Carry on Knoxville Greenways

[Guest GradStudent]

The bicycling thread made me wonder about the legality of carrying on Knoxville City Greenways. Section 20-61 of the Knoxville Code of Ordinances state

"No person in a public park shall: (7) Hunt, trap or pursue wildlife at any time. No person shall use, carry or possess firearms of any description, air rifles, spring guns, bows and arrows, slings or any other form of weapon potentially inimical to wildlife and dangerous to human safety, any instrument that can be loaded with and fire blank cartridges, or any kind of trapping device. Shooting into park areas from beyond park boundaries is forbidden. "

Also, the greenways are not located on the list of Knoxville City Parks <http://www.ci.knoxville.tn.us/parks/>, and there is no definition of a greenway in the Knoxville Code of Ordinances that I can find. However, greenways do seem to be run by the Parks & Rec department.

In other words, would it be legal for me to carry while riding my bike on the greenway, provided I do not ride on portions of the greenway that run through city parks?

[enfield]

What's a greenway? I live among cows.

[Oh Shoot]

The bicycling thread made me wonder about the legality of carrying on Knoxville City Greenways. Section 20-61 of the Knoxville Code of Ordinances state

"No person in a public park shall: (7) Hunt, trap or pursue wildlife at any time. No person shall use, carry or possess firearms of any description, air rifles, spring guns, bows and arrows, slings or any other form of weapon potentially inimical to wildlife and dangerous to human safety, any instrument that can be loaded with and fire blank cartridges, or any kind of trapping device. Shooting into park areas from beyond park boundaries is forbidden. "

Also, the greenways are not located on the list of Knoxville City Parks <http://www.ci.knoxville.tn.us/parks/>, and there is no definition of a greenway in the Knoxville Code of Ordinances that I can find. However, greenways do seem to be run by the Parks & Rec department.

In other words, would it be legal for me to carry while riding my bike on the greenway, provided I do not ride on portions of the greenway that run through city parks?

Knoxville greenways are part of the Parks and Recreation Dept, and certainly considered part of the parks system.

City of Knoxville - Greenways

As I assume you know, the no carry ordinance is a local one from pre 1986, and not under the opt-out provision of the state statute (which is why they do not have to be posted).

The possible penalty is $50 fine and/or up to a month in jail as per city code.

I've never heard of anyone being charged for it, though, which if nothing else says that nobody has been dumb enough to open carry there.

- OS

Edited March 4, 2011 by OhShoot

[enfield]

Thanks for the info on greenways. Sounds like we really need to get rid of the local option on park carry.

[Guest Pineapple Devil]

is that posted at all entrances or just on a website?

[Oh Shoot]

is that posted at all entrances or just on a website?

Is what posted?

Knoxville parks are not posted, but it's illegal to carry in them.

I guess it's the old saying, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse", eh?

Knox County parks are okay for carry.

There is one greenway that goes from county to city back to county all in the same direction, too. Is that cool, or what?

- OS

[Fallguy]

is that posted at all entrances or just on a website?

You are probably thinking of 39-17-1311 which does require posting specific language at certain locations. But Knoxville parks are not off-limits per 39-17-1311 state law, but a pre 1986 city ordnance.

Apparently that city ordnance doesn't require the parks to be posted.

Of course that means a violation is a violation of a city ordnance, not a state law. My understanding the fine for violation of this city ordnance is a $50 fine.

[Erik88]

wait, so it's just a city ordinance? Interesting.

[Fallguy]

wait, so it's just a city ordinance? Interesting.

That is my understanding.

For it to be a violation of 39-17-1311 they would have had to both pass a resolution and post as required in 39-17-1311

[JReedEsq]

wait, so it's just a city ordinance? Interesting.

This was discussed at length when the city was trying to decide how to handle the parks issue. Although he didn't get a vote, Haslam supported this middle of the road position. Only dorky people who follow local politics watch the city council meetings on public TV, but Haslam's comments all indicated that this was a way of saying we will keep guns out of the parks, but people shouldn't really be criminally prosecuted if they are being responsible and make a mistake about a really confusing area of the law. I specifically remember him using the example of a downtown business person with an HCP cutting through Krutch Park on the way to eat lunch in Market Square. They could easily break the law if they without the intention of causing any harm. It would be very easy for someone not to realize they have entered a city park. Again, Haslam didn't get a vote but he really didn't aggressively fight for gun owners, what he did was argue that this area of the law is so confusing that responsible HCP holders should be treated leniently if they make a reasonable mistake. His statements all implied that an HCPer doing no other wrong would get a $50 fine and a warning not to do it again. I wouldn't want to test this theory, however. This was definitely a luke-warm position to take for someone who claimed "Knoxville is the most gun friendly large city in Tennessee" in his TV ad. I'm not trying to be too critical just offering an objective analysis of his position. Maybe he thought the city would otherwise opt out under 39-17-1311 and this was the best realistic scenario?

[Oh Shoot]

... My understanding the fine for violation of this city ordnance is a $50 fine.

...His statements all implied that an HCPer doing no other wrong would get a $50 fine and a warning not to do it again. I wouldn't want to test this theory, however.

