HB 0995/SB 1171 Parks

[dawgdoc]

I was driving through St. Elmo in Chattanooga today, and I think the old sing has been removed.  When I was last there a few years ago, they had a very large no guns sign.  From the road, I noticed there was an empty pole where I thought that sign used to be.  Didn't stop to confirm, though.

[dawgdoc]

I went to Enterprise South Nature Park (owned by Hamilton County) today with my family. Not surprisingly, the "No Firearms in Hamilton County Parks" is still up. It is a separate sign by itself, so I'm not sure when "normal maintainence" would result in the sign being removed. Seems like a 5-minute job with the right wrench.

Two rangers drove by a total of 5 different times; I was OC a full-size 1911, so they probably noticed, but they just waved. Also, a jogger noticed me and I asked if we could carry there; he had recently moved to the area. I told him, "We can now!" and explained that the signs weren't required to be immediately removed.

I also emailed Handgunlaw.us about TN parks may still have signs that no longer apply so that nuance in the law can be explained on their page.

[Randall53]

I went to Enterprise South Nature Park (owned by Hamilton County) today with my family. Not surprisingly, the "No Firearms in Hamilton County Parks" is still up. It is a separate sign by itself, so I'm not sure when "normal maintainence" would result in the sign being removed. Seems like a 5-minute job with the right wrench.

Two rangers drove by a total of 5 different times; I was OC a full-size 1911, so they probably noticed, but they just waved. Also, a jogger noticed me and I asked if we could carry there; he had recently moved to the area. I told him, "We can now!" and explained that the signs weren't required to be immediately removed.

I also emailed Handgunlaw.us about TN parks may still have signs that no longer apply so that nuance in the law can be explained on their page.

 

If you do a search, even here on TGO, I believe you will find that the signs are not required to come down and that there removal was not part of the bill and helped the bills passage I believe in the finance part of the review. They still apply to everyone without an HCP. I could be wrong and I have read that they are being removed in some locations, but I believe that they don't have to be removed.

Edited June 28, 2015 by Randall53

[none]

Randal; "Seems like a 5 minute job with the right wrench" indeed but when you are so far to the left even the simplest task is not possible when they don't agree.

[Randall53]

I think I found it.  Here is the wording:

 

SECTION 4.  No department of state government shall change, remove or replace signs as a result of Sections 1 or 2 of this act prior to the time the signs are regularly scheduled to be changed, replaced, or removed or are required to be changed, replaced, or removed by any other law or due to destruction or theft; provided, that the general assembly may specifically provide funds for the purpose of removing or replacing signs in a general appropriations act.

 

Here's a link to it:   http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/109/Amend/HA0157.pdf

[Someotherguy]

Permit holders can walk right past the signs packing folks..

[monkeylizard]

I think I found it.  Here is the wording:

 

SECTION 4.  No department of state government shall change, remove or replace signs as a result of Sections 1 or 2 of this act prior to the time the signs are regularly scheduled to be changed, replaced, or removed or are required to be changed, replaced, or removed by any other law or due to destruction or theft; provided, that the general assembly may specifically provide funds for the purpose of removing or replacing signs in a general appropriations act.

 

Here's a link to it:   http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/109/Amend/HA0157.pdf

 

Yep. It's the same as when the State Parks became good to go. Requiring the signs to come down or be changed would add a fiscal note and that's going to kill pretty much any gun bill. Many signs are multi-purpose with more than just the "no guns" part so it's not as simple as just taking them down. I expect that we'll see the signs up at local parks for many years to come, just as we still do at state parks.

[dawgdoc]

That was my point; at this park, it is a stand alone metal sign. I'm not sure what the normal replacement schedule would be for such a sign, unless it were to be damaged or someone decided it was no longer needed. So it probably will be there for a long time.

I can understand the financial burden of changing a sign that has a list of other rules, but this one would not need to be replaced. Heck, you could argue they could make money selling it for scrap metal.

[monkeylizard]

But they have to pay the maintenance guy with the wrench to take it down, so it stays until it becomes necessary to remove it for some other reason.

[TennFire]

The issue with the signs involves a couple of considerations. 

