New Sign Law in Regards To SB3012?

[majorbotts]

I'm a little confused by the new sign rules brought on by the so called "Restaurant Bill," SB3012.

Do I correctly understand that the new law allows ALL businesses, not just places that serve alcohol, to post ANY style of a "No Guns" sign to prohibit permit holders from carrying into their establishments? And, if I'm caught in possession of a weapon within a posted property, I'm in violation of a Class B misdemeanor punishable by a five hundred dollar ($500) fine?

Meaning all restaurant / bars, bookstores, antique malls, etc., can affectively be posted in any "reasonable" manner, and the penalty is the same whether I'm caught carrying in a candy store, or "bar?"

Thanks!

mb

[fl0at]

[GraceOutcast]

[RobertNashville]

[GKar]

Agree with Robert. Also, just to further clarify - another major difference between this law and last year's is the addition of three defined elements that must be present in order for a printed sign to constitute "substantially similar":

1 - the property is posted under authority of Tennessee law; and
2 - weapons or firearms are prohibited on the property, in the building, or in the portion of the property or building that is posted; and
3 - possessing a weapon in an area that has been posted is a criminal offense.

Such posting must be posted in all prominent locations, including all entrances primarily used by persons entering the property, building, etc., and such notice must be of a size to be plainly visible to the average person entering the property.

So, no, I wouldn't say that ANY style of "No Guns" is permissible...

[macville]

[Sky King]

In all reality, while the law states that the sign must be at the entrances, it doesn't say WHERE, ie eye level, off to the right etc. it only states "and such notice must be of a size to be plainly visible to the average person entering the property."

Many restaurants have a vestibule at the entrance. In that area between the outer door and the inner door, the sign may be placed off on the right or left wall. I don't know about you, but these vestibules are often so small that I don't look at anything but the NEXT door.

I had heard that Huey's on Germantown Road was posted. However I was invited by some friends to a little get-together there. I would not have chosen the location due to the posting but it was not up to me. I left my firearm locked in my trunk and went in. I looked all over for the posting. I was about to come to the conclusion that it was NOT posted when I looked UP. At the TOP of the door was the sign with the actual legal verbage along with the circle and slash sign. BOTH signs tothether were no bigger than MAYBE 4 or 5 inches tall and 6 inches wide and the font was so small at that height, it was almost unreadable. THAT should NOT be allowed.

Another restaurant, The China Inn on Covington Pike. My wife and I went in. Shortly after going in, I was approached by a uniformed, armed security officer. Apparently my gun and holster were printing a bit and he asked me if I was armed. I said yes and that I have a permit. He stated that weapons were not allowed. I stated that I had not seen any posting at the entrance. We went outside and he showed me the sign. It was a good 3 to 4 feet off to the left of the entrance door at FOOT level. He suggested that I simply return my weapon to my car to which I said "NO, we will be leaving and not returning as long as the establishment is posted".

I would suggest an amendment to our new law that also specifies that the sign must be placed in a conspicous location so as it WILL be seen. They post the "NO SMOKING" prominantly along with other things such as "NO Shirt, No Shoes, No Service" where it can't be overlooked, this posting should be no different.

[fl0at]

[SomeGuy]

I think this would create a pretty good affirmative defense. If you can honestly say you did not see it on your way in, it goes to show it was obviously not plainly visible. That is of course, if you get caught.

[marauder]

i've wondered that if the signage is on an interior door in a vestibule like that if one could push for entrapment. you arguably could be in violation before you could possibly know it. anyone want to put their thoughts in on my theory?

[RobertNashville]

"Entrapment" is a non issue in my humble opinion.

Were a person arrested/charged while only in the vestibule I think you would have a very strong defense (assuming they bothered to charge you at all). If you continue to walk into the restaurant; I think you would have a real problem defending against a charge at that point.

What this all seems to highlight I think is that there are any number of ways that HCP holders can be "guilty" of a misdeed without knowing it and we need clear, standard, rules about such things so that both businesses and HCP holders don't get caught in the middle of an ambiguous standard.

[fl0at]

My issue with the Peabody's posting is that it isn't a restaurant, it is a hotel with shops and restaurants. I didn't enter with the intention of eating dinner, or violating any laws. I went because the group wanted to go to the roof and see the ducks.

Of course, this was before SB3012, and I do not recall the Peabody's sign containing "substantially similar to" language. Of course, that has all changed now.

I would like to believe that I would have simply been asked to leave, which I would have done; gladly. Of course now, I just won't return...