How to post gun ban on property in Tennessee

[afriqueart]

Does anyone know the legal requirements to post a gun ban sign in Tennessee?

Is a sign that simply states "No Guns Allowed" legal? Does the business owner have to cite the law (HBXXX.XX.X)?

 

[enfield]

Signs must contain language "substantially similar" to the following to be enforceable:

"Pursuant to Section 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 that five hundred dollars ($500)."

I'm under the impression that the "No guns allowed" signs are unenforceable and may be safely ignored. However, I am not a lawyer.

 

[The Rabbi]

Enfield is correct.
However, the owner/manager may ask anyone to leave for any reason and if asked you must leave immediately.
Unfortunately the restaurant association is printing up legal signs and urging members to post. Unless we can organize a counter move to tell owners that we'd like to patronize their establishments but gosh darn I'm not leaving my gun in the car then the new law won't mean much for us.

ETA, on looking at the TN Hospitality website and their legislative update, they mention the restaurant carry bill but show they have no position on it. Maybe my info is faulty.

 

[rjroberts]

Enfield is correct.
However, the owner/manager may ask anyone to leave for any reason and if asked you must leave immediately.
Unfortunately the restaurant association is printing up legal signs and urging members to post. Unless we can organize a counter move to tell owners that we'd like to patronize their establishments but gosh darn I'm not leaving my gun in the car then the new law won't mean much for us.

ETA, on looking at the TN Hospitality website and their legislative update, they mention the restaurant carry bill but show they have no position on it. Maybe my info is faulty.

It might be useful to muse on the meaning of "public accommodation" and its effect on the imagined absolutism of private property rights. I believe in private property as much as anyone but have seen enough variations and violations of that in my lifetime, all perfectly legal, to know it isn't absolute in any way.

Not to stir up a storm or open old and unwarranted wounds but that phrase - "public accommodation" - has been used quite a bit in the past to counter the idea that a business owner can order anyone out as he wishes. I'll give you an example. Suppose you have a home with a room for rent. You can, if you wish, refuse to rent to Hungarians simply because they are Hungarians. However, if you had 10 units, you would be in violations of Civil Rights laws if you did the same.

I don't want to deprive anyone of property, and would rather approach things with reason. WOuld the public not be safer if I didn't leave my gun in a motorcycle saddle bag when leaving it unattended? But, we know how far reason goes. Just don't accept any nonsense that would not apply if you need some protection.


Note, before I get letters. I use "Hungarians" to avoid the fulminations and purposeful sidetracking by people with their own agendas were I to use the actual groups involved in the original circumstances underlying the creation of the laws. So, since I am 1/2 Hungarian, I am allowed to use that group as do others with their own groups without criticism. Eljen a Magyar.

 

[The Rabbi]

A business owner can refuse to serve anyone as long as that refusal does not come strictly from the race, color, gender, or religion of the patron, and only from behavior.

eta, yo napo kivanok.

 

[rjroberts]

Anyone can make up a reason that sounds good as needed, just like the old "probable cause" issue. My point was that property rights are not absolute as in the case of a public accommodation vs. one's own home. Many people will accept restrictions "because it's like my home." It is not. I'll not debate whether or not property rights should or should not be absolute but we can see that they are in fact not. It's only because it is about guns that there is an issue. I will bet that anything else would get a different response from the law and from many people.

 

[The Rabbi]

We don't disagree here.