Proper "No Guns" Sign

[joesolo]

It seems like the info on what constitutes a proper (legal) No Guns sign has been posted somewhere on here before. Of course I am referring to the new restaurant carry issue here. Can someone point me to the legal requirements? I saw where TGIF Fridays had one of the typical No Gun signs with the red circle and red slash thru the circle and handgun in the middle. As another forum member already stated I'd like a wallet-sized copy for my info and just in case. 'preciate ya.

[redbarron06]

[joesolo]

Thanks for the reply redbarron. That opinion from the AG is dated in 2007. I believe there is new info regarding signs, size, language, penalty, etc. What say you Mr. Harris?

[johnharris]

Nothing new at this time on the language or placement of the sign. For most purposes, its covered in 39-17-1359.

Of course the parks are going to be an absolute disaster for a lot of permit holders because the signs will stay up with no notice whether the park is exempt for permit holders or not.

[joesolo]

Below is the language that i understand should be "on the sign":

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).


In an earlier posting, I asked:

Our city council seems to be pushing to have establishments post their no guns signs. In the past, stores (like ABC Hardware, for example), could post a sign prohibiting firearms. But, you were not in violation of the law if you carried in the establishment. You could be asked to leave if found to be carrying. Is this not still true with the new restaurant carry? Are you breaking the "law" by carrying in a restaurant with the proper sign or just their individual prohibition? I hope this makes some sense. Thanks.

Mr Harris, you replied:

Under TCA 39-17-1359, if a property is PROPERLY posted in compliance with the provision of that statute, a violation of the posting could be charged as a class B misdemeanor which is usually a $500 fine plus the loss of the firearm, court costs, etc.

Can you clarify this for me? As I read TCA 39-17-1359 I don't see any language about a Class B Misdemeanor. John, let me be clear I am no scholar and probably not the smartest person you will communicate with today. I'm just looking for answers and information as my state moves in the right direction. Thanks

[redbarron06]

[joesolo]

redbarron....I'm sure John will chime in and clear this up but it is my understanding that unless law enforcement is on official business they are also banned from taking firearms where signs are posted. I had been told it was even against the law for an officer who was just on "break" to carry into a place where alcohol was served in the past (where the old law was in place about carry in restaurants).

[johnharris]

The $500 fine is a class B. Class B's are 6 months in jail and/or up to $500 fine. The language on the sign suggests only the fine may be imposed. Also, there is 39-17-1317 which requires forfeiture of weapons in any case where a firearm was involved.

Now, the question is does the fine apply if the sign does not comply with 39-17-1359? Although I have yet to see it attempted, I would think it possible that an inadequate sign under 39-17-1359 might still be adequate notice for criminal trespass purposes and could result in a charge under that statute. Again, I have not seen it attempted.

As for signs and law enforcement, the proposed Metro ordinance would be effective (as written) against everyone except on duty, in the line of duty law enforcement. Now, keep in mind that most law enforcement have this "we are special when it comes to guns" attitude and do not believe that any restrictions exist with respect to them on or off duty. For example, the current alcohol statute prohibits even on duty officers in restaurants unless they are "in the official discharge" of their duties.

Likewise, the courtroom statute prohibits law enforcement in the courtroom unless in the "in the official discharge" of their duties. There was an exception at one time that said "unless you are a witness." That was repealed so the rules of construction would say that "being a witness" is not the "official discharge" of duties which is probably or should probably be limited to officers who are assigned to the courtroom as their station or job. Its a felony to carry in a courtroom but I have yet to see any officer questioned much less charged. Frankly, most carry in the courtroom and to me its a significant hazard because they often sit over with the others who are in the courtroom as witnesses and have their backs to the audience. It really would not be that hard for a nut to get close enough to take a gun from one of them.

[ProguninTN]

[johnharris]

We need more of the latter type of LEO's. Those in the first category don't understand what it is to be a citizen of this country - first and have a job - second.