FWIW, city code still says $50 and up to a month jail time. It also states that it is indeed a misdemeanor, so I suppose it would always show up on a background check.

I guess if you get jail time, you can can call Bill in Nashville and I'm sure he'll take care of you.

- OS

[Guest GradStudent]

I contacted my councilman to discuss my displeasure with the Knoxville City Ordinance banning guns in parks and greenways. I don't think he believed it banned carry on Greenways, so he got an opinion from the law director. Below is the director's opinion as relayed from the chief of police.

Councilman Grieve,

I spoke with Deputy Law Director Ron Mills by telephone today to confirm our telephone conversation from yesterday. In short, the City of Knoxville has a law prohibiting carrying firearms in city parks. Greenways are considered a part of City Parks.

Therefore, Mr. Young's assertion that it would be illegal for him to carry a firearm while riding a bicycle on a greenway in Knoxville is correct. I will see you tonight if there are additional questions.

Sterling Owen, Chief

Knoxville Police Department

However, Councilman Grieve says he supports the law. He didn't give a reason, but I have asked him to clarify why.

[Oh Shoot]

" In short, the City of Knoxville has a law prohibiting carrying firearms in city parks. Greenways are considered a part of City Parks."

Yep, as mentioned, greenways of course are part of the park system. Far as I know, the Coliseum is considered part of the park system also. And of course, any city ball field, tennis court, basketball court, etc, whether it is in something named "x Park" or not. Probably other places designed for "recreation" that I'm overlooking.

However, Councilman Grieve says he supports the law. He didn't give a reason, but I have asked him to clarify why.

The tired example given over and over is that an otherwise law abiding permit owner will go crazy over a kid's ball game and shoot the umpire, the opposing coach, and every member of the other team, and their parents and first cousins.

Or, "children and guns don't mix". Or some other lame and trite namby pamby adage.

- OS

Edited March 9, 2011 by OhShoot

[Erik88]

The tired example given over and over is that an otherwise law abiding permit owner will go crazy over a kid's ball game and shoot the umpire, the opposing coach, and every member of the other team, and their parents and first cousins.

Or, "children and guns don't mix". Or some other lame and trite namby pamby adage.

- OS

don't forget the family dog

[vontar]

Another reason to CC well and be as well informed of the law as possible. Do your best to understand it but as the example given. Like in places like Knoxville where the parks are op out and not required to post a person from out of area can make an honest mistake very easy. They need to make all parks, National, State, County and City equal. In Clarksville voted to allow carry in some parks and not others how confusing is that. http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/tennessee-politics-legislation/52716-clarksville-park-carry-revisited.html

[Fallguy]

Another reason to CC well and be as well informed of the law as possible. Do your best to understand it but as the example given. Like in places like Knoxville where the parks are op out and not required to post a person from out of area can make an honest mistake very easy. They need to make all parks, National, State, County and City equal. In Clarksville voted to allow carry in some parks and not others how confusing is that. http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/tennessee-politics-legislation/52716-clarksville-park-carry-revisited.html

Well if Clarksville actually follows the law and post per 39-17-1311 the parks that are off-limits...to me it would be less confusing than Knoxville where they aren't posted at all.

But I agree...I hope this can be cleaned up soon...

[vontar]

I think I got it, I just had one of those things, a thought or a brainstorm.

If and when anyone is charged in Knoxville with violating the parks no carry and they get a smart lawyer to defend them in court. They will probably lose at the local level, then it will probably be appealed to a higher court and when it is appealed to a higher court, the local ordinance will probably be ruled some kind of unfair, vague, help me out with the correct legal terminology here not trying trying to say unconstitutional but something to the effect that those parks using the pre 1986 ordinance and not posting any type of warning like other parks puts an undo burden on the defendant.

No No No, I do not want to be the test case, nor do recommend anyone either.

[vontar]

wait, I can't believe it has been a couple days and no one has busted by head on this one yet. Of course it could not be anyone that is aware of the 1986 ordinance and that they opted out and used that to not post. So any member of this board would be pretty much out.

[Oh Shoot]

wait, I can't believe it has been a couple days and no one has busted by head on this one yet. Of course it could not be anyone that is aware of the 1986 ordinance and that they opted out and used that to not post. So any member of this board would be pretty much out.

They did not opt out of new state statute, they simply didn't have to do anything.

If local ordinance were forced to be repealed, they'd just fall back on opting out of state law, but would have to spend money for posting. Penalty would be greater. No win here.

- OS

[vontar]

Ah, now I see. Can't win for losing. Same o story.

So for now, it is what it is, as better then a actually posted park. Go it. 50 dollar fine, don't do it again, now go away.

[Oh Shoot]

Ah, now I see. Can't win for losing. Same o story.

So for now, it is what it is, as better then a actually posted park. Go it. 50 dollar fine, don't do it again, now go away.

Maybe. Could get a month in the pokey, too.

And a misdemeanor on your record, I guess.

- OS

[vontar]

Unless I know different, I treat city parks like foreign soil.

They probably don't want to feed someone for 29 days just to make a point since they only get 50 bucks but you never know. The wrong judge might want to make a statement I certainly don't want to have a middemeanor following me around either.