Carrying Question

[conn_air7]

Strictly my curiosity arising here. I want everyone who is reading this to understand that I am seeking opinions, I am neither agreeing or disagreeing with anyone's stance. I understand it's hard to understand someone's tone when reading, so keep in mind I am being very respectful and only seeking people's views:

I often read on the forum that some of the members will not enter a restaurant/business because they are posted. Some refuse to enter a building that doesn't honor their second amendment rights. I am simply here to ask you the question, why? Are you that worried about not having your firearm with you, are you being spiteful, do you feel disrespected?

Also, what if the business isn't properly posted? Does this change the way you look at it or no?

SUMMARY: Why do you or why do you not choose to enter a restaurant/business because they are posted?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[peejman]

People don't enter because they feel the business/property owner is infringing on their right to self defense.

[hipower]

7 minutes ago, peejman said:

People don't enter because they feel the business/property owner is infringing on their right to self defense.

And to deny that business the amount of sales and/or profits from dealing with said business. Sort of a personal boycott if you will.

[bud]

.

Edited April 26, 2017 by bud

[bersaguy]

There has been many places that I use to trade with that has posted their business since I began carrying and even though concealed I refuse to do business with them. In most cases I knew the owners of that small business and have spoke with them about the new posting. I have learned that in some cases their bottom lines have declined since the signs went up but they did not attribute it to the signs. Got a few of them thinking. Some took the signs down and others posted Concealed carry only and some refused to change anything. None of them are the only business that offers products I purchase so I have still chosen to not do business with any of them that remain posted in any form.

[300winmag]

Do you boycott the county clerk's office when you need to get a license plate for your new car?  What about the hospital that your sick friend is at and you want to visit him?  Or do you decline a lunch invitation from a business partner at a 'posted' restaurant and just reply "Sorry can't eat there because I carry" ?

It's easy to say to boycott every place that has these signs if you just carry at your local Wal Mart on the weekends.  If you truly try to carry all the time then those situations can cause you problems in Tennessee.

If I'm in another state that doesn't attach weapons charges to 'posted places', I will generally just carry.  I don't go around asking people and businesses about there political beliefs.  I keep that to myself.  My handgun is concealed for my personal protection.  What others do not know about does not hurt them.  

Too bad the NRA and state gun rights orgs here can't seem to get behind a solid bill to change that sign problem but they can get behind bills that make no practical sense, such as the employer-workplace gun bill this year.

[eRay]

19 minutes ago, 300winmag said:

Do you boycott the county clerk's office when you need to get a license plate for your new car?  What about the hospital that your sick friend is at and you want to visit him?  Or do you decline a lunch invitation from a business partner at a 'posted' restaurant and just reply "Sorry can't eat there because I carry" ?

It's easy to say to boycott every place that has these signs if you just carry at your local Wal Mart on the weekends.  If you truly try to carry all the time then those situations can cause you problems in Tennessee.

If I'm in another state that doesn't attach weapons charges to 'posted places', I will generally just carry.  I don't go around asking people and businesses about there political beliefs.  I keep that to myself.  My handgun is concealed for my personal protection.  What others do not know about does not hurt them.  

Too bad the NRA and state gun rights orgs here can't seem to get behind a solid bill to change that sign problem but they can get behind bills that make no practical sense, such as the employer-workplace gun bill this year.

If I have to go to one of these places, I just forget that I have a LCP in my pocket and go on in. If I don't really have to go in then I don't.

[conn_air7]

Do you boycott the county clerk's office when you need to get a license plate for your new car?  What about the hospital that your sick friend is at and you want to visit him?  Or do you decline a lunch invitation from a business partner at a 'posted' restaurant and just reply "Sorry can't eat there because I carry" ?
It's easy to say to boycott every place that has these signs if you just carry at your local Wal Mart on the weekends.  If you truly try to carry all the time then those situations can cause you problems in Tennessee.
If I'm in another state that doesn't attach weapons charges to 'posted places', I will generally just carry.  I don't go around asking people and businesses about there political beliefs.  I keep that to myself.  My handgun is concealed for my personal protection.  What others do not know about does not hurt them.  
Too bad the NRA and state gun rights orgs here can't seem to get behind a solid bill to change that sign problem but they can get behind bills that make no practical sense, such as the employer-workplace gun bill this year.

