Norris lake state park (east side) campground is posted "No Firearms" ??????

[Guest tngw1500se]

Norris lake state park (east side) campground is posted "No Firearms". I thought you could carry in the state parks.

[Pain103]

Probably an old sign, don't really think removing a sign would be top the to do list.

[Guest tngw1500se]

Probably an old sign, don't really think removing a sign would be top the to do list.

But it should be! The law was changed, a sign in a state park should reflect the current regulations, not mislead the public with outdated information. The sign could give an uneducated park ranger, or a park visitor, the impression that I was breaking the law. Once the law was changed, the signs should have either been changed or removed. We should demand no less. It's our right.

[macville]

You are correct. What amazes me is that they were not removing signs because of the cost involved. Why does it cost ANYTHING to have a ranger go up to a sign with a wrench to remove the sign? At the very least, a piece of white duct tape to go over it. Of course, if you don't have a carry permit, carrying a loaded firearm in a state park is still a crime...of course that's also illegal everywhere else that's not private property also.

This is where volunteers should be able to go help with "special" projects like removing signs. I would be more than happy to drive up to norris to take down that sign:)

[Oh Shoot]

But it should be! The law was changed, a sign in a state park should reflect the current regulations, not mislead the public with outdated information. The sign could give an uneducated park ranger, or a park visitor, the impression that I was breaking the law. Once the law was changed, the signs should have either been changed or removed. We should demand no less. It's our right.

Can't find it right off at michie.com, but I believe the statute specifically states signage did not need to be changed, unless signs were renewed during natural attrition.

This was to make the new statute revenue neutral.

The "no guns" signs were generally a part of a larger sign with more rules on it.

- OS

[Guest tngw1500se]

Really, the sign should not be removed, it should be updated to reflect current law. But if TN can't afford a new sign, then remove it! Why not use some of that "stem-you-less" money TN got from Obama, or a few of those bucks they got from me in sales tax every time I go to Walmart! Maybe if the government quit buying all the red light cameras, they could afford some really nice new signs for the state parks!

A lot of people worked hard to get the law changed so the signs should be changed or removed.

Edited July 15, 2010 by tngw1500se

[Guest tngw1500se]

The "no guns" signs were generally a part of a larger sign with more rules on it.

- OS

The one at the east campground entrance is a single sign with the words "No Firearms".

There are other signs on the west end of the dam with other rules so they could paint over the "No Firearms" line on those.

If the sign said "WHITES ONLY" it would have been removed. It wouldn't have been "ok" to leave it up! Nobody would have stood for it. Why stand for this?

They need changed or removed.

[Oh Shoot]

...

A lot of people worked hard to get the law changed so the signs should be changed or removed.

The point that you refuse to see is that the new law ALLOWS the signs to stay up.

You'd need to change the law again.

- OS

[Guest tngw1500se]

The point that you refuse to see is that the new law ALLOWS the signs to stay up.

You'd need to change the law again.

- OS

No I see. I see that the law was written so poorly that it allowed the signs to be left up. I just am saying that it's wrong, and they could (should) be changed by the parks dept. to reflect the current law. There's no law saying they have to be left up, it just says they didn't have to be changed. But I guess you just have to accept that this is the best our government can do. After all they only made $2,500,000.00 profit on carry permits (taxes) last year. Seems like we could get a few signs changed doesn't it?

[Oh Shoot]

... Seems like we could get a few signs changed doesn't it?

You don't understand the state workforce ethic.

- OS

[analog_kidd]

Doesn't bother me a bit. I know that the law, as written, allowed for the old signs to remain so that the law would be revenue neutral. In other words, the bill had no chance of passing if it was going to cost the state any money at all. So, making this one consession helped the bill to pass. I know it's legal now, so I just carry past the sign. Plus there is the slight chance that a bad-guy may see the sign and think twice about coming into the park.

[Fallguy]

Actually to note the law doesn't "allow" the old signs to be left up, it "requires" that they be left up.

I really don't worry about uneducated park rangers trying to enforce no carry as I am uniformed HCP holders not carrying because of the sign.

[Mike.357]

Your valid permit allows you to carry in state parks.

The signage only applies to those who do not have a valid permit.

[JReedEsq]

http://www.michie.com/tennessee/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&cp=tncode

T.C.A. 39-17-1311

Subsection ((1)(H) lists HCP holders as a specific exception.

Subsection (e)(1) states they don't have to change any signage until it's worn out.

Subsection (e)(2) says local municipalities can opt out if they post prominately displayed signage.

Clear as mud, huh?

[Oh Shoot]

...

Subsection (e)(2) says local municipalities can opt out if they post prominately displayed signage.

Clear as mud, huh?

Plus Knoxville relies on old pre 1986 local ordinance of no carry in city parks - and no signage required.

Of course, there's no way someone from out of town could possibly know that, or not necessarily even a resident.

But also of course ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Clear mud indeed.

- OS