New AG Opinion on Carry in Parks???

[TripleDigitRide]

NASHVILLE, Tenn.- With more cities opting out of a new state law allowing guns in parks, leaders are now trying to figure out how far the state can go to enforce the law.

A new state attorney general's opinion says a permit-holder can be convicted even if a city banning guns fails to post signs saying so.

The opinion also states as long as the permit holder stays in his or her car he or she will not be charged.

State Analyzes Enforcement Policy on Gun Law - NewsChannel 5.com - Nashville, Tennessee -

[Guest SUNTZU]

So I can go eat lunch at a park and not get arrested? I guess I'll have to fish through the sunroof.

[TripleDigitRide]

Yea, I was slightly more alarmed that someone with an HCP can be convicted for going into a park that has not been properly posted. Not posted at all, for that matter.

Edited September 27, 2009 by TripleDigitRide

[K191145]

Fallguy, I saw this on Channel 5.

State Analyzes Enforcement Policy on Gun Law - NewsChannel 5.com - Nashville, Tennessee -

State Analyzes Enforcement Policy on Gun Law

Posted: Sep 26, 2009 5:40 PM CDT

NASHVILLE, Tenn.- With more cities opting out of a new state law allowing guns in parks, leaders are now trying to figure out how far the state can go to enforce the law.

A new state attorney general's opinion says a permit-holder can be convicted even if a city banning guns fails to post signs saying so.

The opinion also states as long as the permit holder stays in his or her car he or she will not be charged.

So does the last sentance mean you can actually go into the park with a gun as long as you stay in the car or does Channel 5 have their facts wrong?

[Guest SUNTZU]

I understand, and feel the same way. I thought there was a lot of talk in session about the cost of signage for those cities opting out and what they had to do to properly opt out. Basically, there is no law according to the opinion. Its the backup boogaloo.

[Fallguy]

Fallguy, I saw this on Channel 5.

State Analyzes Enforcement Policy on Gun Law - NewsChannel 5.com - Nashville, Tennessee -

So does the last sentance mean you can actually go into the park with a gun as long as you stay in the car or does Channel 5 have their facts wrong?

What the opinion addresses if you are passing through the park on a public road. He did say then as long as you stayed on the road and/or didn't enter the park, it would not be illegal. So from that I take it, if you enter the park, even in your car, that would be illegal.

So it seems as usual, the media is telling half truths and giving mis-leading information.

[Worriedman]

So, under this interpretation, my farm will no longer need to be posted against hunting, simply my intention that my private property is off limits to the general public is enough so that I can call the Sheriff or the TWRA if someone is on my land without my written permission. And, if they are carrying a weapon of any type, they are now guiltily of criminal trespass, as I should be under no more restrictive legal requirement than a municipality?

None of that silly every 100 yard posting requirement, no need to post the back side away from the road, my intent will be sufficient. I would suppose businesses and restaurants are covered the same?

[macville]

Okay, so had a thought about this issue this morning. The AG says even thought the law REQUIRES signs to be posted if a county has opted-out, if they don't post, you can still be charged if caught carrying in one of the opted-out parks.

So let's think about this... does this mean that if a city decides that the speed limit on a street should only be 25 mph, but doesn't post a sign with that limit that any cop which finds me going over 25 mph can stop and give me a ticket? Even though speed limits are different on every road?

Does it mean that if someone doesn't post a legal sign (doesn't post anything period), but in their "mind" has decided that it's illegal to carry in their store, does that mean that you could be charged under going armed because they decided that it was "illegal" but did not follow the law and post like they legally are supposed to?

Do you see the problem here? It the AG saying that WE have to follow the law but THE GOVERNMENT doesn't have to follow what IT passed.

My question now is, how can we sue about this? I believe that it is illegal for a resolution to be on the books that doesn't fully follow the law. Hopefully a lawsuit would lead to a change in the law that postings for businesses, schools, parks, etc have to be exactly in accordance with the law, or otherwise we can't be charged when carrying there. I AM SICK of being the bad guy and trying to follow the law when the government that writes the law won't follow it.

Matthew

[Fallguy]

I have sent an e-mail to the parks bill sponsor Sen Beavers, I am going to send the same one to Rep Ben West (the one who requested this opinion) mentioning many of the issues we have discussed and asking them to present them to the AG and ask him to reconsider his opinion or hopefully to introduce legislation to correct this.

I really feel this AG is just anti-park carry (as the governor is). He knows many smaller local governments aren't going to post proper 39-17-1311 signs, but he still wants HCP holders to fear prosecution for carry in those parks.

Edited September 27, 2009 by Fallguy

[Guest crotalus01]

Good thing that the AG only issues OPINIONS on what the law means!

What a dip$4it our AG is...

Edit to add I said dip$4it when I really meant A$$hole

[K191145]

What the opinion addresses if you are passing through the park on a public road. He did say then as long as you stayed on the road and/or didn't enter the park, it would not be illegal. So from that I take it, if you enter the park, even in your car, that would be illegal.

So it seems as usual, the media is telling half truths and giving mis-leading information.

The way the Channel 5 story reads, it sounds as though you can enter the park if you stay in your car. I bet there's some permit holders who now believe this because of 5's lazy and inaccurate journalism.

[Guest CrimsonTrace]

In 1785 Thomas Jefferson wrote to his fifteen-year-old nephew, Peter Carr, regarding what he considered the best form of exercise: "...I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body, and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion of your walks."

Tennessee Law

39-17-1322. Defenses. —

"A person shall not be charged with or convicted of a violation under this part if the person possessed, displayed or employed a handgun in justifiable self-defense or in justifiable defense of another during the commission of a crime in which that person or the other person defended was a victim."

So whether you have a handgun permit or not, never mind if the location is posted off limits to handguns or not. If it is determined you have legally "used" the firearm in self defense, or in the defense of another's life, you can not be charged or convicted of possessing the handgun illegally.

If your concealment methods are lacking and you get caught, you can be charged with a crime for sure.

So the key here is to exercise your additional right to privacy and simply deep conceal your firearm. It's not anyone else's business but yours, so just make it your business and be ready to protect you and your family. Don't become a sheep. It is clear — moral & just law is on our side. There is no doubt that I, for one, will always be on the side of Natural Law and will declare the moral high ground - even if I must declare it privately due to the never ending continuous strain of positivists laws which never make any sense simply because they are in conflict with the foundational clarity of Natural Law.

While others will always follow their propensity to debate the systematic symptoms of positivist law, I will always debate from the position and adherence to Natural Law. Such self-evident truths are the basis which America was founded upon and ever since - our government has continually failed to simply recognize what Nature and the God of Nature has already given to each individual. Time and time and time again, our government and the politicians fail this simple test. Although our social contracts have been broken by our government, the words and power contained therein are forever true and these documents are the best ever constructed by man to preserve personal liberty under any form of government. The problem is our government ignores its full measure of responsibility towards simply recognizing individual liberty.

I believe no single issue exposes the governments continued failure to recognize personal liberty more than any self-preservation debate.

Edited September 28, 2009 by CrimsonTrace