Can we rid the state of gunbuster signs?

[RobertNashville]

"Someone shouldn't be fined when he walks past a silly sign and already has a permit."

So, if you miss the speed limit sign on the interstate going from 70 to 60, It's not your fault and you shouldn't get a speeding ticket?

I surely wish that were true...the last speeding ticket I received was in Indiana just before I hit the KY border and the speed limit dropped from 70 down to 55 and I didn't notice...to make matters worse, the cop was a real a**h**e.

[Guest Sgt. Joe]

I simply avoid places that post when it is at all possible. Courthouses must be entered at times and of course I must disarm, but when I can I renew car tags and my DL online and am able to avoid those places for the most part.

Early New Years Morning (5am or so) the wife wanted to go to I-Hop and beat the crowd. I agreed but since it had been so long since I had been there I did not know if they were posted or not. In that case I was prepared to disarm for the duration of that meal to make the wife happy, she does not ask very often for anything like that in particular.

As it turned out the place was not posted and all was well. Even our timing was perfect.

Bottom line is that I was prepared to honor the property owners wishes in order to eat there, most of the time I honor the wishes of those who post by going somewhere else.

I agree with Fallguy in that we need to work toward changing the penalties for going past these signs and that we will never be able to force ourselves on the property owners, they have rights too. It is their right to post against us and our choice to disarm, risk the punishment or simply go somewhere else. Freedom is about having choices.

I do think we have a good chance of getting these sign penalty laws changed this year as they are so out of proportion with other carry laws.

[Oh Shoot]

...

I do think we have a good chance of getting these sign penalty laws changed this year as they are so out of proportion with other carry laws.

You think that because it's logical or something?

I'd wager there will be no gun related legislation passed in 2011 at all.

- OS

[m16ty]

The bottom like is, I'm a very big gun rights advocate but I'm also a big property rights advocate (I personally don't think you can be a true conservitive without both these beliefs). So, as bad as I hate it, a person has the right to say what goes on on their own property.

[Guest 270win]

The smartest way to get this sign law to change and make it palatable would be to change the penalty to what it is in Missouri. Missouri makes the penalty a 100 dollar CIVIL PENALTY (like a parking ticket) for not leaving a posted property when being asked to leave or other 'off limits' location. You can even carry on school property in Missouri with a license basically, but if you are 'caught' and asked to leave and don't leave, it is the 100 dollar civil penalty in addition to of course trespassing. Everyone wins. The 100 dollar slap on the wrist civil penalty makes the bed wetters happy when someone with a gun doesn't leave and the civil penalty makes gun owners happy because honestly you can carry ANYWHERE in Missouri from a practical standpoint until you are asked to leave...don't leave 100 dollar civil penalty. Change the local parks to the 100 dollar civil penalty for not leaving too....then again the bed wetters feel they have something good. Maybe the House Speaker would be open to this sort of compromise. I don't like it, but hey it is compromise isn't it?

[Guest TargetShooter84]

Also Remove the Class B Misdemeanor and Felony charge for those with permits on School Property.

Yeah, good luck with that one.

[Fallguy]

You think that because it's logical or something?

I'd wager there will be no gun related legislation passed in 2011 at all.

- OS

I'm afriad you're probably right.

[Fallguy]

The smartest way to get this sign law to change and make it palatable would be to change the penalty to what it is in Missouri. Missouri makes the penalty a 100 dollar CIVIL PENALTY (like a parking ticket) for not leaving a posted property when being asked to leave or other 'off limits' location. You can even carry on school property in Missouri with a license basically, but if you are 'caught' and asked to leave and don't leave, it is the 100 dollar civil penalty in addition to of course trespassing. Everyone wins. The 100 dollar slap on the wrist civil penalty makes the bed wetters happy when someone with a gun doesn't leave and the civil penalty makes gun owners happy because honestly you can carry ANYWHERE in Missouri from a practical standpoint until you are asked to leave...don't leave 100 dollar civil penalty. Change the local parks to the 100 dollar civil penalty for not leaving too....then again the bed wetters feel they have something good. Maybe the House Speaker would be open to this sort of compromise. I don't like it, but hey it is compromise isn't it?

Interesting....

[wjh2657]

And where in the Constitution does it give a business owner the right to post?

Where in the Constitution does it give people a right to drive cars? States need to revoke all driver's licenses as unconstitutional? Not everything in law is covered by the USC.

