• Mossberg Owners is in the process of upgrading the software. Please bear with us while we transition to the new look and new upgraded software.

Tennessee Businesses to be held accountable?

I think this is great, I had been saying this about businesses that want to be gun free.
 
If it is going to pass, that would be great!!
 
LAZY EYED SNIPER said:
Yup, it's legit.

This law went into effect here on 7/1/16...
Click to expand...
Any comments from the business community about this new law? Interested to see if the signs come down or if there is going to be lawsuits about the constitutionality of said law...
 
this is really great ......I have been waiting for someone to hold these places accountable.
 
OhioArcher said:
Any comments from the business community about this new law? Interested to see if the signs come down or if there is going to be lawsuits about the constitutionality of said law...
Click to expand...

Haven't seen any reaction yet. Simple truth is that a likely 99.9% of the public are unaware of the bill existing.

There was a bill signed into law a couple years ago that allowed lawful concealed carry in personal vehicles even on properties that have posted no firearms signs on the premises. This essentially extended the principal of castle doctrine to one's personal vehicle. One provision of that law was an exemption for businesses from prosecution or liability should any firearm related injury occur on their property IF they post a no firearms sign. What we saw here was a HUGE spike in the number of businesses, eateries, etc that posted these signs at their entrance.

This new law contradicts that exemption and hopefully we will see a few of those no firearms signs coming down...
 
SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39, Chapter 17, Part 13, is amended by adding the following as a new section:
(a) It is the intent of this section to balance the right of a handgun carry permit holder to carry a firearm in order to exercise the right of self-defense and the ability of a property owner or entity in charge of the property to exercise control over governmental or private property.
(b) Any person or entity authorized to post property pursuant to § 39-17- 1359 who elects, pursuant to that authority, to prohibit the possession of firearms by a person authorized to carry a handgun pursuant to § 39-17-1351, thereby assumes absolute custodial responsibility for the safety and defense of the permit holder while on the posted property and while on any property the permit holder is required to traverse in order to travel to and from the location where the permit holder's firearm is stored.

(c) The responsibility of the person or entity posting for the safety and defense of the permit holder shall extend to the conduct of other invitees, trespassers, employees of the person or entity, vicious animals, wild animals, and defensible man-made and natural hazards.
(d) SB1736 008020 -2-
(1) Any handgun carry permit holder who is injured, suffers bodily injury or death, incurs economic loss or expense, property damage or any other compensable loss as the result of conduct occurring on property that is posted pursuant to § 39-17-1359, shall have a cause of action against the person or entity posting. In addition to damages, the person shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees, expert witness costs, and other costs necessary to bring the cause of action.
(2) The statute of limitations for such an action shall be two (2) years from the date of the occurrence giving rise to the damages, loss, or injury.
(e) Any notice or signage that property is posted pursuant to § 39-17- 1359 shall also contain language citing this section and stating that any permit holder on the posted property is under the custodial responsibility of the posting person or entity.
(f) To prevail in an action brought under this section, the plaintiff must show by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) The plaintiff was authorized to carry a handgun pursuant to § 39-17-1351 at the time of the incident giving rise to the action; (2) The plaintiff was prohibited from carrying a firearm on the property where the incident occurred because it was posted pursuant to § 39-17-1359; and (3) The property was not required to be posted by state or federal law but was posted by choice of the defendant.
(g) This section shall be liberally construed to effectuate its purpose.
SECTION 2. This act shall take effect July 1, 2016, the public welfare requiring it.
 
It's a step in the right direction for sure, but still only a half measure.

This only covers CHP holders AFTER they have been disarmed by an establishment and then fall victim to loss of property, bodily injury, or death on that property. Better than nothing I suppose. It'll be interesting to see what effect it has on the number of posted signs in the state...
 
Good to see progress made at one end while other states are sinking. Gives us some hope!!
 
Does that little no-no sign actually stop people from carrying concealed guns?
 
