You are choosing to make it a gun free zone therefore violating their RKBA that shall not be infringed. Do you believe that gun free zones work? If you're open to the public you shouldn't be violating their rights.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Tennessee Makes Proprietors of Gun-Free Zones Responsible For Injury While Disarmed
- Thread starter copterdoctor
- Start date
They have control over it because we've seen that gun free zones don't work so therefore by choosing to make it a gun free zone they are compromising everyone's safety not just gun owners.
Ordering online doesn't work if you need something right away like medicine etc.
Ordering online doesn't work if you need something right away like medicine etc.
ummmm the BOR applies limitations on the gov't power not shop proprietors. It's like how I could get fired for telling my boss to **** off and then trying to claim they're violating my 1A rights.
I don't support gun control and to the best of my knowledge neither did the founders. If they felt private property trumped the right to protect and defend ones life they would have added that the govt. could have stated that infringements upon the RKBA are allowed when it comes to private property or other qualifiers as the govt. sees fit. They didn't.
You weren't denied entrance into work and you weren't muzzled when you were at work therefore you weren't denied the right to speak (1A), you just got fired after the fact because your boss didn't like what you said.
Therefore you shouldn't be denied your RKBA because of what you might do. Only if you use it in a dangerous or criminal manner.
You weren't denied entrance into work and you weren't muzzled when you were at work therefore you weren't denied the right to speak (1A), you just got fired after the fact because your boss didn't like what you said.
Therefore you shouldn't be denied your RKBA because of what you might do. Only if you use it in a dangerous or criminal manner.
I don't support gun control either but I don't think gun rights trump private property rights. What else do you want to force businesses to do?
It's a bad precedent, though, frankly. This idea would never even have come about if binding signage didn't exist in TN to begin with.
I would be happy enough if binding signage was simply illegal/didn't exist. A private actor should not be given special privileges just "because guns r scary". They should have "trespass standard" like most
non-****y places do.
-Mike
Yeah, but you have to agree though, that binding signage is ****ing terrible, I don't agree with the liability aspect thing that's being pushed here, but I also don't agree that private property owners should have special powers with regards to people carrying guns that don't apply to anything else. That entire concept is anti gun to the core.
-Mike
It's not about gun rights it's about the right to protect and defend life and to have the best means possible to do so. It's as simple as this: If a business has policies that can actually endanger the public it serves and something happens they should be held liable.
They aren't being forced they're just being informed that bad policy could cost them.
They aren't being forced they're just being informed that bad policy could cost them.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,548
- Likes
- 33,605
The "violation" comes from the state in those cases where a "no guns" sign is given any special status as compared to a "suit and tie required" or "shoes required" sign.
If a business cannot have someone prosecuted for walking in the front door in a T shirt and jeans if there is a "Jacket and tie required for entry" sign, it should not be able to have criminal charges brought for an armed person walking past a "no guns" sign. MA is one of the states that does this correctly - you are not in criminal violation unless you refuse to leave when ordered or had been served a formal no-trespass notice in advance.
![[grin]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/041.gif "Grin [grin]")
![[smile]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/001.gif "Smile [smile]")
Sparky123
NES Member
That's the way it should be, everywhere ! If you are unwilling or unable to provide a safe place for your employees and customers, then just give people the opportunity to protect themselves while on your property.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,548
- Likes
- 33,605
One thing is missing from this TN law - a responsibility of the business owner that prohibits to assure that the cars of invitees to the business are not broken into while a carry gun is stored therein.
It will be interesting to see how the large Fortune 500 companies with corporate wide "no gun" policies handle this, and if the civil liability extends to employees working in "guns not allowed" workplaces.
It will be interesting to see how the large Fortune 500 companies with corporate wide "no gun" policies handle this, and if the civil liability extends to employees working in "guns not allowed" workplaces.
- Joined
- May 22, 2015
- Messages
- 1,717
- Likes
- 2,150
How is saying "no guns allowed" any different from saying "no gays allowed"? Both are easily concealed.
Only one sign will get you in hot water (hint; that would not be the sign telling you the owner of the property will not allow you to exercise a constitutionally guaranteed right).
Only one sign will get you in hot water (hint; that would not be the sign telling you the owner of the property will not allow you to exercise a constitutionally guaranteed right).
Doesn't the bill exempt government specified gun free zones? Since binding signage is effectively a "government specified gun free zone" doesn't that mean this bill has no actual effect?
I admit that I have not read the actual bill (its late).
I admit that I have not read the actual bill (its late).
Mark from MA
NES Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2008
- Messages
- 11,649
- Likes
- 11,877
Get rid of binding signage instead of forcing laws on people on their private property.
