HB 0995/SB 1171 Parks

[monkeylizard]

Yeah. My OC comment was tongue-in-cheek.

[monkeylizard]

Well, the property that 1311 affects is:

 

"... any public park, playground, civic center or other building facility, area or property owned, used or operated by any municipal, county or state government, or instrumentality thereof, for recreational purposes."

 

I suppose it will be determined by contract/lease law to some extent? Meaning, just what rights and "rules" do the feds give up along with the lease of the land? Does it become totally under Clarksville's control as de facto city property during the lease?

 

We ain't seen nuthin' yet about some of the hissy fits this change will foment. Again I mention coliseums, arenas, zoos, discovery/adventure center type facilities, all manner of stuff that is either in a park or is clearly "recreational" in purpose, etc.

 

- OS

 

Would those non-park properties (zoos, arenas, etc.) still fall under 1359? 1311 clearly mentions them, but the part of 1359 which defers parks to 1311 doesn't mention them.

 

1359 ( f) This section shall not apply to the grounds of any public park, natural area, historic park, nature trail, campground, forest, greenway, waterway or other similar public place that is owned or operated by the state, a county, a municipality or instrumentality thereof. The carrying of firearms in those areas shall be governed by § 39-17-1311.

Edited April 25, 2015 by monkeylizard

[phil1979]

At the end of each of our Georgia bills, something to the effect of "All conflicting provisions of other laws are hereby repealed".

 

Maybe Tennessee needs something like that?

[monkeylizard]

At the end of each of our Georgia bills, something to the effect of "All conflicting provisions of other laws are hereby repealed".

 

Maybe Tennessee needs something like that?

 

The problem with that is that you have to know when each law or revision was enacted. If law A and law B conflict and they both say that, which one is overriding the other?

[phil1979]

That would not be a legal problem per se (laws are dated), it would only be incumbent on me to research it, as I should know the law anyway.

 

 

The problem with that is that you have to know when each law or revision was enacted. If law A and law B conflict and they both say that, which one is overriding the other?

[Bassoneer]

Precise legislative question:

 

Is law really enacted immediately when signed by Gov, or does it have to be codified in-house there or whatever,  showing the "Became Public Chapter xx" on bill progress?

 

- OS

I wondered the same thing.  When we got the new law regarding automatic knives it went into effect on July 1st...seems like most of these things have been effective on July 1st.  I tried doing some internet searches but couldn't find anything definitive.  Perhaps there was one thing that said if there was a 2/3 majority in the legislature, then the governor's signature enacted the law immediately, but I'm just not sure.  Can somebody answer this?  Several folks are ready to carry in parks, and it would be a good thing, but I want to make sure there's no delay until July 1st.  Best wishes, B

[macville]

I wondered the same thing.  When we got the new law regarding automatic knives it went into effect on July 1st...seems like most of these things have been effective on July 1st.  I tried doing some internet searches but couldn't find anything definitive.  Perhaps there was one thing that said if there was a 2/3 majority in the legislature, then the governor's signature enacted the law immediately, but I'm just not sure.  Can somebody answer this?  Several folks are ready to carry in parks, and it would be a good thing, but I want to make sure there's no delay until July 1st.  Best wishes, B

 

The second he signed it yesterday you were good to go.

[K191145]

I know the media will announce if a bill is effective on July 1st.

[JayC]

I would think anything governed by 1311 would be covered under that definition.  As a legislative intent issue...  the 'other similar public place' is a big catch all.

 

No case law as far as I'm aware so, who knows.

 

Would those non-park properties (zoos, arenas, etc.) still fall under 1359? 1311 clearly mentions them, but the part of 1359 which defers parks to 1311 doesn't mention them.