 

First, it is generally illegaly to have a firearm in public, including in the parks, unless you have a permit.  So, the argument goes in the Alice in Wonderland halls of the legislature that its still a crime but permit holders, like perhaps law enforcement, are just an exception.  They don't usually print the exceptions, just the general rule.

 

Second, this game about printing signs that accurate state the law is necessary to avoid "fiscal notes."  Fiscal notes are budget estimates in the legislature.  They are used, or misused more accurately, in the House to route legislation to certain "black hole committees" like House Finance (chaired by Charles Sargent) and House Finance Subcommittee (chaired by Mike Harrison) so that such bills can be killed by as few as 5 or 6 "no" votes.  Thus, as has happened with the "permitless open carry" legislation in 2014 and 2015 by Rep. VanHuss and Sen. Beavers, these bills receive misleading if not fraudulent fiscal estimates from the Haslam administration (e.g., cost to print "concealed" on the permits if the law passes) and these estimates then automatically send these bills to these black hole committees where members who are blindly loyal to leadership will dispense with them.  So, in an attempt to avoid these fiscal notes, legislators are being forced to put language into bills to prohibit any state money being spent if the law passes such as prohibiting changing signs unless in the ordinary course of maintenance or otherwise posting new signs.

It is a game we should not have to play but because we have group of individuals in legislative leadership who are willing to abuse the committee system so as to disenfranchise most voters, we have to play it until the rules are rewritten to be "fair" as opposed to what is politely called "efficient".

[Oh Shoot]

First, it is generally illegaly to have a firearm in public, including in the parks, unless you have a permit.  So, the argument goes in the Alice in Wonderland halls of the legislature that its still a crime but permit holders, like perhaps law enforcement, are just an exception.  They don't usually print the exceptions, just the general rule.

 

That has nothing to do with it. There are not signs anywhere in TN  to remind you that it's a crime to carry without a permit, or to be carrying while drunk,  or carrying a loaded long gun, whatever.

 

The signs in question are only there for one reason -- they were mandated by law for cities or counties which chose to opt out of the previous version of 39-17-1311.

 

- OS

Edited June 29, 2015 by Oh Shoot

[TennFire]

That has nothing to do with it. There are not signs anywhere in TN  to remind you that it's a crime to carry without a permit, or to be carrying while drunk,  or carrying a loaded long gun, whatever.

 

The signs in question are only there for one reason -- they were mandated by law for cities or counties which chose to opt out of the previous version of 39-17-1311.

 

- OS

 

My point is that the reason why the signs remained after the adoption of the parks law in 2008 and again in 2015 is that it was still illegal to have guns in the parks unless you have a civilian permit and thus the signs are still an accurate statement of the law for the general population. 

"Why" the signs were originally posted in the parks (as you note under 39-17-1311 and in some instances under 39-17-1359 for those posted prior to 2008) has nothing to do with why those signs are still there.  The primary reason the signs are still there and are not being updated to accurately reflect the exception in the law is an issue of the fiscal note problems that negatively impact a lot of the 2nd Amendment style legislation.

[Oh Shoot]

My point is that the reason why the signs remained after the adoption of the parks law in 2008 and again in 2015 is that it was still illegal to have guns in the parks unless you have a civilian permit and thus the signs are still an accurate statement of the law for the general population. 

"Why" the signs were originally posted in the parks (as you note under 39-17-1311 and in some instances under 39-17-1359 for those posted prior to 2008) has nothing to do with why those signs are still there.  The primary reason the signs are still there and are not being updated to accurately reflect the exception in the law is an issue of the fiscal note problems that negatively impact a lot of the 2nd Amendment style legislation.

 

My point is that your second point is the ONLY reason why they are still there.

 

- OS

[K191145]

7-10-2015 update.

It's been since spring when the removal of the city "opt out" provision of the parks bill was being debated in the legislature, we were fighting for it and liberals were screaming blood in the streets, or blood in the grass since it's about parks yet that hasn't happened probably to some's disappointment. Still not clear about what "immediate vicinity" is though, the moon is in the immediate vicinity of the earth or the electron is in the immediate vicinity of the neutron, a lot of leeway between the two examples but just using your head should cause no problems. It's been an interesting ride since the 90's when "Shall Issue" was passed and the same ol predictable noise from the left hasn't changed one bit, then they tire and forget after 2 weeks.

