HB 0995/SB 1171 Parks

[K191145]

I guess we will just have to "assume" what the "immediate vicinity" is. The old Kingston Springs park has a baseball field, I assume the immediate vicinity is the field and grass and bleachers that surrounds the field. Something to be argued in court if someone is arrested.

[macville]

I vote we start calling cities like Nashville, Memphis, Farragut, Chattanooga who posted and offer a work detail to come take down their signs for them:)

Edited April 26, 2015 by macville

[K191145]

I vote we start calling cities like Nashville, Memphis, Farragut, Chattanooga who posted and offer a work detail to come take down their signs for them:)

 

Ah heck it's Tennessee. let's shoot them first.   :)

 

JK.

[monkeylizard]

You mean the signs, right?

Edited April 26, 2015 by monkeylizard

[dawgdoc]

I vote we start calling cities like Nashville, Memphis, Farragut, Chattanooga who posted and offer a work detail to come take down their signs for them:)

 

I think this should seriously be considered.  Since they have used fiscal notes in the past to torpedo similar bills, we should think them for passing this law by completely eliminating the burden of maintaining or removing the signs.  Basically, a few volunteers with a step ladder and wrenches could remove the signs and graciously leave the posts for these municipalities to post whatever other signs they want.  They wouldn't have to spend one cent on employee hours to do anything with signs anymore.  

 

If the municipalities refuse, then it would indicate that they don't really care about the cost associated with sign removal, but they do care for the confusion and doubt the signs might cause to legal carriers.

[phil1979]

Just take a bunch of photos with your OC'd firearms next to the sign and post them on Facebook to embarrass them.

[rmiddle]

I think this should seriously be considered.  Since they have used fiscal notes in the past to torpedo similar bills, we should think them for passing this law by completely eliminating the burden of maintaining or removing the signs.  Basically, a few volunteers with a step ladder and wrenches could remove the signs and graciously leave the posts for these municipalities to post whatever other signs they want.  They wouldn't have to spend one cent on employee hours to do anything with signs anymore.  

 

If the municipalities refuse, then it would indicate that they don't really care about the cost associated with sign removal, but they do care for the confusion and doubt the signs might cause to legal carriers.

 

If you are serious you should offer to replace them with new signs that comply with the new law.  If there signs are anything like Maryland they will have 3 or 4 things on the signs other then the no gun part.  

 

Thanks

Robert

[tnhawk]

Now for a couple days of fun reading lefty comments in the Tennessean.

Business as usual.  The Tennessean is a lefty tool.

[jbrownch]

If you are serious you should offer to replace them with new signs that comply with the new law.  If there signs are anything like Maryland they will have 3 or 4 things on the signs other then the no gun part.  

 

Thanks

Robert

 

An excellent idea Robert, BUT, if they don't even have the money (so they say) to take the old signs down, then I'm sure they don't have the money to print, and put up new ones.

[K191145]

You mean the signs, right?

 

UHHH,,, yea, I ment the signs.   :whistle:  

 

There once was a time that the most dangerous job in the world was being a road sign in the south.

Edited April 27, 2015 by K191145

[K191145]

If you are serious you should offer to replace them with new signs that comply with the new law.  If there signs are anything like Maryland they will have 3 or 4 things on the signs other then the no gun part.  

 

Thanks

Robert

 

Many moons ago I work for a company that signing an employee/employer agreement was mandatory, it listed a bunch or so-called rules, nothing about "no-Guns", that was before shall issue but the last sentence at the bottom read, "This agreement may be terminated at any time by the employer or employee." Didn't even mean you had to be fired or quit, it just ment it was worthless and could be ignored. Maybe they could put a sticker on the old signs where is says "No Firearms" underneath that the sticker could say, "Well, unless you really want to."

[jbrownch]

... Maybe they could put a sticker on the old signs where is says "No Firearms" underneath that the sticker could say, "Well, unless you really want to."

