What was that about state preemption?

[Guest confidence]

Hello, TGO...I've been too busy and haven't been on here in way too long! How is everyone?? Anyways, I saw something here about a bill for state preemption on property controlled by local governments, it seemed...I searched the forum and googled but couldn't find much. What did I miss while I was away??!! (besides permitless vehicle carry) Did I miss a bill that died or something?

[Oh Shoot]

Hello, TGO...I've been too busy and haven't been on here in way too long! How is everyone?? Anyways, I saw something here about a bill for state preemption on property controlled by local governments, it seemed...I searched the forum and googled but couldn't find much. What did I miss while I was away??!! (besides permitless vehicle carry) Did I miss a bill that died or something?

 

The Bill

 

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/108/Bill/SB1612.pdf

 

Which passed with this amendment added:

 

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/108/Amend/SA1084.pdf

 

Main change for some of us (like in Knoxville) is that city/county can't ban carry in parks/rec areas by local ordinance, nor by any formerly grandfathered ones.

 

- OS

Edited July 16, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[Guest confidence]

The Bill

 

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/108/Bill/SB1612.pdf

 

Which passed with this amendment added:

 

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/108/Amend/SA1084.pdf

 

Main change for some of us (like in Knoxville) is that city/county can't ban carry in parks/rec areas by local ordinance, nor by any formerly grandfathered ones.

 

- OS

 

Wait....[pinching self]...Are you actually saying that local municipalities and counties, etc. can no longer ban a park??? You've got to be kidding!! I may do a happy dance right here in my pajamas...  Do the signs have to come down? What about if the park is being used by a school at the time? Is 1314 the only TCA that got modified? Can local govs still ban city buildings on or off a park or other property they have control of? Seems like not!!! Tell me you're not joking!

[macville]

Wait....[pinching self]...Are you actually saying that local municipalities and counties, etc. can no longer ban a park??? You've got to be kidding!! I may do a happy dance right here in my pajamas...  Do the signs have to come down? What about if the park is being used by a school at the time? Is 1314 the only TCA that got modified? Can local govs still ban city buildings on or off a park or other property they have control of? Seems like not!!! Tell me you're not joking!

 

No, you misunderstood. They can't use their pre 1986 ordnance to still ban parks like the City of Knoxville had been. They can still ban under the state law.

[enfield]

So next year we need to get rid of the words "otherwise provided by state law or".

[peejman]

No, you misunderstood. They can't use their pre 1986 ordnance to still ban parks like the City of Knoxville had been. They can still ban under the state law.

 

 

Which functionally means they must be posted.  Previously, Knoxville used their pre 1986 ordinance as an excuse to not spend money updating signage.  This takes away that excuse. 

[MiddTennTaco]

[quote name="peejman" post="1169097" timestamp="1405535112"]Which functionally means they must be posted. Previously, Knoxville used their pre 1986 ordinance as an excuse to not spend money updating signage. This takes away that excuse. [/quote] Can someone confirm or deny this? Ohshoot?

[Oh Shoot]

Can someone confirm or deny this? Ohshoot?

 

Yes, confirm.  The only way cities/counties may now ban recreational property is under the provisions of 39-17-1311, which calls for a formal resolution of city/county council and erecting signs as per the statute.

 

Knoxville to my knowledge has done nothing, so AFAIK it's been legal to carry in its parks and rec property since shortly after April 28th (Haslam didn't sign it, it became law by default).

 

I wonder if Knoxville is even aware of the change, really. If so, they're apparently just gonna let things kick along at least for a while without action, dunno.

 

Be aware that our illustrious AG has opined that one may still be convicted for carry in a park even if there is no signage at all, though. FWTW.

 

If Knoxville does ban carry and post, it's actually worse than it was though: instead of a $50 fine and possible though I'd say unlikely jail time, one would be looking at Class A State Misdemeanor instead, where the scores really change. Plus you lose your HCP for the extent of the sentence, which includes any probationary time too.

 

My policy has not changed -- I don't open carry. ;)

 

- OS

Edited July 18, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[peejman]

Yes, confirm.  The only way cities/counties may now ban recreational property is under the provisions of 39-17-1311, which calls for a formal resolution of city/county council and erecting signs as per the statute.

 

Knoxville to my knowledge has done nothing, so AFAIK it's been legal to carry in its parks and rec property since shortly after April 28th (Haslam didn't sign it, it became law by default).

 

I wonder if Knoxville is even aware of the change, really. If so, they're apparently just gonna let things kick along at least for a while without action, dunno.

 

Be aware that our illustrious AG has opined that one may still be convicted for carry in a park even if there is no signage at all, though. FWTW.

 

If Knoxville does ban carry and post, it's actually worse than it was though: instead of a $50 fine and possible though I'd say unlikely jail time, one would be looking at Class A State Misdemeanor instead, where the scores really change. Plus you lose your HCP for the extent of the sentence, which includes any probationary time too.

 

My policy has not changed -- I don't open carry. ;)

 

- OS

 

 

I'd guess they're just waiting on the funding process to appropriate money to update the signs.  Municipal financial processes being what they are, that might take a while. 

[Oh Shoot]

I'd guess they're just waiting on the funding process to appropriate money to update the signs.  Municipal financial processes being what they are, that might take a while. 

 

Well, I don't exactly keep a daily finger on the pulse here, but haven't heard a word about City Council action on the matter, which has to happen first.