So next session I guess it's Constitutional Carry and maybe Campus Carry, I would like the signage law changed this go around. 

Edited July 10, 2015 by K191145

[300winmag]

Yeah I would like to see the no guns signs criminal offense gone too.  I think that would be the easiest thing to change and would legalize a lot of places for people with permits just like this new park law.

[monkeylizard]

Yeah I would like to see the no guns signs criminal offense gone too.  I think that would be the easiest thing to change and would legalize a lot of places for people with permits just like this new park law.

 

This x 1,000. 39-17-1359 being repealed would be awesome. I'm not holding my breath with the Harwell-Ramsey-Haslam machine in place, but I thought the same thing about the parks bill and it passed. I'm not saying that a private business can't prohibit firearms, just that their private prohibition shouldn't carry the force of law with it. It should be no different than banning shirtless/shoeless people. It becomes trespassing if asked to leave and you don't, but no actual legal offense for being shirtless/shoeless/armed in the first place.

[K191145]

This x 1,000. 39-17-1359 being repealed would be awesome. I'm not holding my breath with the Harwell-Ramsey-Haslam machine in place, but I thought the same thing about the parks bill and it passed. I'm not saying that a private business can't prohibit firearms, just that their private prohibition shouldn't carry the force of law with it. It should be no different than banning shirtless/shoeless people. It becomes trespassing if asked to leave and you don't, but no actual legal offense for being shirtless/shoeless/armed in the first place.

They could always put up a "No Trespassing" sign on their business and that would have force of law, might not get much business though.  

[phil1979]

You know, it's kinda funny when Maine gets Constitutional Carry before Georgia and Tennessee does. I mean sad.

[Volphin]

I think I found it.  Here is the wording:

 

SECTION 4.  No department of state government shall change, remove or replace signs as a result of Sections 1 or 2 of this act prior to the time the signs are regularly scheduled to be changed, replaced, or removed or are required to be changed, replaced, or removed by any other law or due to destruction or theft; provided, that the general assembly may specifically provide funds for the purpose of removing or replacing signs in a general appropriations act.

 

Here's a link to it:   http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/109/Amend/HA0157.pdf

We all should carry a wrench and give the state a hand.  ;)

[K191145]

We all should carry a wrench and give the state a hand.   ;)

 

Back in the good ol days we just shot them.   :tough:

[E4 No More]

I find it comical that they worry about the cost of removing signs when they put up numerous stupid signs along Murfreesboro Road to inform passers-by that the road is old.

[tartanphantom]

I find it comical that they worry about the cost of removing signs when they put up numerous stupid signs along Murfreesboro Road to inform passers-by that the road is old.

 

or the fact that they just spend $2.9 million put up HOV lane signs literally every 100 yards on I-24 between Murfreesboro and Nashville-- although those were largely paid for with "federal" (meaning "our") money.

Edited July 14, 2015 by tartanphantom

[dawgdoc]

I was talking with a friend this morning who knows someone (yes, a friend of a friend) may have been hassled at Coolidge Park in Chattanooga.  It sounds like he was OC, and some Chattanooga cops pointed to the signs saying the park was posted.  He replied about the the change in the law to which the LEO responded that the park was still posted.  However, he was not arrested or forced to leave.  

 

It is a plausible story that some LEOs might be trying to intimidate people into not carrying or at least CC, but they know the law has changed.  I only have the story second hand, so I cannot verify it all.  If this is true, it would have happened before the Naval Reserve Center shooting.

[phil1979]

Perhaps an OC lunch at Coolidge Park in Chattanooga might be in order to help educate folks about the new law? I probably won't be able to make it anytime soon, but would gladly donate a few bucks to help pay for the BBQ.

[dawgdoc]

People might be a little on edge around here for awhile. I can imagine that there might be a few MWAG calls that LEO would be obligated to investigate, and the response may be a bit exuberant.