Mayor dispels rumor about Belle Meade gun ban

[1gewehr]

The city law very clearly bans carrying weapons. As such it is in violation of TN state law. Anything else is quibbling.

[Oh Shoot]

The city law very clearly bans carrying weapons. As such it is in violation of TN state law. Anything else is quibbling.

The state law clearly bans carrying weapons, too.

Having an HCP is an exception.

- OS

[Okey]

Embody, who is active on many gun rights blogs, first gained attention in December when he brandished a loaded AK-47 pistol at Radnor Lake State Park.

I thought there were only about three that he hasn't been banned from.

Okey

[Guest jackdm3]

I don't understand why he hasn't created his own so he doesn't get thrown off anymore. He went national a long time ago and has got to have some like-minded fools to preach to.

Do they let you use 'puters in prison?

[Guest 270win]

Thankfully, the guy can't walk down the street with a loaded pistol for the time being. He's probably fool enough to go to the Dept of Safety and represent himself at his hearing and that will can his permit for a long time. Next time he goes to a town carrying anything unloaded or what not in the hand, they'll arrest him for 'intent to go armed' and he can go to court and let the judge figure out if he was truly intending to go armed or not...THAT will be funny. You act like a fool you'll get treated like a fool.

[Oh Shoot]

Thankfully, the guy can't walk down the street with a loaded pistol for the time being. He's probably fool enough to go to the Dept of Safety and represent himself at his hearing and that will can his permit for a long time. ...

He's never said, but I've got a feeling he must have a lawyer in the family or something.

Certainly, if he's done all these things on his own, without a lawyer already committed to take his crap on, he really IS nuts.

- OS

[mikegideon]

He's never said, but I've got a feeling he must have a lawyer in the family or something.

Certainly, if he's done all these things on his own, without a lawyer already committed to take his crap on, he really IS nuts.

- OS

I wonder. Right now it looks like he's getting his butt kicked.

When you bring up his family, it reminds me of a line in a buddy's song, "my family tree is more like a hedge"

[Oh Shoot]

I wonder. Right now it looks like he's getting his butt kicked. ..

Yeah, I don't have any idea, really.

Belle Meade ain't exactly comin' up all roses either, though.

The NRA smack might be just the first, if Kwik can get things into a high enough court.

- OS

[mikegideon]

Yeah, I don't have any idea, really.

Belle Meade ain't exactly comin' up all roses either, though.

The NRA smack might be just the first, if Kwik can get things into a high enough court.

- OS

I see Belle Meade playing it smart with the NRA. I don't see the NRA supporting Kwik. To top it off, there's a ton of political juice living in Belle Meade. Old money, and LOTS of it. Not that money and juice make any difference in TN.

[Oh Shoot]

I see Belle Meade playing it smart with the NRA. I don't see the NRA supporting Kwik. To top it off, there's a ton of political juice living in Belle Meade. Old money, and LOTS of it. Not that money and juice make any difference in TN.

Federal judges generally aren't swayed.

It could conceivably get heard on that level, re civil rights/due process.

- OS

[mikegideon]

Federal judges generally aren't swayed.

It could conceivably get heard on that level, re civil rights/due process.

- OS

Generally

[I_Like_Pie]

The state law clearly bans carrying weapons, too.

Having an HCP is an exception.

- OS

Pretty much this +1 folks.

you people spend 7 pages bellyaching like a bunch of babies and don't ever thing of looking at the wording of the Tennessee charter.

This will put it almost exactly the same as the Tennessee code with respect of intent to go armed 39-17-1307. It pulls the more specific definition of the weapons from the school restrictions.

The only thing they did is remove the 100+ year old stupid law that the jackass exposed.

[Guest 270win]

Yeah Memphis and Collierville both have similar ordinances. I haven't checked Germantown, but it wouldn't shock me if it has a similar ordinance either. Collierville gives an exception to the "Carrying the army/navy pistol openly in the hand"....Memphis does not. Very similar wording to the what seems to be pre 1988-1989 TN state law that just hasn't been revised. I don't understand either what people have been uptight about....it is true it is generally illegal to carry a handgun in TN with 'intent to go armed'....our permits give us the exception..and we are legal STATEWIDE. That Kwik guy just stirred stuff up and exposed the old state law that wasn't revised in Belle Meade's city ordinance to reflect change in state law...Arkansas used to have a similar state law to TN up until the 1970's that gave an exception to carrying the 'army/navy pistol openly in the hand"...also other exceptions like serving process...on a journey (still an exception). Some towns in Arkansas have not revised their ordinances b/c towns just don't do that.......KWIK should go to Arkansas with a 1911 to a town that hasn't revised city ordinance and see what happens with it carried openly loaded in the hand!