A lot of good points. In fact, the hospital that I work at currently is posted "WEAPONS PROHIBITED," with a gun and slash through it. However, in accordance to the new written law, they are not properly posted. In my mind, it's justified legally in this case. What's right and wrong morally is a different story I suppose.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ReeferMac]

4 hours ago, hipower said:

And to deny that business the amount of sales and/or profits from dealing with said business. Sort of a personal boycott if you will.

Yup.

Much like a business w/ poor customer service, or some other quality I don't care for. As a consumer, I have a choice of where to spend my money, and try to make it a point to support businesses and individuals whom I feel deserve it (and vice-versa).

 

- K

[Oh Shoot]

2 hours ago, conn_air7 said:

... In fact, the hospital that I work at currently is posted "WEAPONS PROHIBITED," with a gun and slash through it. However, in accordance to the new written law, they are not properly posted. ...

Assuming they were posted in any way as of January 1, 2015, that posting remains valid until January 1, 2018.

- OS

[conn_air7]

Assuming they were posted in any way as of January 1, 2015, that posting remains valid until January 1, 2018.
- OS

That's strange, I could have sworn that was effective immediately.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DWARREN123]

By posting they are saying they do not want or need my money.

[Oh Shoot]

9 minutes ago, conn_air7 said:

 

That's strange, I could have sworn that was effective immediately.

 

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

  (a)  (1) Except as provided in § 39-17-1313, 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 who is at a meeting conducted by, or on property owned, operated, or managed or under the control of the individual, corporation, business entity or government entity.

   (2) The prohibition in subdivision (a)(1) shall apply to any person who is authorized to carry a firearm by authority of § 39-17-1351.

(b)  (1) Notice of the prohibition permitted by subsection (a) shall be accomplished by displaying the notice described in subdivision (b)(3) in prominent locations, including all entrances primarily used by persons entering the property, building, or portion of the property or building where weapon possession is prohibited. The notice shall be plainly visible to the average person entering the building, property, or portion of the building or property, posted.

   (2) The notice required by this section shall be in English, but a duplicate notice may also be posted in any language used by patrons, customers, or persons who frequent the place where weapon possession is prohibited.

   (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).

(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).

(d) 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.

(e) This section shall not apply to title 70 regarding wildlife laws, rules and regulations.

(f) 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.

 

[conn_air7]

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

  (a)  (1) Except as provided in § 39-17-1313, 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 who is at a meeting conducted by, or on property owned, operated, or managed or under the control of the individual, corporation, business entity or government entity.

   (2) The prohibition in subdivision (a)(1) shall apply to any person who is authorized to carry a firearm by authority of § 39-17-1351.

(  (1) Notice of the prohibition permitted by subsection (a) shall be accomplished by displaying the notice described in subdivision ((3) in prominent locations, including all entrances primarily used by persons entering the property, building, or portion of the property or building where weapon possession is prohibited. The notice shall be plainly visible to the average person entering the building, property, or portion of the building or property, posted.

   (2) The notice required by this section shall be in English, but a duplicate notice may also be posted in any language used by patrons, customers, or persons who frequent the place where weapon possession is prohibited.

   (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".

      ( 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 ((3).

©  (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).

(d) 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.

(e) This section shall not apply to title 70 regarding wildlife laws, rules and regulations.

(f) 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.
 

I trusted you good sir.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DaveTN]

With my background I look at it this way… Most businesses do what their attorney’s tell them to do. They are the deep pockets and it is their right to try to protect their business and family from the lawsuit that will surely follow an ND or a shooting where an innocent customer is killed. Posting may not stop them from being sued; but it may help if a settlement is being negotiated or punitive damages are being awarded. I understand this.

I also understand that my state does not recognize a right to carry a firearm; that is abundantly clear. So any attempt by the state to cause a business owner to have to allow our special group (HCP holders) some special privilege that the rest of “the people” do not have is ridiculous.

I look to see if there is a posting on the door where I enter. If there isn’t I continue on, if there is (even a gun with a slash through it) I leave or don’t carry.

Will I boycott a business that is posted? Of course not. I hate to see businesses that are not involved in this getting caught in the middle and have to pick a side. It’s ridiculous. Unless it’s a gun store I doubt there are any businesses where this would impact them one little bit. However, I have nothing against the guys here who boycott those stores; they are doing what they believe in.

