Any cities/towns NOT doing the park ban?

[cybernorris]

Have there been any cities or towns so far who have gone on record as NOT banning guns in parks?

[Guest HexHead]

Have there been any cities or towns so far who have gone on record as NOT banning guns in parks?

I'm sure it'll be a much shorter list to memorize.

[Fallguy]

Doubt very many will official announce they are allowing weapons. I imagine the vast majority will just let Sept 1 come without mentioning it.

But may know more about Jackson after Tuesday. That is when they are set to take up their ordnance. I have heard back from 3 of the 9 council members all saying they are against it. One said there was a simmilar motion a couple of years ago that failed 2-7 and he thought the vote would be close to the same this time.

[Guest redbarron06]

I have not heard anything about Goodlettsville or Ashland City.

[Guest bkelm18]

So far I don't think Oak Ridge has said anything about it, unless they are doing it secretly or already have something on the books. Anderson County is going to vote on it at their meeting at the end of the month.

[cadillacdude1975]

september 1st?

[Guest bkelm18]

september 1st?

Yep that is when the local park carry portion of the law goes into effect.

[cybernorris]

Legal question... does the law require the exemption be done prior to that date? Can the exemption be either added or removed after that date?

[Oh Shoot]

Legal question... does the law require the exemption be done prior to that date? Can the exemption be either added or removed after that date?

No time period specified, so I'm confident it's legit to add/remove any time down the road.

- OS

[cadillacdude1975]

so many dates for so many new laws. i thought this one had an effective date of 7-1-09. thanks for pointing my oversight out.

[Fallguy]

No time period specified, so I'm confident it's legit to add/remove any time down the road.

- OS

I believe that is correct.

A city could wait a year, see how things go and vote to ban them later.

Or could ban them now and at a later date remove the ban. The only problem with this would be the expense of posting signs, then removing them. But just another reason to hold off and see if there is a problem for some reason first....

Edited July 6, 2009 by Fallguy

[Guest HexHead]

Or could ban them now and at a later date remove the ban.

Yeah, I can see lots of that happening.

[Guest bkelm18]

so many dates for so many new laws. i thought this one had an effective date of 7-1-09. thanks for pointing my oversight out.

Well, this particular bill had two effective dates. The portion for national park and state park carry went into effect on 7/1, however the portion for local park carry goes into effect 9/1.

[Fallguy]

Well, this particular bill had two effective dates. The portion for national park and state park carry went into effect on 7/1, however the portion for local park carry goes into effect 9/1.

Well actually.... The national park and state park carrry were effective immediately, (June 12) not July 1.

Also on local park carry, the part that allows local goverments to pass resolutions against carrry and to post was effective on June 12 so they could have it all done by Sept 1 if they wanted. Therefore never having legal carry in that park.

But as was said, carry in local parks that don't opt out is legal on Sept 1.

[Falcon1]

Well actually.... The national park and state park carrry were effective immediately, (June 12) not July 1.

Also on local park carry, the part that allows local goverments to pass resolutions against carrry and to post was effective on June 12 so they could have it all done by Sept 1 if they wanted. Therefore never having legal carry in that park.

But as was said, carry in local parks that don't opt out is legal on Sept 1.

Just to clarify, national parks will not be legal before February 2010, by national law. It is correct that the state law making national park carry legal in Tennessee as soon as it is legal nationally became effective 12 June, but the prohibition remains active until February 2010, unless the court injunction is lifted earlier.

Edited July 6, 2009 by Falcon1

[Fallguy]

Just to clarify, national parks will not be legal before February 2010, by national law. It is correct that the state law making national park carry legal in Tennessee as soon as it is legal nationally became effective 12 June, but the prohibition remains active until February 2010, unless the court injunction is lifted earlier.

Good clarification!

...and the TN law did cover other Federal Lands besides parks. So now there is no TN state law against carry in a National forest, preserve, historic park, military park, trail, or recreation area in addition to National parks. So carry is only determined by Federal law in those places.

Edited July 6, 2009 by Fallguy

[cybernorris]

Maybe I didn't read the law, but is signage required? I thought it was just a vote. Granted, one would hope to see signage rather than just allowing for ignorance of an action.

[Falcon1]

Maybe I didn't read the law, but is signage required? I thought it was just a vote. Granted, one would hope to see signage rather than just allowing for ignorance of an action.