[JAB]

To this point, I have disagreed with this opinion:

...a business open to the public should not have the right to dictate what the public can have in their pockets or on their person. Period.

and, although I didn't like it, more or less agreed with this opinion:

I couldn't disagree with this more. While I may not like it, I believe a property owner should have the right to allow or ban just about anything or anyone they choose.

However, upon reading in this morning's News-Sentinel that Farrugut is considering making it mandatory that developers include bicycle racks in all new developments, I think my mind is changing. Whether it should be this way or not, this is the way it is and if a government can require businesses to have friggin' bike racks (which involves a monetary component) then they can damn well require those same business owners to allow citizens with legal carry permits to be armed in their places of business or, at the very least, make the signs not worth the paper they are printed on from a legal standpoint.

Farragut mulls mandatory bike racks » Knoxville News Sentinel

[RobertNashville]

...However, upon reading in this morning's News-Sentinel that Farrugut is considering making it mandatory that developers include bicycle racks in all new developments, I think my mind is changing. Whether it should be this way or not, this is the way it is and if a government can require businesses to have friggin' bike racks (which involves a monetary component) then they can damn well require those same business owners to allow citizens with legal carry permits to be armed in their places of business or, at the very least, make the signs not worth the paper they are printed on from a legal standpoint.

While I like the goal, I'm not sure that firearm owners/enthusiasts should use such tactics just because we, as a society, have allowed government entities to grossly overstep their boundaries with such idiocy as mandating "smoke free" restaurants or "trans-fat" free oil or making salt illegal.

We need to be turning back the clock on this kind or ridiculous and overbearing behavior, not doing anything that goes along with it.

[Fallguy]

To this point, I have disagreed with this opinion:

and, although I didn't like it, more or less agreed with this opinion:

However, upon reading in this morning's News-Sentinel that Farrugut is considering making it mandatory that developers include bicycle racks in all new developments, I think my mind is changing. Whether it should be this way or not, this is the way it is and if a government can require businesses to have friggin' bike racks (which involves a monetary component) then they can damn well require those same business owners to allow citizens with legal carry permits to be armed in their places of business or, at the very least, make the signs not worth the paper they are printed on from a legal standpoint.

Farragut mulls mandatory bike racks » Knoxville News Sentinel

I have sort of have made the reversal of above.

Used to think that since the Gov has already "force" business owners to do some things what is wrong with them forcing them to allow firearms. But have come to the personally belief that they (government) shouldn't be able to force them do anything.

[southernasylum]

Unfortunately it may be easier to change peoples hearts and minds that us gun owners aren't all that bad than it will be to have common sense gun laws. Neither is an easy task.

My biggest issue is that it's a law targets us good guys with a fine while those idiots that just got arrested for robbing all of those restaurants can't be fined. Truthfully, I would have less issue with the law if at least it stated everyone who carried past the stupid sign would face the same punishment. I wouldn't like it but at least it would make more sense. Doh! There I go trying to use common sense when it comes to gun laws. When will I ever learn? Maybe those without a drivers license who are caught on moving violations should face less severe penalties. Yeah, that's the ticket!

-southernasylum

Edited January 6, 2011 by southernasylum
making crappy diction less crappy

[Guest DavTN]

As I know you know of course (and agree with I think)...

An owner can put a sign that says ANYTHING, but doesn't make a crime if you ignore it. It's only a crime if you don't leave after being told. Should be the same for firearms.

Absolutely agree. It should not be a crime if we are not infringing on the rights of others and we should not have to risk having our constitutional rights nullified from a redundant law. There are plenty of laws on the books to charge those that would infringe on the rights of others (assult, disorderly conduct, manslaughter, etc.) I am fine with businesses posting, and I will take my business elsewhere but it should not be a crime unless they ask you to leave like many other states.

[Guest DavTN]

Just to add, although boycotting establishments that post is an effort in futility (IMHO) I would like to see a movement to educate local business about the "Gun Buster' signs equating to a free-fire zone and have them change their signs to "No Illegal Weapons".

[RobertNashville]

Absolutely agree. It should not be a crime if we are not infringing on the rights of others and we should not have to risk having our constitutional rights nullified from a redundant law. There are plenty of laws on the books to charge those that would infringe on the rights of others (assult, disorderly conduct, manslaughter, etc.) I am fine with businesses posting, and I will take my business elsewhere but it should not be a crime unless they ask you to leave like many other states.