So who is the bad guy here? Why the state of course. They are the ones allowing you to be charged for walking past a sign. Being a Constitutional carry state is like being pregnant; you are or you aren’t. And we aren't. I get tired of hearing “Baby steps” I think it’s a cop out by those that are trying to soak us for money. Our next move is Constitutional carry; the baby steps are done.

[runco]

Why can't other businesses just follow the Walmart model.  I assume Walmart is a benchmark to many retail businesses. 

[Oh Shoot]

15 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

With my background I look at it this way… Most businesses do what their attorney’s tell them to do. They are the deep pockets and it is their right to try to protect their business and family from the lawsuit that will surely follow an ND or a shooting where an innocent customer is killed. Posting may not stop them from being sued; but it may help if a settlement is being negotiated or punitive damages are being awarded. I understand this.

....

They should understand this, then: NOT posting gives a specific immunity for that sort of thing in 1325, seems to me actually a more clear cut one than FOR posting as stated in 1359 (above).

- OS

 

Edited December 17, 2016 by Oh Shoot

[RED333]

.gov buildings are by law covered, a business is a choice made by a person.

I did not see no stinking sign. Ask me to leave and I will leave.

[Oh Shoot]

9 minutes ago, RED333 said:

.gov buildings are by law covered, a business is a choice made by a person.

I guess you probably mean federal buildings, but just to be precise, TN state government has .gov registration also, and of course must be posted like any other entity.

- OS

 

Edited December 17, 2016 by Oh Shoot

[300winmag]

You can carry in local and state government buildings in TN if you don't see the specific no guns signs.  The problem is at least in Memphis and I'm sure Nashville, most of them are posted and some with the correct signs.

We could legally carry at the state capitol in Nashville if the 'no guns' signs were taken down and people with permits were allowed to walk around the metal detectors.  Plenty other states do this for people with permits.

Edited December 17, 2016 by 300winmag

[macville]

But how are we supposed to know if they were posted Jan 1 2015? I'd like to slap the lawmaker that added that little part in because they made it impossible to know. You might even say that it's constitutionally vague (like how the restaurant law was struck down after it was passed..)

[Oh Shoot]

1 hour ago, macville said:

But how are we supposed to know if they were posted Jan 1 2015? I'd like to slap the lawmaker that added that little part in because they made it impossible to know...

Yep.

I suppose it would only matter if you were charged, and as defense put burden of proof on the place to prove when it first posted or something. Which we all know is pretty much a wash in the first place since we've yet to even have a test case about legitimacy of a non-complaint posting in the first place.

- OS

Edited December 17, 2016 by Oh Shoot

[DaveTN]

2 hours ago, macville said:

But how are we supposed to know if they were posted Jan 1 2015? I'd like to slap the lawmaker that added that little part in because they made it impossible to know. You might even say that it's constitutionally vague (like how the restaurant law was struck down after it was passed..)

It doesn’t appear the intent is for you to know; it appears the intent is for you to comply with a sign whether it meets the requirements of subdivision 3 or not. At least until January 1, 2018.

If you took it before a Judge my guess is you would be ask if you were confused about the meaning on the sign. Then the owner of the property would probably be questioned about when and where the signs were placed.

However, based on what we have seen posted on this forum the likelihood and anyone being charged with carrying past a sign is less than winning the lottery.

[NextExit]

I think just about every Buffalo Wild Wings is posted so I don't go there, after all there's plenty of place to get chicken wings. However Waffle House is posted but I don't care because no one (IMHO) can come close to their hash browns   Call me a hypicrite but that's the only time I cave in... so far. 

[btq96r]

If I'm actually going somewhere, it's more than likely a need versus a whim, so their posting a sign prohibiting firearms isn't likely to dissuade me from going in, or taking my pistol back to the truck.  I get it, for a lot of them, it's a business decision sometimes imposed by insurance policies, or if they're a franchise just part of the overall agreement. 

I also agree with the law making it a crime to carry past the signs.  To me, carrying a weapon after knowing the business doesn't want you to is more than a simple trespass as the argument is made.  And yes, as carry permit holders and responsible firearms owners, we need to be on the lookout for signs on the way in.  If you can't see them, your situational awareness is probably lacking all around.  If you see them and ignore them, then you're the reason the signs have penalty of law behind them.

Make all the protests if it makes you feel better.  That's how free markets work.  Though I doubt there are enough people who carry to keep open or shut any single place of business with their patronage other than the aforementioned gun stores.