City of Jackson, TN Parks

[Fallguy]

Monday I was in Jackson and went to Cypress Grove Nature Park. As I was entering I saw a sign that said it was a FELONY to carry weapons on recreational property. I was pretty sure this wasn't right on two levels, one Jackson did not opt-out of the state law and even if they did it is a misdemeanor not a felony.

So the next day I sent an e-mail to the Mayor, the City Council Member whose district the park is in, the City Council Member who is the liaison to the Parks and Recreation Dept and the Director of the Parks and Recreation Dept. I told them the above and even linked to the July 2009 City Council Meeting where the resolution to ban carry failed.

After a couple more exchanges with the Parks and Recreation director, he did confirm that handgun carry was legal in Jackson City Parks for those with a HCP and that they would be removing the signs.

So I guess my point is, if you see something that you think is wrong...don't be afraid to contact someone about it!!

[LagerHead]

Great job. I will keep this in mind next time I see one of those signs.

[daddyo]

Sounds like a sneaky attempt on someone's part to ban guns from city parks.

You have to keep a close eye on most government officials.

[Fallguy]

Well I have wondered how the signs have stayed up for two years if they were wrong.... I do plan on going by the park again, or at least having someone else to, to follow up on it.

While I was pretty sure carry was legal, I know many seeing those signs may not.....just couldn't let it stand without at least asking about it.

[Worriedman]

Seems to me, I remember that the municipalities did not have to remove their signs. Somewhere in the back of my mind I think the Legislature allowed them to leave them up, even if they were not valid, to keep down on the fiscal note, e.g. saving on the labor to remove them.

Hope I am wrong on that, but I will do some digging.

[Just2Honor]

Only exception I recall was for state parks. They can leave their "no firearms" signs so they don't have to spend money they don't have to remove or change them. I believe their old signs now apply to non-HCP holders. Anybody know differently? Good job, Fallguy!

[Fallguy]

Seems to me, I remember that the municipalities did not have to remove their signs. Somewhere in the back of my mind I think the Legislature allowed them to leave them up, even if they were not valid, to keep down on the fiscal note, e.g. saving on the labor to remove them.

Hope I am wrong on that, but I will do some digging.

I think Roadkill is right about that it only applied to state parks as far as can't remove signs, see subsection (e)(1), I don't think it addressed local parks either way. But either way it is not nor was not a Felony as the sign I saw stated. However I do agree there could be confusion...something I hope the task force will address.... (see below)

Subsection ©(1) of 39-17-1311 still requires ALL counties and cities to post signs at recreational property. They can exempt themselves from having to post a sign under subsection © per ©(3) These signs would not apply to HCP holders.

Now subsection (d) says if they have passed a resolution to legally prevent carry, they are supposed to post the same sign as in ©(1) and this sign would legally prevent carry.

So my question is, if you don't know whether or not a city/county has passed a resoution...how are you supposed to know whether a sign is posted under © [general requirement that doesn't apply to HCP holders] or under (d) [which makes it illegal to carry]?

This is why 39-17-1311 just needs to be completely repealed like 39-17-1305 was!

Edited July 29, 2011 by Fallguy

[vontar]

Great job on that. Sounda to me they wanted to leave those up as a deterrent and you called them out on it.

[hotsauce]

I saw a sign prohibiting firearms in a park in Bartlett, I believe it said that carrying a firearm in the park was a felony if any school activities were going on anywhere in the park. Sounded kinda hard to follow in a large park you couldn't see everything going on in said park from any vantage point outside the park.

[UncleJak]

I agree with Fallguy, if there are signs up how do I know if they are outdated or current...I went to a state park last weekend and saw the signs and carried anyway. I was 99% sure I was right, but carrying concealed like I always do makes it not matter much either way.

[Fallguy]

Well I don't worry at all about State Parks...I know carry is legal there and the state is only that could change that.

The problem is local parks...you may not know if a city/county has passed a resolution to prohibit carry or not. You don't know if signs (if they are any) are posted under 39-17-1311© or 39-17-1311(d). Of course the AG has said you can be charged even if there isn't signs.

I think these are all points that as many of us than can should make to the new Gun Task Force members when they start meeting.

[Guest rebelyell]

Sounds like a sneaky attempt on someone's part to ban guns from city parks.

You have to keep a close eye on most government officials.

I agree DaddyO!

[vontar]

Today I just happened to drive though Norris Dam state Park and they still have signs up No Firearms I told my wife that does no apply to me, as it is a state park and I have my HCP. That is an old sign that just has not been replaced. We only saw 2 times, one on each side of the park.

I believe it was along the lines Firearms and alcoholic beverages are prohibited. I told her the way the law was written they don't have to change the sign until normal maintenance deems the signs needs to be replaced. However I will be very interested if they replace the signs at such times which correct signs.

[GKar]

Bristol, TN did indeed adopt the resolution banning carry in city parks. Some time passed, no signs erected. So, I called the person on Council who was the most outspoken proponent of that resoution an inquired as to when they were going to follow through on the rest of their commitment (ie, proper signage). He didnt know what I was talking about - I referred him to that portion of the law requiring proper signage at entrances. He belly-ached about the cost, and I reminded him that he was the one who so vigorously pursued the ban, and perhaps he'd rather publically admit he never considered the cost and put the process into place to rescind the resolution. After a couple of calls to the city attorney, he finally ordered the Parks dept to erect the correct signage...and I went to every park in the city to check, having to remind them of a few places they missed. Do I want the parks posted? No...but neither do I want to see some poor unsuspecting race fan (we get an influx of about 100,000 folks twice a year) or music festival visitor get charged or put into an uncomfortable positon because idiots like David Shumker wet their diaper at the thougt of anyone legally possessing a firearm. So if they want to play the game, they need to be held accountable for their responsibility to play the WHOLE game...thats the cost of their decision.