[Oh Shoot]

Pretty much this +1 folks.

you people spend 7 pages bellyaching like a bunch of babies and don't ever thing of looking at the wording of the Tennessee charter.

This will put it almost exactly the same as the Tennessee code with respect of intent to go armed 39-17-1307. It pulls the more specific definition of the weapons from the school restrictions.

The only thing they did is remove the 100+ year old stupid law that the jackass exposed.

Well, it does purport to ban ALL edged weapons of any length. And that can't be enforceable under TCA preemption, surely.

- OS

[JayC]

I'm sure this is going to cause people to get upset... but lets look at the facts for a minute...

Belle Meade has what appears to be a valid pre-April 1986 law that bans all types of carry except the carrying of an army or navy revolver in the hand. It makes no exception for HCP holders.

State law preemption only impacts local ordinances passed after April of 1986.

So somebody show me how the above law does not prevent a HCP holder from carrying? I agree they probably can't be charge you under STATE law, but what prevents them from charging you under the local ordinance?

Now there is some question as to whether the slight change in 1987 invalidates the entire ordinance or not, IANAL but it appears as if minor changes to a local ordinance does not render it a new ordinance. Whether the change made in 1987 or the one being considered today are enough to make it a new ordiance or not I don't know... but for the sake of argument lets say a court would rule it a legal modification and therefore still is under the pre-1986 exception to state preemption. If so, how does this not ban all carrying of handguns by HCP holders?

So, again I'm not saying this law has been enforced against HCP holders, only that it appears as if there is a VALID local ordinance which bans concealed carry and makes no exception for HCP holders. And keep in mind that HCP holders only have a defense against selected state laws which ban carry. No where in state law does it say we have a blanket defense against 'the intent to go armed' only defenses to a few specific state laws.

So, please show me the flaw in this logic... where is the LEGAL exception that prevents the City of Belle Meade from charging you with violating this local ordinance just because you have a HCP?

You know almost everyday I watch another speech from President Obama telling me how I'll be able to keep my Doctor and my insurance policy won't change under ObamaCare... I pretty sure a good number of us don't trust everything he's selling... So why does everybody believe this Mayor?

Here is the problem I have... if making this latest modification does cause the law to become invalid, why pass it? Would it be much easier to just remove all references to firearms from the ordinance, and allow state preemption to take over? Why go to all this trouble to defend these changes when the simple fix is to remove firearms from the ordinance?

Just because the Mayor and the Police Chief say the law doesn't impact you, doesn't make it true... If the ordinance stands under the state preemption exception, it will ban all types of carry with no exception for HCP, business owners on their property, and homeowners.

So, if the intent is for the City to come in line with current state law, they should just remove firearms from the current ordinance... and bingo, Belle Meade has the exact same laws as the rest of the state.

But, wait... state law doesn't ban a HCP holder from carrying a loaded handgun in the hand does it? Hmm so that doesn't really solve the problem... So, maybe they are looking for a change that allows them to charge people they want to charge? Nahh politicians would never do that...

Look, the truth is the ordinance is BAD, it's bad today, it will be even worse if this change is put into effect.... If all the city wants to do is come in line with state law, they should remove firearms from the local ordinance... Anything else is either 1. invalid due to state preemption, or 2. valid and could be used against any HCP holder if the city wanted to.

As a HCP holder who is in Belle Meade on a daily basis... please don't stop calling, and putting pressure on the city, if all they want to do is come inline with state law, have them just remove firearms from the local ordinance.

[Seaslug]

I'm sure this is going to cause people to get upset... but lets look at the facts for a minute...

Belle Meade has what appears to be a valid pre-April 1986 law that bans all types of carry except the carrying of an army or navy revolver in the hand. It makes no exception for HCP holders.

State law preemption only impacts local ordinances passed after April of 1986.

So somebody show me how the above law does not prevent a HCP holder from carrying? I agree they probably can't be charge you under STATE law, but what prevents them from charging you under the local ordinance?