If you look at the law, the signage is going to be a real problem.

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/106/Chapter/PC0428.pdf

Look at sections (e)(1) and (e)(2) on page two of the link. In section 1, it says to leave the current signs posted, since the prohibition still applies to non-HCP holders. In section 2, it says that local governments who decide to prohibit HCP holders from carrying should post the exact same sign as section 1 says to use.

No help at all from the signage. The only safe thing to do is call the locality.

[Glenn]

It seems like the whole park carry situation is a mess. If you are not in your home town how will you ever know where you can carry. I've lived in Knoxville my whole life and I am sure there are parks that I don't know about. How would someone from out of town ever know what was a park and what wasn't. There is no way that every entrance can be posted unless the entire area is fenced. Can anyone from Knoxville tell me the exact boundary of Worlds Fair Park or Volunteer Landing Park? What about William Hastie Park? Seems like a good way to get busted.

Glenn

[Fallguy]

If you look at the law, the signage is going to be a real problem.

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/106/Chapter/PC0428.pdf

Look at sections (e)(1) and (e)(2) on page two of the link. In section 1, it says to leave the current signs posted, since the prohibition still applies to non-HCP holders. In section 2, it says that local governments who decide to prohibit HCP holders from carrying should post the exact same sign as section 1 says to use.

No help at all from the signage. The only safe thing to do is call the locality.

I think you may be looking at it a bit wrong.

In the link...SECTION 2 is redoing 39-17-1311(d) completely.

In the new 39-17-1311(d) it is saying despite park carry being legal per the new 39-17-1311(1)(I), (created by SECTION 1 of the bill), that local parks can ban carry by a vote.

In the new 39-17-1311(e)(1) it is saying existing signs shall be left in place (local and state) since it will still be illegal for those without a HCP to carry.

In the new 39-17-1311(e)(2) it is saying that if a local government elects to prohibit carry they SHALL post the sign in 39-17-1311©(1). The sign in 39-17-1311©(1) has exact wording and dimensions.

So yes, if a place had a proper 39-17-1311©(1) sign and left it up, but allowed carry, it could be confusing, BUT....I am not sure I have ever seen a sign like that in 39-17-1311©(1) anywhere. One reason is because before this law, local governments could opt out of posting even....now they MUST post.

[Falcon1]

I think you may be looking at it a bit wrong.

In the link...SECTION 2 is redoing 39-17-1311(d) completely.

In the new 39-17-1311(d) it is saying despite park carry being legal per the new 39-17-1311(1)(I), (created by SECTION 1 of the bill), that local parks can ban carry by a vote.

In the new 39-17-1311(e)(1) it is saying existing signs shall be left in place (local and state) since it will still be illegal for those without a HCP to carry.

In the new 39-17-1311(e)(2) it is saying that if a local government elects to prohibit carry they SHALL post the sign in 39-17-1311©(1). The sign in 39-17-1311©(1) has exact wording and dimensions.

So yes, if a place had a proper 39-17-1311©(1) sign and left it up, but allowed carry, it could be confusing, BUT....I am not sure I have ever seen a sign like that in 39-17-1311©(1) anywhere. One reason is because before this law, local governments could opt out of posting even....now they MUST post.

Here is my cut and paste of the Public Chapter into section 2:

(2) At any time the person's behavior no longer strictly conforms to one (1) of the classifications in subdivision ((1), the person shall be subject to the provisions of subsection (a).

© (1) Each chief administrator of public recreational property shall display in prominent locations about the public recreational property a sign, at least six inches (6²) high and fourteen inches (14²) 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.

(2) As used in this subsection ©, “prominent locations about public recreational property” includes, but is not limited to, all entrances to the property, any building or structure located on the property, such as restrooms, picnic areas, sports facilities, welcome centers, gift shops, playgrounds, swimming pools, restaurants and parking lots.

(3) 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).

(d) Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision ((1)(I), any municipality or county may prohibit, by resolution adopted by a majority vote of its legislative body, persons authorized to carry a handgun pursuant to § 39-17-1351, from possessing such handgun while within or on a public park that is owned or operated by a county, a municipality or instrumentality thereof. If a legislative body elects to prohibit the possession of handguns within a park, the prohibition shall apply to the entire park, notwithstanding the provisions of § 39-17-1311((1)(I). If such area is jointly owned or operated by municipalities or counties, then a resolution adopted by a majority vote of all affected legislative bodies, voting individually, is necessary for such municipalities or counties to prohibit persons authorized to carry a handgun pursuant to § 39-17-1351, from possessing such handgun while within such park.