[Oh Shoot]

... he finally ordered the Parks dept to erect the correct signage......

Are they indeed correct as to size and wording? (parks statute is very specific about the signage). If not, since you've already gone this route, maybe you can sting him again.

- OS

[Worriedman]

I think Roadkill is right about that it only applied to state parks as far as can't remove signs, see subsection (e)(1), I don't think it addressed local parks either way. But either way it is not nor was not a Felony as the sign I saw stated. However I do agree there could be confusion...something I hope the task force will address.... (see below)

Subsection ©(1) of 39-17-1311 still requires ALL counties and cities to post signs at recreational property. They can exempt themselves from having to post a sign under subsection © per ©(3) These signs would not apply to HCP holders.

Now subsection (d) says if they have passed a resolution to legally prevent carry, they are supposed to post the same sign as in ©(1) and this sign would legally prevent carry.

So my question is, if you don't know whether or not a city/county has passed a resoution...how are you supposed to know whether a sign is posted under © [general requirement that doesn't apply to HCP holders] or under (d) [which makes it illegal to carry]?

This is why 39-17-1311 just needs to be completely repealed like 39-17-1305 was!

Fallguy is correct (as usual). Only the State was relieved of having to remove signs at their parks. Municipalities MUST post if they have opted out, and if they did not, they are charged with removing signs that incorrectly post.

[Fallguy]

Today I just happened to drive though Norris Dam state Park and they still have signs up No Firearms I told my wife that does no apply to me, as it is a state park and I have my HCP. That is an old sign that just has not been replaced. We only saw 2 times, one on each side of the park.

I believe it was along the lines Firearms and alcoholic beverages are prohibited. I told her the way the law was written they don't have to change the sign until normal maintenance deems the signs needs to be replaced. However I will be very interested if they replace the signs at such times which correct signs.

I am curious too if whenever a sign has to be replaced at a state park if they will leave off "No Firearms" from the new sign.

[vontar]

Are they indeed correct as to size and wording? (parks statute is very specific about the signage). If not, since you've already gone this route, maybe you can sting him again.

- OS

I know the ones in Oak Ridge are correct size. I actually checked them because I thought they were small.

[Fallguy]

I know the ones in Oak Ridge are correct size. I actually checked them because I thought they were small.

Yeah, 6" x 14" not as big as you'd think looking on a post from a car....

[vontar]

Yeah, 6" x 14" not as big as you'd think looking on a post from a car....

I have an idea on stringing them. Isn't there a new law coming into effect that letting on all signs has to be of a certain size by a certain year? There is no way everything contained in the 6x14 will fit if they have to blow up the letters any bigger.

MISDEMEANOR. STATE LAW PRESCRIBES A MAXIMUM PENALTY OF ELEVEN (11) MONTHS AND TWENTY-NINE (29) DAYS AND A FINE NOT TO EXCEED TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($2,500) FOR CARRYING WEAPONS ON OR IN PUBLIC RECREATIONAL PROPERTY.

I know these are not exactly road signs but an argument could be made they are POSTED at the entry point to PARKS and drivers should be able to see them clearly so they should be replaced with larger signs along with this program which will cost the cities extra money to keep these parks posted.

Federal Law Mandates Larger Street Signs.

Here is a story on it. TN is fighting it I don't the way it is being done, I believe they could replace them as needed instead of replacing all by a set date but hey maybe these stupid 6x14's should get included as well. You can't read them from your car if you don't know it trying by.

Federal Law Mandates Road Signs Must Be Replaced - NewsChannel5.com | Nashville News, Weather & Sports

[TGO David]

I agree with Fallguy, if there are signs up how do I know if they are outdated or current...I went to a state park last weekend and saw the signs and carried anyway. I was 99% sure I was right, but carrying concealed like I always do makes it not matter much either way.

Ugh!!! Working to remove incorrect signs or repeal stupid legislation is commendable. Breaking the law, not so much. Hold yourself to a higher standard for the rest of us if not for yourself. That way we don't have to read about a TGO member getting busted for knowingly carrying where they knew they weren't supposed to be. Not only will that be bad news for you, it's going to be a major black eye for the responsible HCP community.

[Erik88]

Ugh!!! Working to remove incorrect signs or repeal stupid legislation is commendable. Breaking the law, not so much. Hold yourself to a higher standard for the rest of us if not for yourself. That way we don't have to read about a TGO member getting busted for knowingly carrying where they knew they weren't supposed to be. Not only will that be bad news for you, it's going to be a major black eye for the responsible HCP community.

I think you might have misunderstood him. He said he was in a state park. Perfectly legal to carry there.

[TGO David]

I think you might have misunderstood him. He said he was in a state park. Perfectly legal to carry there.

No, I think you just glazed over this...

I agree with Fallguy, if there are signs up how do I know if they are outdated or current...I went to a state park last weekend and saw the signs and carried anyway. I was 99% sure I was right, but carrying concealed like I always do makes it not matter much either way.

Still think I missed what he said?

[Erik88]

I interpreted it differently.

[Fallguy]

I interpreted it differently.

Yes...he carried legally, but from what he said, he implied that he would have carried even if it had been illegal. Therefore Dave's message, not only to him, but to all....