Wolfchase Galleria, Memphis—POSTED

[jwtownsend49]

Inconspicuous signs at parking lot entrances state weapons are banned on the property. The weapons ban is also noted on lists of rules posted inside direct entrances to the mall. There are, however, no rules posted at the entrances through stores.

[General Forrest]

I was at the Wolfchase Galleria this past week and I looked everywhere for clear markings that would forbid weapons. I saw none. The law passed by the Tennessee legislature requires the posting of signs at every entrance of every building and/or property on which the building is located. Wolfchase has clearly not met the law. Below is TCA 39-17-1359:

(a) 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 otherwise authorized by §§ 39-17-1351 — 39-17-1360, at meetings conducted by, or on property owned, operated, or managed or under the control of the individual, corporation, business entity or government entity. Notice of the prohibition shall be posted. Posted notices shall be displayed in prominent locations, including all entrances primarily used by persons entering the building, portion of the building or buildings where weapon possession is prohibited. If the possession of weapons is also prohibited on the premises of the property as well as within the confines of a building located on the property, the notice shall be posted at all entrances to the premises that are primarily used by persons entering the property. The notice shall be in English but a notice may also be posted in any language used by patrons, customers or persons who frequent the place where weapon possession is prohibited. In addition to the sign, notice may also include the international circle and slash symbolizing the prohibition of the item within the circle. The sign shall be of a size that is plainly visible to the average person entering the building, premises or property and shall contain language substantially similar to the following:

PURSUANT TO § 39-17-1359, THE OWNER/OPERATOR OF THIS PROPERTY HAS BANNED WEAPONS ON THIS PROPERTY, OR WITHIN THIS BUILDING OR THIS PORTION OF THIS BUILDING. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS PROHIBITION IS PUNISHABLE AS A CRIMINAL ACT UNDER STATE LAW AND MAY SUBJECT THE VIOLATOR TO A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($500).
(b) 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.
(c) Any posted notice being used by a local, state or federal governmental entity on July 1, 2000, that is in substantial compliance with the provisions of subsection (a) of this section may continue to be used by the governmental entity.
(d) The provisions of this section shall not apply to title 70 regarding wildlife laws, rules and regulations.
(e) 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.

[Acts 1996, ch. 905, § 11; 2000, ch. 929, § 1; 2009, ch. 428, § 4.]

[jwtownsend49]

True, but mall security may still be required by mall management to enforce the ban, which may mean customers carrying weapons may have to put up with considerable grief and harassment. Anyone want to be the test case? Personally, I would rather go somewhere else where I know I won't be harassed.

[fl0at]

[Sky King]

I posted on this once before. I agree that Wolfchase's posting do not meet the criteria established by the posting law. It is possible that the reason you may not see the sign at direct entrances to the larger or anchor stores is that the buildings occupied by the achor stores MAY be owned by that store. I know that is the case at some malls. Sears, JC Penny, Macy's and Dillards owned, (and actually even though they are vacant, they still own them) their buildings at Raleigh Springs Mall. It would be up to them to post. In all fairness, the prohibition in the mall itself should be posted at the entrance to the mall FROM those stores but I don't think it is.

Personally, even though the signage does not meet the requirement, the attitude of the mall is still obvious and I still don't wish to support them. We all need to contact the mall management AND merchants in the mall that we would otherwise do business with and tell them that they will be loosing our business. The mall merchants will have more influence on the mall management than we will.

Sam Cooper

[tjy2001]

We need to amend the current law to enforce a consistent type of sign, instead of what we have now, to end the confusion.

[jwtownsend49]

I would like to see a single, uniform sign required. It should be visible from inside a car driving through the parking area, say at least 8.5" by 11" with the international symbol taking up the upper 60 to 70% and the states wording in at least 18 point font at the bottom, and displayed immediately above the door handle.

[jwtownsend49]

I went by this evening. The same, inconspicuous, noncompliant message was posted at the bottom of rules lists at the entrances to parking lots. Drivers will easily miss them.

[Usagi]

[Sky King]

[Usagi]

[jwtownsend49]

Amen! I want to see HCP holders allowed to carry everywhere the public is allowed. This includes all government buildings.

[Sky King]

That would be great and I would certainly support that, but I think there is a snowball's chance in a furnace of passing in Tennessee. I am just being realistic. Way more than just a few times I have heard from members of the Tennessee General Assembly when either testifying before sub-committees or just face to face concerning the employer parking lot bills, about their beliefs for property owner rights. THAT is the hard nut to crack. The conservative members who generally are more supportive of pro-gun legislation are also the ones who are the most reluctant to step on property owners rights. Thus getting them to pass laws that say a property owner CAN NOT post a prohibition, OR such a posting presents NO restriction on permit holders is going to hard to say the least. In my personal opinion, it would make getting our restaurant carry bill passed look like a walk in the park.

Again, I would support legislation to do this, I just think the level of difficulty is such that I think our efforts would be better used on other issues that are equally important, such as removing the opt out provision in parks and getting relief on employer parking lots. The parking lots issue also involves private property rights issues and I have heard that argument presented many times. Between the liability and property rights, the parking lot bill itself will be hard enough to get passed.