 

[Oh Shoot]

I wondered the same thing.  When we got the new law regarding automatic knives it went into effect on July 1st...seems like most of these things have been effective on July 1st.  I tried doing some internet searches but couldn't find anything definitive.  Perhaps there was one thing that said if there was a 2/3 majority in the legislature, then the governor's signature enacted the law immediately, but I'm just not sure.  Can somebody answer this?  Several folks are ready to carry in parks, and it would be a good thing, but I want to make sure there's no delay until July 1st.  Best wishes, B

 

The final bill said "upon becoming law". My question was when does that actually happen, on signature only, or on being assigned to Public Charter?

 

The revision to parking lot bill on the other hand indeed said July 1.

 

- OS

[jbrownch]

Wonder how this affects the Riverwalk Park areas in Chattanooga, particularly the area around Chicamauga Dam, and Chicamauga Lake.

[Oh Shoot]

I would think anything governed by 1311 would be covered under that definition.  As a legislative intent issue...  the 'other similar public place' is a big catch all.

 

So is "other building facility, area or property owned, used or operated by any municipal, county or state government, or instrumentality thereof, for recreational purposes." in 1311.

 

Seems the clear distinction between the two is the recreational component.

 

On the other hand, 1359 specifically only excludes some recreational property:

 

"This section shall not apply to the grounds of any public park, natural area, historic park, nature trail, campground, forest, greenway, waterway or other similar public place that is owned or operated by the state, a county, a municipality or instrumentality thereof. The carrying of firearms in those areas shall be governed by § 39-17-1311."

 

On the third hand, it includes "other similar public place".

 

- OS

Edited April 25, 2015 by Oh Shoot

[jbrownch]

The final bill said "upon becoming law". My question was when does that actually happen, on signature only, or on being assigned to Public Charter?

 

The revision to parking lot bill on the other hand indeed said July 1.

 

- OS

 

According to this post at Knoxblogs.com, it went into law when he signed it....

 

"Gov. Bill Haslam today signed into law the “guns-in-parks” bill, though saying in a letter to legislators that he still has concerns about the measure (HB995)."

 

Here's a link to the blog site, it's the 2nd article down the page.

 

http://knoxblogs.com/humphreyhill/category/guns/

 

They also state that it went into law the minute he signed it.

Edited April 25, 2015 by jbrownch

[Oh Shoot]

According to this post at Knoxblogs.com, it went into law when he signed it....

 

 

"Gov. Bill Haslam today signed into law the “guns-in-parks” bill, though saying in a letter to legislators that he still has concerns about the measure (HB995)."

 

Here's a link to the blog site, it's the 2nd article down the page.

 

http://knoxblogs.com/humphreyhill/category/guns/

 

 

Just another newsman, big deal.

 

Hell, Knoxville mayor and police chief have been wailing about how local authority to carry in parks was lost, when it actually went away a year ago now already. I wrote a comment on local news thread asking if our city attorney actually has a law degree.

 

It's probably not really significant, even if it's not "officially" in effect till assigned, as doubt anyone would try to enforce it because of that kind of technicality.

 

- OS

Edited April 25, 2015 by Oh Shoot

[macville]

The final bill said "upon becoming law". My question was when does that actually happen, on signature only, or on being assigned to Public Charter?

 

The revision to parking lot bill on the other hand indeed said July 1.

 

From past experience, it happens when it's signed. Since there was nothing in the final signed bill that had an effective date, the second Haslam's pen finished, it was legal.

[jbrownch]

From past experience, it happens when it's signed. Since there was nothing in the final signed bill that had an effective date, the second Haslam's pen finished, it was legal.

 

Sorta, kinda think that's the same thing I said in the post a little above yours. Kind of a newbie here, but it seems like the sources I quoted in my previous post, could face some serious ramifications if they posted something that wasn't true... i.e. It became law when he signed the bill... That could have some serious consequences if they reported wrong, and as far as I can see the bill was written to become law immediately upon the Governor signing it.

Edited April 25, 2015 by jbrownch

[Garufa]

Once the governor signs a bill it is law.  Period.  Not when new law books get printed or LexisNexis gets updated.  

 

The conference committee report that was the end result of the original bill clearly states it "shall take effect upon becoming law".  BTW, the original bill stated it would take effect April 6th. 

