Park Bill on the House schedule for Today

[I_Like_Pie]

So, is carry in WMA's included in this bill? Will we finally be allowed to carry in WMA's?

Nope...they made it into a separate bill.

[victorcharlie]

Nope...they made it into a separate bill.

Is that bill(WMA) still alive? Think we'll get it passed this year? What's the bill number?

[bubbiesdad]

House gives final OK to guns-in-parks bill : Local News : Knoxville News Sentinel

[Mike.357]

long guns in car September 1 as well?

[Fallguy]

Is that bill(WMA) still alive? Think we'll get it passed this year? What's the bill number?

HB0961/SB1519 The sponsor of the bill, Rep Bell, spoke during the debate of the park bill. He sounded like he thought it would come to the floor of the house.

long guns in car September 1 as well?

Not 100% sure, the language of the bill says "This act shall take effect upon becoming a law" So to me that sounds like as soon as the Governor signs it or the 10 days on his desk has passed.

[bubbiesdad]

long guns in car September 1 as well?

Looks that way, ammo in the tube, just not in the pipe. Kinda ridiculous since we can have loaded handguns. That is, if I carred a gun.

[Mike.357]

ammo in the tube, just not in the pipe.

what is the difference between tube and pipe?

"This act shall take effect upon becoming a law" So to me that sounds like as soon as the Governor signs it or the 10 days on his desk has passed.

I can't imagine why he would have a problem with this one. Sooner is better, hate having to empty mags to go to a range.

[bubbiesdad]

what is the difference between tube and pipe?

sounded good at the time, I need to word it better.

[waynesan]

After one of the worst days I've ever had on my job, I couldn't wait to get home and check this board and find out how it went today.

It almost makes the bad day I had worth it to hear how this went. Can't wait to watch the video.

[I_Like_Pie]

what is the difference between tube and pipe?

Tube = Straight

Pipe = Teh ghey

/Not sure how this is going to work on my single shot topper 88 or Ruger #3

[Fallguy]

what is the difference between tube and pipe?

Not sure myself, but the legislation says, There can not be a round in "the chamber"

[bubbiesdad]

Tube = Straight

Pipe = Teh ghey

/Not sure how this is going to work on my single shot topper 88 or Ruger #3

Just put a few rounds in your shirt pocket.

[Falcon1]

I just saw over on TFA's forum that, with regard to the parks bill, somehow wording was inserted that allows the locality to opt out by resolution--one reading.

From the TFA Forum (by the executive director):

On the parks - I really hate this one. Local governments can by RESOLUTION (one reading - doesn't mean crap and no real requirement for public hearing) on a majority vote close a local park. Who do you want to thank for that one, I am told several Republican senators who represent in their law practices local governments. There aught to be hell to pay for that betrayal and there hopefully will be......

Those of you who watched, do you know what happened?

[Fallguy]

The bill does say they can opt out by "resolution".

I could be wrong, but I just don't think the bill would have passed if local governments didn't have a way to opt out.

And again, I could be wrong, but I think the larger cities, Nashville, Memphis etc.... would opt out (at least certain) parks whether it was by resolution (majority vote or 2/3 vote), by ordnance or by public vote.

Most smaller areas, probably won't (wouldn't have) bring it up either way, opt in or opt out. This way it is legal, unless they go through the effort to make it illegal.

Maybe not perfect, but I think much better then were we had started with local park carry.

[enfield]

Better off but still far from perfect. No public property should be off-limits.

However, I ain't complainin' -- yet.

[Mike.357]

Not sure myself, but the legislation says, There can not be a round in "the chamber"

none of that bothers me. Dunno why anyone would want to carry a chambered rifle or shotty in their car. Sidearm ought to afford enough time to rack the gun. I just want to carry ammo and magazines in the truck cab with my stuff for shooting isntead of having to spread it all around in the toolbox.

This bill can't become law fast enough

[GLOCKMEISTER]

I agree I got a 590 ready for my truck and will be happy putting my ak pistol back in the safe.

Dont ask I just like being prepared.

[Daps]

With this bill allowing local parks to opt out with the city be required to put up new signs saying handgun carry is not permitted. I don't go to the park that often anyway.

[Fallguy]

Better off but still far from perfect. No public property should be off-limits.

However, I ain't complainin' -- yet.

I agree, but at least where getting rid of some....

[Fallguy]

With this bill allowing local parks to opt out with the city be required to put up new signs saying handgun carry is not permitted. I don't go to the park that often anyway.

The could, depending on what they have.

Here is what the bill says....

If a municipality or county elects to prohibit persons authorized to carry a handgun pursuant to § 39-17-1351, from possessing such handgun while within or on a public park, it shall display in prominent locations the sign authorized by § 39-17-1311©(1), to give notice that handguns are not permitted in the park.

39-11-1311©(1) says...

Each chief administrator of public recreational property shall display in prominent locations about the public recreational property a sign, at least six inches (6") high and fourteen inches (14") wide, stating:

MISDEMEANOR. STATE LAW PRESCRIBES A MAXIMUM PENALTY OF ELEVEN (11) MONTHS AND TWENTY-NINE (29) DAYS AND A FINE NOT TO EXCEED TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($2,500) FOR CARRYING WEAPONS ON OR IN PUBLIC RECREATIONAL PROPERTY.

Parks have supposed to have always posted these signs, but they were allowed to vote that they didn't have to post these signs. So many just have a generic "No Firearms" sign. But it looks like now they have (shall) to post this specific sign.

So in a way I think this is good...I mean this is even a more specific sign than the requirements in 39-17-1359. It gives exact wording and dimensions, so you don't really have to wonder if it is a "legal" posting or not.

However, sounds like there is a good question for the AG in all of this. Because to me there could be a conflict in the law now. The bill creates 39-17-1311(e)(2) which is the part about having to post signs per 39-17-1311©(1), however it leaves the current 39-17-1311©(3) in place that says "The legislative body of any municipality or committee appointed by the body to regulate public recreational property may exempt public recreational property located within its jurisdiction from the requirements of subdivision ©(1).

But....the new posting requirements specifically point to ©(1) which has the sign requirement and not just © that would include ©(3) and nothing has been mentioned about local parks being able to opt out of posting, but that's not to say some won't try to get away with it.

[GLOCKMEISTER]

so what your saying is they will have to meet the same standards in signage as 1311 just like in 1359?

IMHO if this is true this is awesome news.. I bet ya most wont bother to post correctly if they post at all, so if you CC then you will get one free pass legally.

[Fallguy]

so what your saying is they will have to meet the same standards in signage as 1311 just like in 1359?

IMHO if this is true this is awesome news.. I bet ya most wont bother to post correctly if they post at all, so if you CC then you will get one free pass legally.

Sort of.....1359 will not apply at all to parks only 1311©(1) which has "specific requirements"

I also agree most will not post proper signs.

[GLOCKMEISTER]

but the wording and he size have to be similier

[Fallguy]

but the wording and he size have to be similier

The way I read it, in 39-17-1311, the wording and size have to be exact.

[GLOCKMEISTER]

so are we sure that wording requirement would cross over and apply to what they passed yesterday?