"Criminal Trespassing - illegally posted properties"

[n24wheel]

The Verbal announcement still stands if you are there to hear it. Under the law if an owner or employee of a business verbally tells you that you cannot come in their business with a gun then from that point on you cannot enter with your firearm. Others that were not verbally told can still enter the business lawfully if it is not posted. IF you are told to leave and you do not you can be charged with criminal trespass, and/or intent to go armed, and loose your permit.

You have the code below, It is 39-14-405 (1)

39-14-405. Criminal trespass. —
(a) A person commits criminal trespass who, knowing the person does not have the owner's effective consent to do so, enters or remains on property, or a portion thereof. Knowledge that the person did not have the owner's effective consent may be inferred where notice against entering or remaining is given by:
(1) Personal communication to the person by the owner or by someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;

the posting law did not in the past nor now override this section, what it did do was weakened it to where a verbal announcement does not apply to everyone, it only applies to those that hear it, it allows business owners ban individual people from their store they have had conflicts with. For instance you own a christian book store and a person keeps coming in cussing at the top of their voice the business can ask them to leave and not come back. If they return they can be charged for criminal trespass. Where the posting bans all permit holders this lets the private business disallow one or two that they have a conflict.

One big reason to leave if you are verbally asked is that if you do not that will certainly lead to the business posting to keep everyone out.

Where you said "The statutes below seem to indicate that the manager can ask me to leave for any reason based upon 39-14-405 and if I refuse, my trespass has elevated to aggravated criminal trespass according to 39-14-406"

That would be correct, it would also apply to you if a homeowner tells you not to carry in their home and you do anyway.

In a nut shell posting applies to all permit holders. The announcement applies to only permit holders that are specifically told. You cannot refuse to leave private property if you are told to do so.

David B.

[GraceOutcast]

Thanks for fully defining the issue concerning restaurants...

But how would it apply to places like a mall? Both an enclosed one and an outside mall style.

The "mall management" oversees the entire mall mainly on a landlord type basis only. They do
provide security for the most part but would their spoken word only be good while walking in the hallways
and not while getting a free massage at Brookstone?

[lilredhunter]

I for one , if asked to leave I would immediately leave as to avoid further conflict and as a common courtesy. Maybe this could lead to the owner not posting. Try not to piss them off. Also I can tell you from experience, if you start spouting TCA code to a manager you are going to really tick him off. Those that spout off code are considered know it all a$$holes.

[lilredhunter]

GraceOutcast whether inside or an outdoor "Open Air" mall ,if you are asked or told to leave because they don't allow guns then you are required to leave. I don't believe it matters what type of venue it is if you are on the "Landlord" property and you were told to leave then you should do as he asks. What I am saying if you were outside where there are say 20 booths setup if you are told by some one with management of sorts then it would mean all 20 booths.

[tkdmavrick]

OK ....

The state's Attorney General has issued an opinion that property owners' rights trumps the posting law.

Who is the Attorney General and what about his opinion? The State Attorney General is the head prosecutor in the state, and the boss of the various prosecutors in the state. (lawyers such as John H. - correct me if I am wrong). The rendered opinion thus enjoins the various prosecutors to charge people with an offense, such as the "criminal trespass", as stated in the opinion.

Before I go further though, let me publicly state that I will leave such an establishment that tells me to leave, and never return, and well as tell everyone I can to boycott the establishment. I, for one, don't have the money to become a test case (some people purposefully become test cases - e.g., John Scopes and Rosa Parks).

But according to the AG's opinion, if a person did not belong to a protected sub class of people, then a restaurant owner could discriminate at will. For example, the owner was abused by his red-haired mother, and therefore will refuse service to red-haired women. Or the owner thinks that the women's group, the Red Hat Society, is made up of a bunch of old, nutty women, and refuses them service. This could go on and on. Or a restaurant owner decides on the spot, that he/she is sick and tired of a pro-gun activist club and tells all members to leave in the middle of a meeting. All of these appear to be valid except in the case where the owner is a smoker, and wants all legal smokers (18 years old) to be allowed in, but can't, by state law (must be 21 and up). Of course, in these specific cases, the AG's opinion doesn't matter as much as exisiting case law.

One other point of discussion. According to the trespass law, if you are informed by the owner, or by the owner's representative,you must leave. Suppose, for example, you are in a store in a non-posted mall, and the business asked you to leave, MUST you comply (legally)? The business is a lessee of the property, not the property owner, so a store manager is not necessarily a representative of the property owner. The law actually uses the term: "owner's effective consent". Does anyone REALLY know what that means from case law? Does a store manager, where the business is a lessee, have the "owner's effective consent" by a lease?

My doctor's office has a sign on the door that says: "no concealed carry". I wonder if I should open carry in there, since I am only complying with the property owner's wishes, as per the AG opinion?

[rich]

Someone said if the owner can ask you to leave whether it is posted or not then why have the requirement. It sounds to me like that the posting, if legal, means you are tresspassing when you enter with a firearm. Otherwise you are tresspassing only after you refuse to leave when asked. Also I agree with your logic. I feel like a place that is open to the public should be treated differently than a private home but it just isn't the case. We also know that certain classes of people are "protected" but really this isn't totally true. Yes there is groups that are willing to sue on your behalf if you are in a certain group and are discriminated against but really the law doesn't make provisions. In other words, if you are a black man and you go to the red neck bar and grill and the manager asks you to leave because you're black. You have to leave or you're trespassing but you can sue him later for it. What we need is someone to sue for being discriminated against for carrying a weapon. I can't change the fact that in am a "toter" without compromising my own saftey therefore I must remain a "toter" to maintain my own well-being and should not be discriminated against for merely maintaining my level of self preservation. I noticed that there wasn't anyone near that offered me any real security so I was forced to take my safety into my own hands. The owner simply left me no choice one of the requirements for opening a business in America should be: not to infringe on anyones constitutional rights. If you don't respect our rights you don't deserve our business. Go open an outback in Russia or Nazi Germany. My having a gun concealed on my person is as much your business as what type of underware I have on. I should post a sign that says fruit of the loom only all other underwear wearers will be prosecuted.

Rich

[ProguninTN]

[Louiewu]

Ok I knew about the criminal trespass part as I have had to use that several times to get rid of troublemakers. Now on to the question of the meal... I I order a meal at a dine in facility and and served that meal at my table and am then asked to leave the establishment am I required to pay for the meal. I ordered it it was placed on my table but I was not allowed to eat my meal in the establishment. My personal opinion is that if they have asked me to leave and have not allowed me to eat my meal then they just gave it to me and I am free to just leave it on the table and walk out without paying. If I am required to pay for it then I should be allowed to stay and eat it.

While I respect the owners right to say get out... the flip side of that coin should be that he assumes any and all responsibility for lost income for the food.