Speaking of Park Carry - Knoxville

[Oh Shoot]

I wonder if the city admin is aware that as soon as the more sweeping preemption bill is signed, unless they take quick action, it will be immediately legal to carry in Knoxville city recreation areas.

 

http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/default.aspx?BillNumber=SB1612&GA=108

 

For those of you who don't know, Knoxville relies on a pre 1986 grandfathered local ordinance to ban carry, and no signage required, you just have to "know", ignorance of the law and all that.

 

So, now, if they want to continue that tack, City Council will have to make formal resolution to opt out of 39-17-1311 and put up the proper signage.

 

Which I'm guessing they will, what with Madame Mayor being a liberal Dem. We'll see.

 

- OS

[monkeylizard]

Next we need to get rid of 39-17-1311 (d ) and stop this stupid "Park A is off limits but Park B is OK" garbage.

Edited April 15, 2014 by monkeylizard

[Oh Shoot]

Next we need to get rid of 39-17-1311 (d ) and stop this stupid "Park A is off limits but Park B is OK" garbage.

 

But for Haslam's pet House committee, we'd have had that and open carry both this year.

 

- OS

[monkeylizard]

Yeah....don't remind me.....

 

Still, we did get some good victories this year and none as horribly worded as 39-17-1313 from last year.

[300winmag]

Remember that when a politcian tells you he is Pro 2nd Amendment but is afraid of people carrying a gun with a permit in a park.

[atlas3025]

 
Which I'm guessing they will, what with Madame Mayor being a liberal Dem. We'll see.
 
- OS

I prefer to think of her as "Mayor Dumplin'".

[Raoul]

Speaking of which I went to a called City Council meeting today wearing my Sig in a belt holster. City Council recently rescinded legislation prohibiting weapons at city parks and this meeting was at one of the recreational areas. The police chief walked up to me and said "I bet you only came today because you could carry." I said yes and we had a good laugh.

[dawgdoc]

I'm confused; is there a bill going to the Governor that will do this?

[Raoul]

I'm confused; is there a bill going to the Governor that will do this?

Not now. Didn't make it through the state senate.

[Oh Shoot]

I'm confused; is there a bill going to the Governor that will do this?

 

Not now. Didn't make it through the state senate.

 

Yes, the one I'm discussing in this thread passed,  see the link in first post.

 

It is not the "park carry" statute, which failed, but rather the strengthened state preemption bill. It makes any city which is banning park carry under a previously allowed grandfathered local ordinance not able to do that anymore.  They must either get in sync with the state statute to ban it or allow carry. This of course includes signage, which is a significant effort and expense for a burg the size of Knoxville, so they won't be happy campers either way they flop on this.

 

It also takes away any other local grandfathered firearm law in the state, though I'm only aware of the some places using them regarding parks.

 

- OS

Edited April 16, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[dawgdoc]

So the way I understand it, basically any municipality that wants to ban guns in their parks must post a sign, regardless of how old the ordinance is?  I think that may be an issue in Chattanooga because it seems like some of their parks don't have obvious postings, but I was under the impression that all their parks were off limits.  I thought I read (maybe on here some time ago) that a judge ruled that they didn't have to post a sign but the law still applied.  I might be confusing different issues.

 

I know that the St. Elmo park has a large, obvious sign, but I don't remember seeing any signs at Warner Park.  Maybe they were there and I just missed them.  Likewise in the area around the Aquarium, although I have not been there in a while.

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name="dawgdoc" post="1139181" timestamp="1397609461"]So the way I understand it, basically any municipality that wants to ban guns in their parks must post a sign, regardless of how old the ordinance is? I think that may be an issue in Chattanooga because it seems like some of their parks don't have obvious postings, but I was under the impression that all their parks were off limits. I thought I read (maybe on here some time ago) that a judge ruled that they didn't have to post a sign but the law still applied. I might be confusing different issues. I know that the St. Elmo park has a large, obvious sign, but I don't remember seeing any signs at Warner Park. Maybe they were there and I just missed them. Likewise in the area around the Aquarium, although I have not been there in a while.[/quote] It sounds as if Memphis is similar in that it has dozens of parks, some as small as an empty commercial building lot with a few trees and a bench. Only the big, well attended parks have signs. If the city were to actually have to sign all the parks it would be a considerable expense. We also have multiple connecting greenlines with many entrances/exits. If you count every street it crosses along with all of the other entry points that one park alone could need many dozen signs along its 15-20 mile or so route through two cities and unincorporated county. This bill really could pressure some cities to drop bans on park carry. Edited April 16, 2014 by Chucktshoes

[Oh Shoot]

So the way I understand it, basically any municipality that wants to ban guns in their parks must post a sign, regardless of how old the ordinance is?

 

No, up till now any local firearm ordinance passed before 4/8/86 was enforceable, regardless of what it was. 39-17-1314 is worded such that a city could even ban guns totally as long as it was before that (though this never arose). Indeed, Knoxville even has such a ban, an old law duplicated across the state here and there, and the one Kwik took on in Belle Meade).

 

But I digress. Knoxville has not had to enact any signage at all, since their local ordinance doesn't call for it, but is binding because it was before the cutoff date. In other words, the parks statute 39-17-1311 simply doesn't figure in at all here. Until this new bill is signed, then the old ordinance will no longer be legit and they'll have to conform to 39-17-1311 one way or the other, either allow carry or ban it and add signs.

 

Yeah, I don't have a handle on the 'Nooga thing, not sure just what law they depend on there, but if it's a local ordinance, it's gone any day now.

 

Nashville itself has had an iffy relationship with the law as I (don't) understand it. The point being, Knoxville was told by the state attorneys that they could NOT modify the local ordinance on parks, or it became invalid, had to stay intact as it was before 1986. So they either use it or repeal it and use the state law. They decided, mostly told to by Haslam as he was mayor when it went down, to leave things as they were.