Now there is some question as to whether the slight change in 1987 invalidates the entire ordinance or not, IANAL but it appears as if minor changes to a local ordinance does not render it a new ordinance. Whether the change made in 1987 or the one being considered today are enough to make it a new ordiance or not I don't know... but for the sake of argument lets say a court would rule it a legal modification and therefore still is under the pre-1986 exception to state preemption. If so, how does this not ban all carrying of handguns by HCP holders?

So, again I'm not saying this law has been enforced against HCP holders, only that it appears as if there is a VALID local ordinance which bans concealed carry and makes no exception for HCP holders. And keep in mind that HCP holders only have a defense against selected state laws which ban carry. No where in state law does it say we have a blanket defense against 'the intent to go armed' only defenses to a few specific state laws.

So, please show me the flaw in this logic... where is the LEGAL exception that prevents the City of Belle Meade from charging you with violating this local ordinance just because you have a HCP?

You know almost everyday I watch another speech from President Obama telling me how I'll be able to keep my Doctor and my insurance policy won't change under ObamaCare... I pretty sure a good number of us don't trust everything he's selling... So why does everybody believe this Mayor?

Here is the problem I have... if making this latest modification does cause the law to become invalid, why pass it? Would it be much easier to just remove all references to firearms from the ordinance, and allow state preemption to take over? Why go to all this trouble to defend these changes when the simple fix is to remove firearms from the ordinance?

Just because the Mayor and the Police Chief say the law doesn't impact you, doesn't make it true... If the ordinance stands under the state preemption exception, it will ban all types of carry with no exception for HCP, business owners on their property, and homeowners.

So, if the intent is for the City to come in line with current state law, they should just remove firearms from the current ordinance... and bingo, Belle Meade has the exact same laws as the rest of the state.

But, wait... state law doesn't ban a HCP holder from carrying a loaded handgun in the hand does it? Hmm so that doesn't really solve the problem... So, maybe they are looking for a change that allows them to charge people they want to charge? Nahh politicians would never do that...

Look, the truth is the ordinance is BAD, it's bad today, it will be even worse if this change is put into effect.... If all the city wants to do is come in line with state law, they should remove firearms from the local ordinance... Anything else is either 1. invalid due to state preemption, or 2. valid and could be used against any HCP holder if the city wanted to.

As a HCP holder who is in Belle Meade on a daily basis... please don't stop calling, and putting pressure on the city, if all they want to do is come inline with state law, have them just remove firearms from the local ordinance.

Thank you. This is exactly the point I was trying to make all the way back in post #2, but you've done a much better job of laying it all out here. Kudos.

[Worriedman]

I would hazard a guess that 90% of all municipalities in the State have the exact same verbiage in their Municipal Codes. I know we did in Jackson, but we got the whole Chapter 6-11.604 part removed, (where it is in most Municipal codes as well) so now we concur with State Law.

As I see it, any change to the current statute, brings it under State Preemption, as if the section is modified it is no longer a pre-'86 Ordinance. So in effect, their modifying it takes the "prior to 1986" status away. Kinves and various hand held sticks are covered in 39-17-1302(a), so the whole section could be repealed/deleted and the municipality would then be in line with State Law.

Edited March 22, 2010 by Worriedman

[JayC]

I would hazard a guess that 90% of all municipalities in the State have the exact same verbiage in their Municipal Codes. I know we did in Jackson, but we got the whole Chapter 6-11.604 part removed, (where it is in most Municipal codes as well) so now we concur with State Law.

As I see it, any change to the current statute, brings it under State Preemption, as if the section is modified it is no longer a pre-'86 Ordinance. So in effect, their modifying it takes the "prior to 1986" status away. Kinves and various hand held sticks are covered in 39-17-1302(a), so the whole section could be repealed/deleted and the municipality would then be in line with State Law.

There appears to be some point of argument over whether a change would bring the ordinance under state preemption or not. I can't say either way... But if it does, why are they bothering to not just repeal all the firearm related stuff? Why make the regulation more strict if it won't matter anymore?

Something smells funny in Belle Meade.

[Fallguy]

There appears to be some point of argument over whether a change would bring the ordinance under state preemption or not. I can't say either way... But if it does, why are they bothering to not just repeal all the firearm related stuff? Why make the regulation more strict if it won't matter anymore?

Something smells funny in Belle Meade.

Maybe to keep the bed wetters happy that don't know any better?