 

- OS

[phiferran]

Murfreesboro city council opted out when the state law was passed that allowed licensed citizens to carry in parks a couple of years ago and banned firearms in all city parks including the greenway and posted signs everywhere. Those signs have been removed from several entrances to the greenway and their website has changed to mention no weapons are allowed in park buildings and athletic fields, but not the entire system as before. Even though they opted out and already had the proper signs to continue banning all weapons for licensed citizens, they must have quietly changed their policy. I live in the county but use the greenway system often, but I have a hard time believing they gave up their banning efforts without somebody in the boro screaming about blood running in the streets without a ban. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Guest confidence]

Okay so tell me if this is a correct summary on local parks:

 

Previous state of things:

TCA 39-17-1311 and 39-17-1314 deemed null all local laws banning HCP carry in parks that were created between April 8, 1986 and July 1, 2009. (See also AG Opinion 09-179.) Laws enacted before April 8, 1986 were grandfathered in, however, and these governments were allowed to ban without even posting proper signage. Going forward, local governments were also allowed to ban as long as they created new laws and posted signage according to 39-17-1311 and 39-17-1314.

 

Current state of things:

Effective July 1, 2014, any parks covered under the grandfather rule above are no longer grandfathered in. They must now pass a local law and post signage in compliance with state law just like any other local park if they want to ban. Of course, good old AG Opinion 09-158 says that you can still be charged even if they don't post signs, though. As long as the law exists, they can still charge you. Also, these grandfathered in parks have 90 days to remove their now meaningless signs, if they have any.

[peejman]

Sounds pretty close to me. 

[Oh Shoot]

Okay so tell me if this is a correct summary on local parks:

 

Previous state of things:

TCA 39-17-1311 and 39-17-1314 deemed null all local laws banning HCP carry in parks that were created between April 8, 1986 and July 1, 2009. (See also AG Opinion 09-179.) Laws enacted before April 8, 1986 were grandfathered in, however, and these governments were allowed to ban without even posting proper signage. Going forward, local governments were also allowed to ban as long as they created new laws and posted signage according to 39-17-1311 and 39-17-1314.

 

Current state of things:

Effective July 1, 2014, any parks covered under the grandfather rule above are no longer grandfathered in. They must now pass a local law and post signage in compliance with state law just like any other local park if they want to ban. Of course, good old AG Opinion 09-158 says that you can still be charged even if they don't post signs, though. As long as the law exists, they can still charge you. Also, these grandfathered in parks have 90 days to remove their now meaningless signs, if they have any.

 

Only thing not accurate is that in neither case could/can a city or county "pass a new law". They must simply pass a public resolution to opt out of 39-17-1311 if they wish to prohibit carry on rec property.

 

- OS

[Worriedman]

Only thing not accurate is that in neither case could/can a city or county "pass a new law". They must simply pass a public resolution to opt out of 39-17-1311 if they wish to prohibit carry on rec property.

 

- OS

Actually, the resolution need NOT be public.  Many of the municipalities passed said resolutions behind closed doors..e.g. 

[Worriedman]

Remember, MTAS sent out a preemptive strike to every City and Municipality in the State outlining the steps and showing them how to "Opt out", instructing them that there was no need to have a public hearing, providing the legal paperwork to do so, and instructing each recipient to do so. (Your tax dollars at work)!).

 

Freshman Representative Tillman Goins (great young former Marine who really wants to do the right thing) put forward legislation that would truly remove local municipalities ability to occupy the field with respect to permit carry in parks, Beth Harwell, Ron Ramsey, Charles Sargent, Andy Holt et al. squashed the attempt.

They are breaking him to the fist, left his bill shredded and dead, teach him to think the Constitution actually means a damn thing to the oligarchy.

Edited August 1, 2014 by Worriedman

[Oh Shoot]

Actually, the resolution need NOT be public.  Many of the municipalities passed said resolutions behind closed doors..e.g.

 

Right you are.

 

Not sure why I even wrote the word, it's not in the statute. Guess I was thinking "sunshine law" applied to city and county council meetings, silly me.

 

- OS

[Guest Shooter00]

I spoke with a lawyer from the Knox City Council Law department earlier today.
He stated that the language from the final bill that went into effect recently gave Knoxville the right to remain as is....
The opt out remains as is and no signage has to be posted.

That's just what I was told.
If someone else gets a chance call them and see if you get the same answer.
865-215-2050

[Oh Shoot]

I spoke with a lawyer from the Knox City Council Law department earlier today.
He stated that the language from the final bill that went into effect recently gave Knoxville the right to remain as is....
The opt out remains as is and no signage has to be posted.

That's just what I was told.
If someone else gets a chance call them and see if you get the same answer.
865-215-2050

 

He is absolutely completely blatantly wrong. The language in the statute is crystal clear, as will be shown in the first case if they stupidly try to prosecute it.

 

First of all, Knoxville never "opted out" of anything the first time the law was changed, only relied on local ordinance. All local ordinances regarding firearms have been made void, except three:

 

- discharging fireams

- location of firing ranges

- carry by city/county employees or contractors

 

 

Here is "the language from the final bill"

 

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/108/Amend/SA1084.pdf

 

- OS

Edited August 1, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[Worriedman]

The oligarchy does not think it has to explain anything to anybody.  Bill Baby has their back and they can treat you just any old way they want.

[JayC]

Sounds like the next target should be de-funding MTAS?  Why do we need this group to begin with?

[Oh Shoot]

Sounds like the next target should be de-funding MTAS?  Why do we need this group to begin with?

 

Also CTAS. Goes way back to UT being able to influence money flow back to the UT system county by county and city by city, under the guise of "helping" them govern. They used to have CGT (Center for Government Training) where they'd go into cities and counties and conduct workshops after elections. They finally got so few invites to do that they closed it down, but somehow CTAS and MTAS keeps cranking.

 

Same thing as having an Ag agent in each county, though that I guess still has more of an actual beneficial nature.

 

- OS

Edited August 3, 2014 by Oh Shoot