sign law??

cjohnson44546 said:

I bolded above...

If you are at a meeting conducted by, or on the property owned, operated or managed etc... its not just about meetings, its also about "or on the property"

Click to expand...

Your interpretation would render the term "meetings" superfluous. And you are ignoring the comma.

prohibit the possession of weapons by any person who is at a meeting conducted by, or on property owned,

Click to expand...

"Or on the property" means not only the meeting proper, but also on the property in which the meeting is being held.

color of law said:

Your interpretation would render the term "meetings" superfluous. And you are ignoring the comma.
"Or on the property" means not only the meeting proper, but also on the property in which the meeting is being held.

Click to expand...

no... you are misreading it. I'll say it a different way...

An individual, corporation, business entity or government entity can post property that they own, operate, manage or have control of. Also if they are conducting a meeting in any area which they don't own, operate, manage or have control of, they can still post signs that have force of law over their meeting.

No I don't agree that the law is good in any way shape or form, its really stupid... but thats what it says. Its not about meetings only.

Is it possible that the meeting clause is not dependent on the property clause? For example. A business holds a meeting off site from its private property and excludes firearms.

cjohnson44546 said:

no... you are misreading it. I'll say it a different way...

An individual, corporation, business entity or government entity can post property that they own, operate, manage or have control of. Also if they are conducting a meeting in any area which they don't own, operate, manage or have control of, they can still post signs that have force of law over their meeting.

No I don't agree that the law is good in any way shape or form, its really stupid... but thats what it says. Its not about meetings only.

Click to expand...

39-17-1359(a) (1) Except as provided in § 39-17-1313, 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 who is at a meeting conducted by, or on property owned, operated, or managed or under the control of the individual, corporation, business entity or government entity.

Click to expand...

No, you are misreading the sentence. And yes the knuckles of the authors of this sentence should be slapped. Slapped so hard their knuckles bleed. But, the sentence actually says in simple terms:

An individual, or agent thereof, is authorized to prohibit the possession of weapons by any person who is at a meeting conducted by, or on property of, the individual.

Click to expand...

This is the only way this mishmash of words can be assembled to have any cognizable meaning.

The “Individual, corporation, business entity or local, state or federal government entity” in the first half of the sentence equals or is the same as the “individual, corporation, business entity or government entity” in the second part of the sentence. So, for simplification the term “individual” is used to represent all those other groups.

The phrase “operated, or managed or under the control of” expands who has authority over the “property owned.” All this phrase does is clarify or defines geographically what encompasses the “meeting” area.

This is the only way this sentence can be diagrammed to have any meaning. And this is why there is no case law addressing this statute.

Even the title of the statute "Prohibition at certain meetings Posting notice." is telling, "certain meetings." If someone can come up with the legislative history of the statute that gives an interpretation other than mine, then I stand behind my understanding of the statute. And I would go to court and defend my understanding.

Now, I'm done....

Guess that would have to be argued in court.... plenty of case law of people getting $500 charges under this statute for any posted property regardless of meetings to probably back my reading of it though. My reading is also how the HCP instructors teach it.

cjohnson44546 said:

Guess that would have to be argued in court.... plenty of case law of people getting $500 charges under this statute for any posted property regardless of meetings to probably back my reading of it though. My reading is also how the HCP instructors teach it.

Click to expand...

Case law??? What case law. No case law that I can find. Would you please cite a court of appeals addressing the statute or your supreme court addressing this statute. I would like to read it.