Confusion about TCA 39-17-1359 (posted property)

[macville]

Well.."No Smoking" signs carry the weight of law in TN too...

I didn't include no smoking signs because those are not optional for most places. I believe the only place they are optional is if you limit your restaurant to 21 and up only...which is moronic since you can smoke at 18.

What sucks is the only way to get them ruled unconstitutional is to file lawsuits and that costs lots of money. It would just be nice if people followed the constitution and stopped coming up with unconstitutional laws.

[Oh Shoot]

...If they cant put up a sign that says "No women allowed" or "No African-Americans allowed" or anything like that, then they also should not be able to put up a sign prohibiting the lawful carrying of firearms.

Race, sex, etc are enumerated protected categories; gun owners are not.

Note however, that blacks, gays, women, etc did NOT gain their non-discriminatory status from the constitution. It took protests, deaths, and litigation.

- OS

Edited November 28, 2011 by OhShoot

[DaveTN]

Aren't there limits on citizen's arrests? As in you can't arrest some one for a misd unless it involves violence etc?

In this state there doesn’t appear to be from what I can tell. Read through Title 40, Chapter 7, part 1 at LexisNexis.

Point being, just because I detain you, doesn't mean you are the one going to jail when the cops show up.

If it’s a misdemeanor it is very likely no one will be going to jail, but they can be cited. That’s still an arrest.

If there are no grounds for arrest; I’m sure the Officer won’t be taking anyone anywhere.

The big difference that I can see is that cops have qualified immunity, citizens don’t.

[Schadenfreude]

Basically the gun busters meant nothing untill they legallized restaraunt carry the second time around & as part of that someone agreed to make the gunbuster signs legal - really pissed me off as I know of places that were posted that way just to pacify the sheeple without having any real effect on permit holders

[Oh Shoot]

nm, misread.

Edited November 28, 2011 by OhShoot

[TMF]

When it comes to a store trying to take away my 2nd amendment right, ABSOLUTELY. I should be able to carry anywhere. If they cant put up a sign that says "No women allowed" or "No African-Americans allowed" or anything like that, then they also should not be able to put up a sign prohibiting the lawful carrying of firearms.

Not even close to the same ballpark. You also can't freely use your 1st Amendment rights when you go into a business. Case in point: you start running your mouth like an a-hole they can tell you to shut up or leave. Is that violating the constitution? If you don't like it don't patronize that business.

[Fallguy]

Aren't there limits on citizen's arrests? As in you can't arrest some one for a misd unless it involves violence etc? Point being, just because I detain you, doesn't mean you are the one going to jail when the cops show up.

As Dave said....there really is no limits for arrest by a citizen than those for LEO.

Also has he said, on misdemenor most of the time somoene is cited instead of taking to jail.

[Fallguy]

I didn't include no smoking signs because those are not optional for most places. I believe the only place they are optional is if you limit your restaurant to 21 and up only...which is moronic since you can smoke at 18.

I umderstand and I agree.

What sucks is the only way to get them ruled unconstitutional is to file lawsuits and that costs lots of money. It would just be nice if people followed the constitution and stopped coming up with unconstitutional laws.

Yep

[Guest ArmaDeFuego]

Not even close to the same ballpark. You also can't freely use your 1st Amendment rights when you go into a business. Case in point: you start running your mouth like an a-hole they can tell you to shut up or leave. Is that violating the constitution? If you don't like it don't patronize that business.

See? Thats my point. If they dont like a gun they can ask me to leave & then I will leave or risk trespassing. In no way should they be able to put up a sign that makes it illegal for me to even go in with a gun. In your example you have to start running your mouth before they throw you out. They should at least have to SEE my gun before they throw me out.

[Guest ArmaDeFuego]

Race, sex, etc are enumerated protected categories; gun owners are not.

Note however, that blacks, gays, women, etc did NOT gain their non-discriminatory status from the constitution. It took protests, deaths, and litigation.

- OS

Exactly! Gun owners should be a protected category. I feel that my right to own a gun & carry it is just as inalienable as someone being born a certain gender or race, etc. I know thats not how it IS in the law, but thats how I think it SHOULD BE. Will it ever be that way? Probably not....