If the state has binding signage, I'm ok with this law as it protects gun owners as much as binding signage protects antis. I agree somewhat with its your choice not to go to a certain establishment. But sometimes it's forced on you.
When It comes to restaurants sometimes its a group of people that are deciding, and your not going to be the one that says you refuse to go where the 7 other people want to go because there is a gun buster sign there. Especially if it's a work related meal with customers and your boss or the customers are the ones that wants to go a certain establishment.
If the state has binding signage, I'm ok with this law as it protects gun owners as much as binding signage protects antis. I agree somewhat with its your choice not to go to a certain establishment. But sometimes it's forced on you.
When It comes to restaurants sometimes its a group of people that are deciding, and your not going to be the one that says you refuse to go where the 7 other people want to go because there is a gun buster sign there. Especially if it's a work related meal with customers and your boss or the customers are the ones that wants to go a certain establishment.
Last edited:
I am happy I moved here. It's hot and humid as sh*t but it sure beats snow and billiards. Being landlocked kinda sucks but gulf coast beaches are 7-8 hours so totally doable. And the gun laws are obviously a plus
Getting rid of binding signage would definitely be better than more legislation but what would be even better is if people would stop thinking gun control works and instead concentrate on the criminal element, but unfortunately that's not likely to happen.
MisterHappy
NES Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,428
- Likes
- 17,620
This is truly an excellent thread.
The law is good for 2A, but it infringes on private property owners' rights. What trumps what?
IMO, there are shades of "Private Property" - My house is more private than my Gun Club. I have an absolute right to tell you to stay out of my house. I have an absolute right to tell a non-Club Member to leave the Club's property. But, I have less of an expectation of finding a stranger with a gun in my house than the Club.
If you have a business, and "invite" people in, you have less of a level of control. A Guest at the Club, that does something unsafe can be told, "Scram!", and if they don't 5-0 can be called. A member....well, it's more difficult, because they have more rights to be there.
As stated above, the problem is the binding signage.
The law is good for 2A, but it infringes on private property owners' rights. What trumps what?
IMO, there are shades of "Private Property" - My house is more private than my Gun Club. I have an absolute right to tell you to stay out of my house. I have an absolute right to tell a non-Club Member to leave the Club's property. But, I have less of an expectation of finding a stranger with a gun in my house than the Club.
If you have a business, and "invite" people in, you have less of a level of control. A Guest at the Club, that does something unsafe can be told, "Scram!", and if they don't 5-0 can be called. A member....well, it's more difficult, because they have more rights to be there.
As stated above, the problem is the binding signage.
There are some standards that apply to a private business that opens itself up to the general public.
Hang a sign up in front that says "NO Blacks, Gays or Jews allowed" and see how fast the Govt. lands on you like the hand of God.
Hang a sign up in front that says "NO Blacks, Gays or Jews allowed" and see how fast the Govt. lands on you like the hand of God.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,548
- Likes
- 33,605
Yes, and if you invite me on the condition I am unarmed, you have the absolute right to order me to leave. if you find I am carrying a weapon.
You do not have the right to have me criminally prosecuted for violating your rule.
This is an important distinction.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,548
- Likes
- 33,605
Do you think you should be allowed to prohibit jeans and T shirts in your establishment?
If the answer is yes, do you think you should have the right to have the police press criminal charges against someone who enters thusly attired and peacefully leaves when you order them to?
If the answer to the last question is no, do you think the law should treat someone carrying a gun into your establishment any differently (should you have the right to have them criminally charged for violating your no guns sign).
Nobody is disputing the right of a business to post whatever sign it wishes. This issue is does the posting of a no guns sign make carry in such an establishment a crime?
old post but i see conflicting reports : one claims:
If you’re visiting Tennessee and have a CCW permit from another state, there’s some great news! As long as you keep the permit on you at all times while carrying your handgun, Tennessee will recognize your CCW permit!
Can anyone confirm or deny? Was talking via live chat on their .gov site with a person who kept giving me useless response most likely anti gunner. Still waiting on response from their state troopers and department of safety
If you’re visiting Tennessee and have a CCW permit from another state, there’s some great news! As long as you keep the permit on you at all times while carrying your handgun, Tennessee will recognize your CCW permit!
Can anyone confirm or deny? Was talking via live chat on their .gov site with a person who kept giving me useless response most likely anti gunner. Still waiting on response from their state troopers and department of safety
Check out the state source info based on what is on this page, as sometimes rules/policies change.
http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/tennessee.pdf
Sparky123
NES Member
This is the way it should be everywhere. If you prevent someone from protected themselves on your property then the responsibility should be yours.