 

"Unless you really want to.".... and have a valid HCP

[monkeylizard]

Buy up some of the "guns allowed" stickers and start putting them on the park signs.  :D

 

[bersaguy]

Buy up some of the "guns allowed" stickers and start putting them on the park signs.  :D

 

I don't know but you might be able to be charged with vandalism of city property if you do anything to the signs since the signs belong to the city or county..................jmho

[Someotherguy]

Lets not call any undue(and likely unpopular) attention to ourselves by slapping silly little stickers on govt signs...Best thing we can do is simply enjoy our freedom to finally carry our handguns in our local parks...:)

[ReticulateLemur]

"Unless you really want to.".... and have a valid HCP

 

Yeah, but as things currently stand it's illegal to carry anywhere without a valid HCP, so that's just being redundant.

[daddyo]

That has been on my mind also. Some DS's like the ones in Texas that kept carrying their AR's into restaurants. They are way past STUPID!

 

Do you have any understanding of why OCT was carrying long guns?

[JAB]

Do you have any understanding of why OCT was carrying long guns?

 

Maybe this should be a multiple choice question.

 

A. Because they didn't realize that there is a difference between raising awareness for a cause and looking like radical idiots

B. Because they actually believed that carrying an AR where someone was just trying to eat a burrito with their family would win public sympathy for their cause

C. Because those long guns look so cool when you pose for a picture in a fast food joint wearing your sunglasses (indoors) or your 'tactical' boonie hat

D. All of the above

 

 

As for park carry in the 'vicinity' of school related functions, I suggest that a firearm that no one knows is there (carried concealed) is unlikely to cause any grief or legal troubles for someone who unknowingly wanders into such 'vicinity'.

Edited April 27, 2015 by JAB

[Randall53]

Below is the thinking of the sponser of the bill and others regarding immediate vicinity:
Here is the link to the article it came from: http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/state/haslam-signs-gunsinparks-bill_27539929


FROM THE ARTICLE:
The sponsors of the bill said they purposely did not define what constitutes “immediate vicinity.”

“We were trying to make clear that you as a handgun-carry permit holder are not allowed to go onto school property. If you are in a park adjoining school property and you’re a handgun-carry permit holder, as long as the school is not using, at that time, the park, you can go into the park,” said Sen. John Stevens, R-Huntingdon, the Senate sponsor of the bill.

“It needs to be a school-sanctioned event. It’s not just kids playing on a playground,” he said. “If that playground is on school property, there can’t be a permit holder carrying a gun there. If it’s not on school property and a school-sponsored event is not underway, the permit holder can carry a gun there,” Stevens said last week.

SO.....it appears that they are thinking this:
1. Park is on school property - NO CARRY AT ANY TIME.
2. Park is adjacent to school but not on school property and no sanctioned school activity - CARRY PERMITED
3. Park is adjacent to school but not on school property with children playing in park but not sacntioned shcool activity - CARRY PERMITTED

This does not answer the question of parks NOT adjacent to schools, but for MY safety, if I go to any park and see a sactioned school activity going on I'm not going in at all. I'm going to err on the side of caution for MY protection against prosecution. Edited April 27, 2015 by Randall53

[daddyo]

Maybe this should be a multiple choice question.

 

A. Because they didn't realize that there is a difference between raising awareness for a cause and looking like radical idiots

B. Because they actually believed that carrying an AR where someone was just trying to eat a burrito with their family would win public sympathy for their cause

C. Because those long guns look so cool when you pose for a picture in a fast food joint wearing your sunglasses (indoors) or your 'tactical' boonie hat

D. All of the above

 

 

As for park carry in the 'vicinity' of school related functions, I suggest that a firearm that no one knows is there (carried concealed) is unlikely to cause any grief or legal troubles for someone who unknowingly wanders into such 'vicinity'.

 

Since open carry of handguns is already legal in TN, there is no need to carry long guns to protest. Besides, not a single person was killed or injured by lawful gun owners during the OCT protests that I am aware of.

 

Looks like their protests achieved the objective, because the state legislators and the governor listened and legalized open carry of handguns.

Edited April 27, 2015 by daddyo

[JAB]

Check out the comments on the Tennessean article-- the "tolerant" crowd is practically pissing themselves in the comment section. Of course, the commensurate name-calling and insults are there too.