[DaveTN]

Exactly! Gun owners should be a protected category. I feel that my right to own a gun & carry it is just as inalienable as someone being born a certain gender or race, etc. I know thats not how it IS in the law, but thats how I think it SHOULD BE. Will it ever be that way? Probably not....

It might be that way in this state when carrying a gun isn’t a crime, and business owners are exempt from civil action if you shoot someone in their business.

[Just2Honor]

If you think signs in businesses is screwed up, take a look at the mess we have with local parks!

[Makiaveli]

In this state there doesn’t appear to be from what I can tell. Read through Title 40, Chapter 7, part 1 at LexisNexis.

If it’s a misdemeanor it is very likely no one will be going to jail, but they can be cited. That’s still an arrest.

If there are no grounds for arrest; I’m sure the Officer won’t be taking anyone anywhere.

The big difference that I can see is that cops have qualified immunity, citizens don’t.

I was thinking along the lines of if I unlawfully detain you, that could be considered kidnapping. That does usually result in a trip downtown.

@ArmaDeFuego So you are saying your 2nd amendment rights trump my rights to control what happens on my property? All I am saying is a property owner should have the right to control who and what comes on to his property. I am a Libertarian, so my views on how far that should go are not popular so I won't go any further on that.

[Oh Shoot]

If you think signs in businesses is screwed up, take a look at the mess we have with local parks!

Knoxville is the winner of that mess. No carry, but doesn't have to post either. Like everyone is just somehow supposed to know it has a grandfathered local ordinance that trumps the state law.

- OS

[DaveTN]

I was thinking along the lines of if I unlawfully detain you, that could be considered kidnapping. That does usually result in a trip downtown.

Well sure, if you screw up and detain someone that hasn’t committed a crime you could certainly have problems. That’s why unless I was in grave danger I would leave that part to the cops.

If you detain them it could be False Imprisonment, if you use force it could be kidnapping, if you are in possession of a gun when you do it, it could be aggravated kidnapping and if you threaten them with a gun it could be Especially Aggravated Kidnapping.

[Guest ArmaDeFuego]

It might be that way in this state when carrying a gun isn’t a crime, and business owners are exempt from civil action if you shoot someone in their business.

Yep, which is why both of these things SHOULD be true here.....

This lawsuit mentality we have in our culture is really stupid. I think in a few hundred years people are going to look back at all these lawsuits & just be like "WTF?"

Can anyone tell me WHY it should be the business owners fault if someone gets shot in their business? I mean seriously. We need to get back to PERSONAL responsibility people, please......

[Guest ArmaDeFuego]

@ArmaDeFuego So you are saying your 2nd amendment rights trump my rights to control what happens on my property?

Yes.

All I am saying is a property owner should have the right to control who and what comes on to his property. I am a Libertarian, so my views on how far that should go are not popular so I won't go any further on that.

Maybe in a perfect world, but there are already certain things that a property owner cant do. I'm saying that allowing weapons onto the property should also be one of the things they cant prohibit.

An apartment complex can legally bar someone from exercising their FUNDAMENTAL right to self defense by refusing to allow them to live there with a gun, but they cannot tell a Hispanic that they cannot live there because they are Hispanic. All I'm saying is that there SHOULDNT be a difference in those 2 examples. I consider my right to self defense as inherent as someone's gender or race.

[TMF]

Can anyone tell me WHY it should be the business owners fault if someone gets shot in their business? I mean seriously. We need to get back to PERSONAL responsibility people, please......

Well that is the difference between theory and reality. The reality is that businesses can and will be sued if someone is shot on their property. Right or wrong, this is reality. Taking away a businesses ability to mitigate risk or exercise their own property rights is wrong and borders on fascist. I do agree that it shouldn't be a criminal offense, however, it is still the owner's right to tell you to leave if they see a weapon or post a sign not allowing weapons in order to remove their liability. Someday if I open a business that requires customers to wear clown shoes, a rubber nose and go through a metal detector if they want access to the property I have the right to do that. Who are you or anyone else for that matter to tell me what I can do on my property?

