in a carjacking situation an over zealous DA could have tried to charge you under using deadly force to protect property even though you were also defending yourself. The bill pretty much just removes that loophole.

You mean a positive interaction while OCing!!! I call foul!!!.. LOL...just kidding, wish more people would post positive encounters. I truly think they happen more than negative, but the negative ones are what everyone post about.

I guess it does look like (and is) a flood of firearms related bills headed toward the Governor, but that is just because of the 15+ year backlog caused in the house because of one person. The obstruction is now gone....and here they flow.

Sort of.....1359 will not apply at all to parks only 1311©(1) which has "specific requirements" I also agree most will not post proper signs.

The only thing I've heard is they aren't supposed to consume, but don't know about being armed.

Not sure there has ever been a court case that has defined what "substantially similar" is for the purposes of 39-17-1359. But on here (so take it for what it's worth) it is generally agreed the sign must designate the area where carry is prohibited, mention the code 39-17-1359, that it is a criminal offense and what the punishment is. IMO the reason for "substantially similar" has been so a property owner can "customize" the sign. Instead of saying "Owner/Operator" of this property, they could use the actually company name." Instead of saying "Weapons" they could say "Handguns", "Knives" or any other specific weapon if the didn't want to ban all. Instead of saying "This property, This Building or This portion of this building" they could list specific areas. So to me other than those 3 "customizable" areas the sign should be worded like the rest of 39-17-1359, but that is definitely only my opinion, it has not legal foundation.

The could, depending on what they have. Here is what the bill says.... 39-11-1311©(1) says... Parks have supposed to have always posted these signs, but they were allowed to vote that they didn't have to post these signs. So many just have a generic "No Firearms" sign. But it looks like now they have (shall) to post this specific sign. So in a way I think this is good...I mean this is even a more specific sign than the requirements in 39-17-1359. It gives exact wording and dimensions, so you don't really have to wonder if it is a "legal" posting or not. However, sounds like there is a good question for the AG in all of this. Because to me there could be a conflict in the law now. The bill creates 39-17-1311(e)(2) which is the part about having to post signs per 39-17-1311©(1), however it leaves the current 39-17-1311©(3) in place that says "The legislative body of any municipality or committee appointed by the body to regulate public recreational property may exempt public recreational property located within its jurisdiction from the requirements of subdivision ©(1). But....the new posting requirements specifically point to ©(1) which has the sign requirement and not just © that would include ©(3) and nothing has been mentioned about local parks being able to opt out of posting, but that's not to say some won't try to get away with it.

I agree, but at least where getting rid of some....

Welcome

The bill does say they can opt out by "resolution". I could be wrong, but I just don't think the bill would have passed if local governments didn't have a way to opt out. And again, I could be wrong, but I think the larger cities, Nashville, Memphis etc.... would opt out (at least certain) parks whether it was by resolution (majority vote or 2/3 vote), by ordnance or by public vote. Most smaller areas, probably won't (wouldn't have) bring it up either way, opt in or opt out. This way it is legal, unless they go through the effort to make it illegal. Maybe not perfect, but I think much better then were we had started with local park carry.

While I wouldn't say "nothing" on Applebee's.....I pretty much agree. That in one I reason I don't really OC, it bring attention, but....attention can be good. If the person OCing is a good ambassador for carry, it can educate others and help dispel "all peoples with guns are bad" idea. But I'm still not sure if June 1 is the day to draw attention to carry in places that serve alcohol.

Not sure myself, but the legislation says, There can not be a round in "the chamber"

HB0961/SB1519 The sponsor of the bill, Rep Bell, spoke during the debate of the park bill. He sounded like he thought it would come to the floor of the house. Not 100% sure, the language of the bill says "This act shall take effect upon becoming a law" So to me that sounds like as soon as the Governor signs it or the 10 days on his desk has passed.

Sept 1. That is to give time to local parks to opt out and post if they choose to.

To be honest...a bit closer than I thought...but that is the beauty of knowing the voted before bringing up the bill....lol

...and it is. It says as allowed per state law.

54-41

Me too....lol

Well there is no fiscal note on the bill as it is.......

Think that is because each one opposed wants to be on record....

The fiscal note in this and other bills did come from having to post signs.