For me, just two of them. One is in a bar that has the proper sign. They are known for stopping folks. The only time I ever went in there was to register for a motorcycle charity poker run.
The other is a proper sign that was on a bank. I was looking for financial institutions when I got here 4 years ago and I turned back before I went in because I wasn't going to give them any business. Regions Bank it was.

The ones I ignore are not proper notices because they are the wrong size or do not have the proper written citations included, but the merchants are too ignorant to know that. I also ignore some proper signs because I conceal well and can politely talk my way out if I had to. There is some risk in that, but I carried for 7 years daily in WI when it was still a no-no state so...

--I am not a lawyer. Taking my advice without consulting a professional with training and knowledge in this field may get you expensively fined or uncomfortably incarcerated.

A proper sign [not actual size] ........... An improper sign in TN EDIT: as of 1/1/2017 this sign is legal.
upload_2016-7-6_1-49-50.png
images
 
Last edited:
Here is doesn't matter if the sign is the correct one or not. There was one at a local restaurant that was the depiction of a rubberband gun. But here it is not a criminal offense to carry into such an establishment. Only when they realize you're carrying, ask you to leave and you don't is it a crime (trespassing). I carry everywhere except PD's and courthouses. We can carry in bars (if not drinking) and banks.
 
I have never seen such a sign myself.

And I rarely go to bars, but the one I like has this sign:
20160327_183143-1.jpg
 
OhioArcher said:
. . . Only when they realize you're carrying, ask you to leave and you don't is it a crime (trespassing). . .
Click to expand...

Here, CCW means it stays concealed. If someone sees it, you've violated the law. You simply cannot let it be known. If the waiter knows, you've screwed up.

OhioArcher said:
. . . I carry everywhere except PD's and courthouses . . .
Click to expand...

They have metal detectors here, just like an airport. You can't get one in.
 
CaddmannQ said:
Does that little no-no sign actually stop people from carrying concealed guns?
Click to expand...

For 97% of the population, absolutely it does.

The fear of breaking the law and to risk losing their right to carry legally outweighs the fear of a chance encounter where they might actually have to use their sidearm. Making a choice to knowingly break the law is a line that many people will not cross. It's the moral high ground that separates them from criminals...
 
Here the signs in non legally restricted areas carry no real weight of law. If caught you you can be asked to leave and possibly face trespassing charges if you do not.

If you repeatedly violate the sign and get caught and they know you knew that the premises was posted you may face some bigger issues. ( For those of you that do not know, that is what it is frowned up on to post no carry zones on forums, etc.)

Some places such as bars, schools, churches, entertainment facilities with a certain seating capacity etc have specific rules laid out in the carry laws and vary depending on the type of carry: concealed, open or open with CPL. In MI CPL is our Concealed Carry Permit, It used to be called a CCW but that is now the charge you will get if caught violating the carry laws.
 
LAZY EYED SNIPER said:
For 97% of the population, absolutely it does . . . .
Click to expand...

Then I'm Amazed.

I would never have guessed a number as high as 97% in my life. Certainly not these days, the way things are going.

Frankly I don't know what to do in California. If you carry openly you are a criminal, but if concealed you are a criminal too, according to the ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

This makes anybody who carries an outlaw, unless an LEO.

Well I have never been an LEO nor have I ever wanted to be, and while I might have a little bit of that Rambo gene, I don't exercise it.

I'm one of the millions of Americans sitting on the fence, patiently waiting while the Department of Justice pushes us over onto the outlaw side.
 
I have no idea of the actual stats. The 97% was a bit of a play on the 3%'er mentality.

I do feel the number is really high and that the average firearm owner holds the law in high regard. I also believe that the average firearm owner, especially considering all the new owners in the past few years, are not as informed as most of us here. Many people don't discuss these things after their carry permit class. Whether the sign on the door is backed by actual legal precedent or not, right or wrong, it is my belief that the average firearm owner doesn't know the difference and simply chooses to comply for fear of breaking the law...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top