I know it's wrong, but It's really hard not to gloat over these "blood-in-the-parks-it's-for-the-children-the-sky-is-falling Chicken Little types :panic: .

 

Must exercise restraint, though. Not gonna sink to their level. :whistle:

 

The funny thing, to me, is that many of the folks making comments criticizing this change to the law do not seem to realize that:

 

1.  This law has nothing to do with state parks.  Even some of our local media talking air-heads have stated (before it was signed) that it would make it legal to carry in state and local parks.  It has been legal to carry in state parks since before Haslam was governor.  The law changed shortly after Obama signed legislation making it legal to carry in federal parks.

 

2.  This law did not make it legal to carry in local parks.  Carry in local parks has been legal, again, since before Haslam was governor.  That is another point that the sound byte mavens who pass for 'news reporters' also seem to have missed.  This law simply removes the ability of local governments to 'opt-out' of the state law which already made it legal to carry in local parks.  Therefore, unless their local government opted out, there have been hcp holders legally carrying firearms in local parks (as well as in state and federal parks) - and around their precious, little brats - for years.

 

3.  Despite the fact that they and their kids likely never get more than twenty yards from their minivan and the more highly trafficked areas of the parks, there are spots even in some local parks that are secluded and can be a bit 'lonesome'.  There are also greenways where crimes can and have occurred.  Case in point:

 

  http://www.wbir.com/story/news/local/maryville-blount/2013/09/11/homeless-man-now-charged-with-three-attacks-on-local-women-in-less-than-2-weeks/2801265/

 

In other words, it isn't specifically about carrying a gun at their kids' little league games (although that really shouldn't be an issue, either.)  It is about being equipped to protect oneself at any time or place when the need may arise - which can be anywhere at any time.

[JAB]

Since open carry of handguns is already legal in TN, there is no need to carry long guns to protest. Besides, not a single person was killed or injured by lawful gun owners during the OCT protests that I am aware of.

 

Looks like their protests achieved the objective, because the state legislators and the governor listened and legalized open carry of handguns.

 

Except, at least to my understanding, they still won't be able to carry in Chipotle's as their antics lead to those stores being posted against carry of any type, even in states where open or concealed carry was already legal.  Please correct me if I am wrong about that..

Edited April 27, 2015 by JAB

[tartanphantom]

Except, at least to my understanding, they still won't be able to carry in Chipotle's as their antics lead to those stores being posted against carry of any type, even in states where open or concealed carry was already legal.  Please correct me if I am wrong about that..

 

Chipotle's products will keep me away long before I ever even see the gunbuster sign on their door. Love Tex-mex in general, but Chipotle's food is way overrated, and even if they encouraged legal carry I still wouldn't darken their door.

But that's just me.

Edited April 27, 2015 by tartanphantom

[JAB]

Chipotle's products will keep me away long before I ever even see the gunbuster sign on their door. Love Tex-mex in general, but Chipotle's food is way overrated, and even if they encouraged legal carry I still wouldn't darken their door.

But that's just me.

 

Honestly never been to one.  My point, however, was that there is a difference in being an activist and, maybe, carrying long guns in public areas to bring awareness to a cause and taking your protest - be it carrying long guns in a Chipotle's or open carry of a handgun in Starbucks - into a private establishment.  Putting private businesses in the middle of a debate that they likely want no part of - often resulting in everyone being banned from carrying in businesses that were not, previously, posted - is cutting one's  own nose (and the nose of every other member of the firearm carry community) off to spite one's face.

 

This is the same reason I hope folks don't go overboard with park carry and act like Voldemort when carry in state parks became legal and he went walking around Radnor Lake park with an openly carried Drako.  Just because we can doesn't always mean we should.  Getting carried away and not exercising a little common sense (real common sense, not the 'common sense' that anti's refer to when trying to stifle our rights) is not the way to gain future advances in the restoration of firearm and carry rights.

Edited April 27, 2015 by JAB

[tartanphantom]

I agree, JAB.