[Fallguy]

Well that is the difference between theory and reality. The reality is that businesses can and will be sued if someone is shot on their property. Right or wrong, this is reality. Taking away a businesses ability to mitigate risk or exercise their own property rights is wrong and borders on fascist. I do agree that it shouldn't be a criminal offense, however, it is still the owner's right to tell you to leave if they see a weapon or post a sign not allowing weapons in order to remove their liability. Someday if I open a business that requires customers to wear clown shoes, a rubber nose and go through a metal detector if they want access to the property I have the right to do that. Who are you or anyone else for that matter to tell me what I can do on my property?

Yeah...just so long as you don't want to allow smoking or not allow certain races, sexes or religions. Also as long as you comply with all ADA regulations.

Not quite as free to do what you'd like with property that is open to the public as you are other private property.

[TMF]

Yeah...just so long as you don't want to allow smoking or not allow certain races, sexes or religions. Also as long as you comply with all ADA regulations.

Not quite as free to do what you'd like with property that is open to the public as you are other private property.

Roger that, though I disagree with laws that tell private business owners what to do; even if the business practices themselves are unethical or immoral. Even if I stand to benefit from that law I think the Government should stay the hell away. In regards to the subject at hand, I'd like to carry my weapon everywhere I go and in every business I want. However, I completely defend the right of a business to tell me I can't come in with a weapon. I have the right to go somewhere else or leave my weapon at home. If it's worth the lost revenue to that business to maintain that policy, then good on them.

[Guest 270win]

People should be able to control what they want on their property. The state should not, however, make it a criminal offense with a 500 dollar fine for a licensee to carry past a certain sign that is honestly a vague law. The whole point of buying a pistol license is to not get fined for carrying the pistol! But I would rather the law be vague than set in stone to the point that people can be convicted of this silly law. I do not have a problem with people being fined for trespass (another misdemeanor) if they refuse to leave a location after being asked to leave. This is the law in most states.

[Guest ArmaDeFuego]

Well that is the difference between theory and reality. The reality is that businesses can and will be sued if someone is shot on their property. Right or wrong, this is reality. Taking away a businesses ability to mitigate risk or exercise their own property rights is wrong and borders on fascist. I do agree that it shouldn't be a criminal offense, however, it is still the owner's right to tell you to leave if they see a weapon or post a sign not allowing weapons in order to remove their liability. Someday if I open a business that requires customers to wear clown shoes, a rubber nose and go through a metal detector if they want access to the property I have the right to do that. Who are you or anyone else for that matter to tell me what I can do on my property?

Yes I understand reality. I'm saying how things SHOULD be. I dont think that a property owner's rights trump ALL other rights, & as razorback pointed out above, I definitely dont think that your right to do what you want on your property should be able to be turned into a criminal offense on my part.

I would be happy with the compromise that most states have. They can post if they want to, but its not a CRIMINAL offense unless they ask me to leave & I refuse. I'm perfectly ok with that. I think that respects the rights of both parties.

[tnhawk]

Just as a business owner has the right to post, I have the right to take my money elsewhere.

[Makiaveli]

Yes I understand reality. I'm saying how things SHOULD be. I dont think that a property owner's rights trump ALL other rights, & as razorback pointed out above, I definitely dont think that your right to do what you want on your property should be able to be turned into a criminal offense on my part.

I would be happy with the compromise that most states have. They can post if they want to, but its not a CRIMINAL offense unless they ask me to leave & I refuse. I'm perfectly ok with that. I think that respects the rights of both parties.

As a Libertarian I do think my rights should trump your rights on my property. The exceptions should be limited to your right to live etc. The rest should be up to me.

If you disagree, then don't shop at my business. That is the root of what I see is the problem. You don't have a right to shop at Walmart. Just because it is "open to the public" doesn't mean it is public property like government property. So I think the laws should operate similar to trespassing does now. I have to be open about it, ie post, and if you leave when asked, no harm, no foul.

FTR I have been called a Nazi and worse in the past for my beliefs on this subject. Basically I believe your property/business etc is YOURS. Do with it as you will. But I reserve the right to not do business with you if I disagree with your restrictions.

[Guest ArmaDeFuego]

So I think the laws should operate similar to trespassing does now. I have to be open about it, ie post, and if you leave when asked, no harm, no foul.

Seems like we are in agreement.