(e) (1) Because signage prohibiting the possessing of firearms while within or on a public park, natural area, historic park, nature trail, campground, forest, greenway, waterway or other similar public place that is owned or operated by the state, or instrumentality thereof, and posted pursuant to § 39-17-1311, prior to July 1, 2009, remains necessary for visitors who are not authorized to carry a firearm pursuant to subsection (, the department shall not replace or change any existing signs that prohibit firearms or erect any new signs at existing state areas relative to firearms. However, the department may replace or repair signs that have been damaged or are scheduled for replacement in accordance with the park’s regular replacement schedule.

(2) 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.

(f) A violation of subsection (a) is a Class A misdemeanor.

I don't think I am misreading it at all. (e)(1) says Chapter 39-17-1311 signs, which are required for those without HCPs, shall remain as posted. (If they aren't up, then your local parks are violating state law.) (e)(2) says that if localities opt out for HCP carry, they should post the exact same Chapter 39-17-1311 sign (the only part of Chapter 39-17-1311 that refers to any sort of posting is ©(1)). I asked an attorney about this; he said I was correct that it will be the exact same sign, that it will be extremely confusing, and that "It is what it is." The signage will be the same either way. The Chapter 39-17-1311 signs are up at every park I go to in Murfreesboro. Edited July 7, 2009 by Falcon1

[Fallguy]

I don't think I am misreading it at all. (e)(1) says Chapter 39-17-1311 signs, which are required for those without HCPs, shall remain as posted. (If they aren't up, then your local parks are violating state law.)

No, they are not breaking the law. Read 39-17-1311©(3) in your copy and paste. They could vote to not have to post. Many places have posted "generic" no firearms signs. This signs however will not legally prohibit carry by HCP holders on Sept 1. However they can be left up to prevent carry by others.

(e)(2) says that if localities opt out for HCP carry, they should post the exact same Chapter 39-17-1311 sign.

Again No, it says they SHALL post the sign authorized in 39-17-1311©(1)

I asked an attorney about this; he said I was correct that it will be the exact same sign, that it will be extremely confusing, and that "It is what it is." The signage will be the same either way. The Chapter 39-17-1311 signs are up at every park I go to in Murfreesboro.

To be honest...I think the new 39-17-1311(e)(1) is actually for State Parks...one reason because it says July 1 another because it says "the department" (assuming it means the Parks Dept) Also it says "Owned or operated by the State"

But either way it doesn't say signs can not be removed by state or local parks.

So if Murfressboro doesn't vote to ban carry, they really should remove their signs, however if they don't remove them and also don't prohibit carry by HCP holders...then Yes, I grant you it would be very confusing. But I still stand by that very few places, at least in smaller population areas, have 39-17-1311©(1) signs already posted.

[cybernorris]

We've got a potential mess with the Short Springs Nature Area ... I believe portions are owned by the City of Tullahoma, the State of Tennessee and TVA.

[Falcon1]

No, they are not breaking the law. Read 39-17-1311©(3) in your copy and paste. They could vote to not have to post. Many places have posted "generic" no firearms signs. This signs however will not legally prohibit carry by HCP holders on Sept 1. However they can be left up to prevent carry by others.

Read ©(1) in the paste:

Each chief administrator of public recreational property shall display in prominent locations about the public recreational property a sign, at least six inches (6²) high and fourteen inches (14²) 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.

That applies to state and local entities. They can certainly vote to opt out now, but they could not have before now, because it was illegal everywhere. So as of now until 1 September, the signs should be there. Even thereafter, they should remain up for those who do not have HCPs...which is my whole point about the confusion thing.

Should versus shall...come on. Of course should means shall in this discussion.

As for (e)(1) being just for state parks, not so, because "or instrumentality thereof" means counties and cities.

To avoid any confusion, a small sign under the mandated one saying "HCP Carry Banned" should be mandated on local parks as well. They should at least be required to pay for denying a constitutional right.

Edited July 7, 2009 by Falcon1

[Guest Arko]

I've heard or read no mention of it in Cleveland yet...