I don't think a business owner should have to ask an armed customer/patron to leave when they've already asked that person not to be there in the first place. If a business owner states, by signage, that you with your weapon are not welcome then you are infringing on that business owner's right if you chose to ignore the sign aren't you?

[JAB]

Just to add, although boycotting establishments that post is an effort in futility (IMHO) I would like to see a movement to educate local business about the "Gun Buster' signs equating to a free-fire zone and have them change their signs to "No Illegal Weapons".

They don't need a sign that says, "No illegal weapons," because illegal weapons are already, well, illegal and those carrying illegally will not suffer any additional consequences because of a sign. This means that, not only in a practical sense (i.e. someone carrying illegally, anyway, isn't going to give two hoots about a sign that is basically unenforceable unless there are metal detectors and security guards at every entrance) but also in a legal sense, whether they realize it or not, when a business owner hangs a 'no firearms' sign, they are specifically targeting legal HCP holders and only legal HCP holders. In other words, that business owner is saying, "We don't trust you damn HCP holders to carry your firearms here." Well, the state, the TBI and local authorities obviously trust me to carry so it really shouldn't make any difference if a store owner does or not. By extension, though, whether they intend it or not, I take those signs to further mean, "so we don't want you or your money coming in here."

[Guest DavTN]

I don't think a business owner should have to ask an armed customer/patron to leave when they've already asked that person not to be there in the first place. If a business owner states, by signage, that you with your weapon are not welcome then you are infringing on that business owner's right if you chose to ignore the sign aren't you?

Yes, currently under section C it is illegal, my point is that it should not be and I don't believe I have infringed anybody's right if I go about my way just as any other patron and I think the law is redundant. Because it is the law, I will follow the rules and not carry past a posted sign and be dilligent about looking for them.

39-14-405. Criminal trespass

(a) A person commits criminal trespass if the person enters or remains on property, or any portion of property, without the consent of the owner. Consent may be inferred in the case of property that is used for commercial activity available to the general public or in the case of other property when the owner has communicated the owner's intent that the property be open to the general public.

( It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:

(1)

A person entered or remained on property that the person reasonably believed to be property for which the owner's consent to enter had been granted;

(2)

The person's conduct did not substantially interfere with the owner's use of the property; and

(3)

The person immediately left the property upon request.

© The defenses to prosecution set out in subsection ( shall not be applicable to a person violating this section if the property owner posts the property with signs that are visible at all major points of ingress to the property being posted and the signs are reasonably likely to come to the attention of a person entering the property.

[Guest DavTN]

They don't need a sign that says, "No illegal weapons," because illegal weapons are already, well, illegal and those carrying illegally will not suffer any additional consequences because of a sign. This means that, not only in a practical sense (i.e. someone carrying illegally, anyway, isn't going to give two hoots about a sign that is basically unenforceable unless there are metal detectors and security guards at every entrance) but also in a legal sense, whether they realize it or not, when a business owner hangs a 'no firearms' sign, they are specifically targeting legal HCP holders and only legal HCP holders. In other words, that business owner is saying, "We don't trust you damn HCP holders to carry your firearms here." Well, the state, the TBI and local authorities obviously trust me to carry so it really shouldn't make any difference if a store owner does or not. By extension, though, whether they intend it or not, I take those signs to further mean, "so we don't want you or your money coming in here."

While I agree with you, many business feel compelled to post reminders about the law and this might help them feel warm and fuzzy about having a sign.

[JAB]

While I like the goal, I'm not sure that firearm owners/enthusiasts should use such tactics just because we, as a society, have allowed government entities to grossly overstep their boundaries with such idiocy as mandating "smoke free" restaurants or "trans-fat" free oil or making salt illegal.

We need to be turning back the clock on this kind or ridiculous and overbearing behavior, not doing anything that goes along with it.

The problem is that the antis will use whatever tactic they can, try to play the system and so on while we continue to hamstring ourselves by trying to play fair and taking the high road. That is great in concept but may not work too well in reality. Iin the end, the morally superior loser is still the loser.

I have sort of have made the reversal of above.

Used to think that since the Gov has already "force" business owners to do some things what is wrong with them forcing them to allow firearms. But have come to the personally belief that they (government) shouldn't be able to force them do anything.

Should they (government) be able to force business owners to do anything? No. Can they? Yes. Do they? Yes. So, while perhaps things should be different, they aren't and it isn't very likely that they will be any time soon if ever, again. Maybe it is time we accept that reality and use it before our refusal to do so gets us left behind.