[phil1979]

What happened a year ago that caused Knoxville to lose their grandfathered in status to ban firearms in parks?

 

Just another newsman, big deal.

 

Hell, Knoxville mayor and police chief have been wailing about how local authority to carry in parks was lost, when it actually went away a year ago now already. I wrote a comment on local news thread asking if our city attorney actually has a law degree.

 

It's probably not really significant, even if it's not "officially" in effect till assigned, as doubt anyone would try to enforce it because of that kind of technicality.

 

- OS

[Oh Shoot]

What happened a year ago that caused Knoxville to lose their grandfathered in status to ban firearms in parks?

 

Revision of 39-17-1314. Removed all authority of local ordinances regarding firearm/ammo legislation, including grandfathered ones previously allowed, except for discharging them, location of firing ranges, and carry by city/county employees and contractors.

 

Knoxville prohibited carry by pre-1986 city ordinance, not via adhering to 39-17-1311 and hence didn't have to post.

 

I was one of the few folks who seemed to find it pretty significant at the time.

 

- OS

Edited April 26, 2015 by Oh Shoot

[RoDan]

Once the governor signs a bill it is law.  Period.  Not when new law books get printed or LexisNexis gets updated.  

 

The conference committee report that was the end result of the original bill clearly states it "shall take effect upon becoming law".  BTW, the original bill stated it would take effect April 6th. 

I agree. It is being publicized enough too so hopefully if someone were to get stopped in park while legally carrying the officer/ranger would be "in the know" and not able to play the ignorant card. 

[Paisan]

So how long before some 'tard (a la the Chipotle OC dipshits) shows up at Chester Frost beach with an AR pistol slung on a single point?

[monkeylizard]

I give it until Tuesday.

[Grayfox54]

I walk for exercise in many of our local parks almost every day. Lucky for me, my small city choose not to "opt out" of the original parks law, so I have been legally carrying in our parks for years.

The troublesome part for us has been the "school use" provision. Just how are we supposed to know if there's a school group in there? Is the whole park now off limits or just the area around the school kids? How far would I have to stay away from them? etc and so on? 

Thje school use part is just so vague that there is real concern that the new law will be challanged on this item alone. Plus the possability of an otherwise honest citizen being charged with a Class E felony simply because they weren't aware of a school group being in the park. 

As someone mentioned earlier, there seems to be the unreasonable assumption that a person with a Handgun Permit will suddenly turn into a mass murder if school kids are present.

The new law is a step forward, but we still have a very long way to go with guns in parks yet. 

[Randall53]

So how long before some 'tard (a la the Chipotle OC dip####s) shows up at Chester Frost beach with an AR pistol slung on a single point?

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! Edited April 26, 2015 by Randall53

[ReticulateLemur]

I walk for exercise in many of our local parks almost every day. Lucky for me, my small city choose not to "opt out" of the original parks law, so I have been legally carrying in our parks for years.

The troublesome part for us has been the "school use" provision. Just how are we supposed to know if there's a school group in there? Is the whole park now off limits or just the area around the school kids? How far would I have to stay away from them? etc and so on? 

Thje school use part is just so vague that there is real concern that the new law will be challanged on this item alone. Plus the possability of an otherwise honest citizen being charged with a Class E felony simply because they weren't aware of a school group being in the park. 

As someone mentioned earlier, there seems to be the unreasonable assumption that a person with a Handgun Permit will suddenly turn into a mass murder if school kids are present.

The new law is a step forward, but we still have a very long way to go with guns in parks yet. 

 

For what it's worth, the law does have a provision that says if you are unaware that a group is school-affiliated you have a chance to leave the area.  Basically, you have to be aware that you're in the "immediate vicinity" of a school group on an athletic or multi-purpose field before you can be charged.  If you refuse to leave after being informed of such then you are in violation and can be arrested and charged.

 

The entire school exception is still utter bullshit, but baby steps.