Conflict in 39-17-1314 and 39-17-1359 laws?

[Fallguy]

The talk of posting signs got me to thinking about some of the bills passed this last year.

As most of us know 39-17-1359 allows property owners (including governments) to post their property.

With that in mind part of had wondered why an "opt out" provision was needed in the park carry bill since apparently local governments where already allowed to post their property.

I mean even though the now void restaurant carry law made and exception for HCP holders to be able to carry a restaurant could still post. Just like you would have assumed even though the parks carry bill made and exception for HCP holders the owners of the park (city/county) could still have posted.

But apparently that wasn't the case or wasn't perceived to be anyway, so along with the park carry bill they amended 39-17-1314 (preemption law) to specifically allow local governments to prohibit carry in parks (and other "recreational properties" listed). BUT....after reading it a bit closer, it appears one could almost make the argument that those are the only places a local government can post. See below.

(a) Except as provided in § 39-17-1311(d), which allows counties and municipalities to prohibit the possession of handguns 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 a county, a municipality or instrumentality thereof, no city, county, or metropolitan government shall occupy any part of the field of regulation of the transfer, ownership, possession or transportation of firearms, ammunition or components of firearms or combinations thereof; provided, that this section shall be prospective only and shall not affect the validity of any ordinance or resolution lawfully enacted before April 8, 1986

My point being that now it seems that 39-17-1314 is saying that those places listed are the only places that a local government can prohibit the carry of firearms. If not then why give specific permission to be able to prohibit carry in those places?

Now I admit I doubt any court would rule that way, but.....

[Guest HexHead]

It appears to me that it's not just the posting in those locations that is addressed here...

no city, county, or metropolitan government shall occupy any part of the field of regulation of the transfer, ownership, possession or transportation of firearms, ammunition or components of firearms or combinations thereof;

While it allows them to post in those locations, there's also that laundry list of things they can't do.

[Fallguy]

I agree that 39-17-1314 limits many actions by local government, not just posting, however prior to adding the clause about parks, the general line of thought was that 39-17-1314 didn't prevent local government from posting or prohibiting carry on their property. But now it looks likes it allows them to prohibit carry in parks (and the other recreational properties) only. Since those are the only places listed.

[K191145]

Holy Thread Reserection Batman:

But here's my question for Fallguy. Bellevue Recreation Center and Metro Davidson County Library on Colice Jeanne Rd. has a no weapons sign in their parking lot but according to TCA 39-17-1311,

39-17-1311. Carrying weapons on public parks, playgrounds, civic centers and other public recreational buildings and grounds. -

(a) It is an offense for any person to possess or carry, whether openly or concealed, with the intent to go armed, any weapon prohibited by § 39-17-1302(a), not used solely for instructional, display or sanctioned ceremonial purposes, in or on the grounds of any public park, playground, civic center or other building facility, area or property owned, used or operated by any municipal, county or state government, or instrumentality thereof, for recreational purposes.

But 39-17-1311 also states this,

(iv) A person entering the property for the sole purpose of delivering or picking up passengers and who does not remove any weapon from the vehicle or utilize it in any manner;

The way I read this it is the same as for schools, if I drop a family member off at a class at the metro rec center, I am not violating the law by leaving my handgun locked in my vehicle while I help them in with their supplies as long as I don't stay. Is that correct?

[Fallguy]

I think that is basically correct...

If a city/county passes a resolution, posts and bans carry in a park, then it is a violation of 39-17-1311 (state law) not a local ordnance. And there is this that exception in the law. However one part you left out is....

(J) Also, only to the extent a person strictly conforms the person's behavior to the requirements of one (1) of the following classifications:

So one might argue that you are no longer strictly dropping off or picking up if you are helping with supplies etc... But some might say you are....

However there is also an AG opinon about parks in use by schools so that mentions permit holders could leave their handgun in their car while at the park...so you "should" be ok, but anything is possible.....

[K191145]

I think that is basically correct...

If a city/county passes a resolution, posts and bans carry in a park, then it is a violation of 39-17-1311 (state law) not a local ordnance. And there is this that exception in the law. However one part you left out is....

(J) Also, only to the extent a person strictly conforms the person's behavior to the requirements of one (1) of the following classifications:

So one might argue that you are no longer strictly dropping off or picking up if you are helping with supplies etc... But some might say you are....

However there is also an AG opinon about parks in use by schools so that mentions permit holders could leave their handgun in their car while at the park...so you "should" be ok, but anything is possible.....

Thanks for the answer, it seems that if you were busted for a gun in your vehicle you would have a legal defense although it would be an ordeal. I'm not one to be obvious about having a gun in my vehicle but you can always have a fender bender in a parking lot that may require a police report, then they find out about your permit and a gun in the vehicle.

Is there any law on the book that's clear and simple to understand and can only be interpreted one way?

[Fallguy]

Thanks for the answer, it seems that if you were busted for a gun in your vehicle you would have a legal defense although it would be an ordeal. I'm not one to be obvious about having a gun in my vehicle but you can always have a fender bender in a parking lot that may require a police report, then they find out about your permit and a gun in the vehicle.

Is there any law on the book that's clear and simple to understand and can only be interpreted one way?

It doesn't appear so....lol

Oh...and just because you have a permit, doesn't mean you are armed or have it in your car or that you have to answer a question that might incriminate yourself....

[Farman]

"Is there any law on the book that's clear and simple to understand and can only be interpreted one way?"

The more convoluted and confusing the better, Job security you know.