For instance, we shouldn't have to hide our legally carried firearms and only be allowed to keep and bear arms by the government's leave. Public opinion and concerns about frightening the masses should not be a major factor in our decisions regarding how, where and when to carry. Strictly from the perspective of our rights, we shouldn't have to think twice if we want to carry a revolver with a six inch barrel in a Mexican double loop holster on a cartridge belt right in the middle of town - and legally, we can do so. However, reality is that such actions can turn public opinion against us and the court of public opinion - right or wrong - can take away our rights (which, as some have pointed out, have already been largely downgraded to 'privileges') so we have to play that game. Why, then, should we fight with one arm tied behind our backs by refusing to play the games that could benefit our rights?

Honestly, this is not the way I felt when I first started carrying or even when the last legislative session ended (some of my previously posted opinions on the subject indicated as much.) Truthfully, there aren't many places where I normally and regularly go that have posted and I can easily find alternatives to most of the places that have. Fact is, I may not still feel this way next week. However, at least at present, I can't help but to think that it is perhaps time for us to stop being so idealistic and start being a little more pragmatic. Heck, maybe Malcolm X was right, "By any means necessary."

Honestly, I really would be satisfied if the signs meant nothing, the law said that business owners must assume that I am not carrying unless they actually see my firearm, themselves, and as long as the firearm is concealed no one other than a LEO who has approached me for some other reason (traffic stop, etc.) is legally allowed to ask if I have a firearm on me or not. Heck, I guess you could call it, "Don't ask, don't tell."

Edited January 6, 2011 by JAB

[RobertNashville]

The problem is that the antis will use whatever tactic they can, try to play the system and so on while we continue to hamstring ourselves by trying to play fair and taking the high road. That is great in concept but may not work too well in reality. Iin the end, the morally superior loser is still the loser....

Your line of reasoning sounds a bit familiar to me...sort of like "I had to abandon my free market principles in order to save the free market" as stated by our last President.

I'm just not going to take that road...the second amendment is not the only right that needs to be protected and respected.

[RobertNashville]

...

I've said about 10 times (at least) in this thread that I think the current law/punishment is much more harsh that is needs to be or should be...I don't know how to say it any plainer than that.

I'm fine with making the crime/punishment a simple "extension" of the "trespassing" statutes already on the books. However, if you've walked past signage that clearly tells you that your with your firearm aren't welcome, that should be enough to trigger (no pun intended) the "crime" because at that point you've knowingly entered property where you know or should have known you weren't welcome (meaning you've already committed a trespass at that point).

Edited January 6, 2011 by RobertNashville

[Guest 270win]

I have traveled to Alabama some and my TN handgun carry permit is good there. Someone can put up a sign that says no guns. If my gun is seen and I am asked to leave, I must leave. If I do not leave, I can be charged with trespass as in any state. There is not any sort of 'no gun' sign law in Alabama. You can carry pretty much wherever you want down there except protests/picket lines and probably not K-12 schools (Folks with AL licenses definitely can) on your TN handgun carry permit. Property owners down there haven't lost any 'rights' by a no gun sign not being a CRIMINAL offense like in Tennessee. That is wrong to think otherwise.

People in Tennessee can't be slammed with a CRIMINAL OFFENSE for failing to wear shoes in a business with those 'no shirt, shoes, no service' signs. All they can be asked is to leave. Why should we be any different over a gun in our pocket? People who wear sunglasses and hats at banks (some have signs requesting to take those off) don't have to worry about a criminal offense. Why a criminal offense for us?

[Guest 270win]

Would you think a civil type thing like a parking ticket would be a good compromise to have something on the books for people not wanting to leave/disobeying a sign? Missouri does that and it makes business owners/bed wetters happy when they put up these signs but it doesn't affect people with licenses and is not a criminal offense. I think up there you can get popped with a little 100 dollar fine, no arrest, no criminal record. Just like a parking type deal.

We're just having fun here!

[Guest Jamie]

I'm not for making the fact I legally have a gun on me a source, or potential source, of income for ANYBODY.

A business is a business, not a residence. So anything other than a penalty for criminal trespass if you're asked to leave and refuse, should be right out, in my opinion.

Yes, business owners have a right to be stupid, and lose a customer who's not causing any trouble by throwing them out if they want. But no one should be able to make one red cent off of that.