 

But no more.

 

The point is, no city or county will now be able to enforce ANY ordinance that affects firearms in ANY way, they can only prosecute under state law.

 

Which means they can no longer ban shooting inside the city limits, seems to me, at least as that being the crime -- can I suppose still do  noise/nuisance type stuff I  and whatnot I guess.

 

Air rifles don't fit under the state statue, so I guess Knoxville can still legally ban firing those, as it does now.

 

Anyway, I think this is going to have a bit more significance overall than people might be initially thinking.

 

- OS

Edited April 16, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[Dane]

The area around the aquarium is posted on one end. Just like the area along the river that only has a posting in the middle near the playground. It makes it nearly impossible to know if you are in an off limits area or not. Fortunately it seems that Chattanooga pd is not real interested in enforcing it unless someone makes a point of being an ass. This is according to a few officers I've spoken to. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[dawgdoc]

Thanks for y'all's analysis; this does sound more important than it seems.  

 

As a side note, is there specific legal wording the cities and counties must use for their ban on guns in parks to be legally valid?  Are there specific locations for the signs?  As pointed out by Dane, the postings in Chattanooga aren't widespread, and it feels like you could walk unknowingly into the wrong place.  While the current PD may not be keen on enforcing it, I worry about what the situation could be some time down the road when people retire and elected officials change.

[Oh Shoot]

Thanks for y'all's analysis; this does sound more important than it seems.  

 

As a side note, is there specific legal wording the cities and counties must use for their ban on guns in parks to be legally valid?  Are there specific locations for the signs?

 

Yes.

 

"( c ) (1) Each chief administrator of public recreational property shall display in prominent locations about the public recreational property a sign, at least six inches (6") high and fourteen inches (14") wide, stating:

 

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.

 

(2) As used in this subsection ( c ), "prominent locations about public recreational property" includes, but is not limited to, all entrances to the property, any building or structure located on the property, such as restrooms, picnic areas, sports facilities, welcome centers, gift shops, playgrounds, swimming pools, restaurants and parking lots."

 

- OS

Edited April 16, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[Erik88]

I've been trying to keep up with TN politics but I'm falling behind. There are 4-5 different threads running and I'm not sure what is actually being considered. Can someone summarize for me what is currently on the table?

 

So far I've seen,

 

1)OC without a permit

2)permit-less vehicle carry of any weapon with round in chamber

3)park carry

 

Am I missing anything?

[Oh Shoot]

I've been trying to keep up with TN politics but I'm falling behind. There are 4-5 different threads running and I'm not sure what is actually being considered. Can someone summarize for me what is currently on the table?

 

So far I've seen,

 

1)OC without a permit

2)permit-less vehicle carry of any weapon with round in chamber

3)park carry

 

Am I missing anything?

 

The only 3 new "weapons" laws, assuming Haslam signs.

 

- complete state preemption over all local firearms laws, including previously grandfathered ones (effective immediately)

- carry of any legal loaded firearm by anyone not prohibited from owning them in a private vehicle (July 1)

- no prohibition on carry any type or length knife (already signed) July 1

 

I think that's all?

 

EDIT: oh one more:

- revised the parking lot gun storage bill to clean up wording about privately owned vehicle.

 

- OS

Edited April 16, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[dawgdoc]

Oh Shoot--thanks; ever since I started coming here, you often have the answers to these important questions.  I hope you don't get bothered answering the same ones repeatedly.

 

I know you have frequently mentioned that we don't know what will happen if somepmr is charged with carrying past an improper sign on a business; has there been any case law regarding someone carrying into a improperly posted park?  I know no one wants to be the test case.

[Oh Shoot]

Oh Shoot--thanks; ever since I started coming here, you often have the answers to these important questions.  I hope you don't get bothered answering the same ones repeatedly.

 

I know you have frequently mentioned that we don't know what will happen if somepmr is charged with carrying past an improper sign on a business; has there been any case law regarding someone carrying into a improperly posted park?  I know no one wants to be the test case.

 

There have been a couple of folks busted for carrying in parks. I remember one nut in Nashville or Memphis that actually fired his heater in posted park.

 

Not many though, or we'd know about some of them, but probably more than make the news, like folks they've rousted for other stuff and then found a gun, I'd bet.

 

Dunno about how well the places were posted.

 

- OS

Edited April 16, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[Oh Shoot]

Oh, forgot your main question: our AG (somebody can find the link), issued an opinion shortly after the park statute was enacted, saying that a person could be convicted for carry in prohibited park even if no signs were present at all!

 

But no, no case law on that we know of.

 

- OS

Edited April 16, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[Erik88]

Thanks Mac. On the knife changes- did they tie that to having a HCP or is that not a requirement? 

[Oh Shoot]

Thanks Mac. On the knife changes- did they tie that to having a HCP or is that not a requirement? 

 

Nope. Any ole body. Even a convicted felon!

 

Only knife stuff they left it was in school statute, where really any knife is still verboten, and they added a little section with additional penalty for anybody using a switchblade in a crime. Duh. So criminals should be well warned that they should stick to a 12" Bowie knife to avoid the extra charge. :)

 

- OS

Edited April 16, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name="Erik88" post="1139261" timestamp="1397617062"]Thanks Mac. On the knife changes- did they tie that to having a HCP or is that not a requirement? [/quote] Not a requirement. That's a fully independent item and was not tied to the HCP like a Kentucky style CDW permit.

[Oh Shoot]

Erik, FL has "dangerous weapons" or at least knives tied to carry permit in one way or other, right? Something like permit lets you carry any type or length, but without permit limited to size and no switchblade, something like that?

 

- OS