HB 0995/SB 1171 Parks

[Oh Shoot]

I actually don't think they do. I think they actually get paid extra for the time over. Wasn't there a stink a few years ago when the republicans came into power that the Dems were running the sessions long because they still got money for the extra days?

 

Don't know of anything that's changed. Haven't looked it up in a while, but that's all set by statute.

 

Here's the Wiki and Ballotpedia description (identical, probably Wiki copied it),  AFAIK I think it's fairly accurate. I believe the "office allowance" goes year round. So the only thing they're really out is the per diem. Meaning they're having to add days for their base pay and pay for meals and a place to stay. I'd probably just sleep in the office, myself. ;)

 

"To keep the legislature a part-time body, it is limited to ninety "legislative days" per two-year term, plus up to fifteen days for organizational purposes at the start of each term. A legislative day is considered any day that the House or Senate formally meets in the chambers of each house. If it remains in session longer than ninety legislative days, lawmakers cease to draw their expense money, currently set at $141 per legislative day.

Legislators also receive an "office allowance" of $1,000 per month, ostensibly for the maintenance of an office area devoted to their legislative work in their homes or elsewhere within their district. Traditionally, it has been easier, politically-speaking, to raise the per diem and office allowance than the salary.

The speaker of each house is entitled to a salary triple that of other members. Under a law enacted in 2004, in the future legislators will receive a raise equally to that given to state employees the previous year, if any.

The governor may also call "extraordinary sessions," limited to the topic or topics outlined in the call, limited to another twenty days. Two-thirds of each house may also initiate such a call by petitioning for it."

 

I guess there must be a lot of "non legislative days" involved, or they'd eat up the allotment in just one year, let alone two.

 

- OS

[300winmag]

Does the bill include the buildings inside park property?  What about places like the Pink Palace in Memphis, Nashville Zoo, or aquarium in Chattanooga that are all inside park areas?  I'm assuming all those places will be legal with this bill but the bill has a lot of wording that is not exactly clear.

[Oh Shoot]

Does the bill include the buildings inside park property?  What about places like the Pink Palace in Memphis, Nashville Zoo, or aquarium in Chattanooga that are all inside park areas?  I'm assuming all those places will be legal with this bill but the bill has a lot of wording that is not exactly clear.

 

"...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."

 

Yeah, I predict this will be an ongoing hassle. I mean, shouldn't all sports stadiums owned, used, or operated by a city or county also be included?

 

Will probably be a lot of "duh, we didn't think of that". Because I'll bet hardly any of them actually read the existing statute.

 

- OS

Edited April 22, 2015 by Oh Shoot

[300winmag]

I would assume you are legal carrying in the zoo and aquarium because both of those are in a public park but that is just the way I read it without a legal background.

[JAB]

I can't understand how anyone can believe that criminals obey signs and laws when they make their living doing the opposite. I just can't decide if they are nieve, stupid, or just trying to pacify those that ARE, in order to keep their cushy jobs.

 

This simple logic is dead on - and I don't believe for one minute that the legislators (and probably most anti-gunners) believe that such signs, etc. will stop criminals.  No, it is more about casting legal gun owners and HCP holders as potential dangers to public safety as well as demonizing inanimate objects (guns).  Then, when we want to change ineffective and even dangerous laws that leave honest citizens unequipped to best defend themselves against the criminals who will and do ignore the law and postings we can be portrayed as radical gun nuts who are one step away from shooting up a little league game and have no concern for the safety of children, old ladies or bed wetting hoplophobes.

 

Specifically, have you ever seen a public park that had armed guards and a metal detector at all entrances (or any, for that matter) on a daily basis?  I can't say that I have.  Laws only have authority as far as people choose to obey them.  Sure, if caught breaking the law you could be charged with doing so but that isn't what I am talking about.  What I am talking about are laws and regulations such as the ones in question here which prohibit the carry of firearms in a public park.  If the individual in question keeps his or her firearm concealed then the fact is that (barring some very unusual circumstance) no one is likely to know that person is carrying a firearm.  As most parks do not employ armed guards to man metal detectors at their entrances, anyone could walk into the park with a well concealed firearm on their person and no one there would be the wiser - meaning that such laws and regulations are, essentially, unenforceable.  Therefore, the only people who will obey such postings are those who choose to do so.  My guess is that the criminal element would not choose to do so.

Edited April 22, 2015 by JAB

[jbrownch]

Then, when we want to change ineffective and even dangerous laws that leave honest citizens unequipped to best defend themselves against the criminals who will and do ignore the law and postings we can be portrayed as radical gun nuts who are one step away from shooting up a little league game and have no concern for the safety of children, old ladies or bed wetting hoplophobes.

 

Geezzzzz.... The last part of your post sounds just like the rantings from Harris from Memphis that I've seen a couple of time while viewing the streamings the legislature. Crazy logic... Protect the parks from the law abiding, HCP holders from coming in excercising their rights, so the thugs can come in and do what they want, and not have to worry about being challenged. But then again, if the people in power both locally and nationally, believed and supported the 2A, we wouldn't be having to talk about this.

 

 

Great post JAB... Guess we'll just have to see where this goes, and how (as others have asked) some of the gray areas are addressed.

Edited April 22, 2015 by jbrownch

[GKar]

Getting back to the "legislative days" and the GA per diem: today, April 23, is only the 29th legislative day of this session, according to their own calendar.  So they still have a lot of time before getting any where near the statutory limit.  From Ramsey's many local proclamations on the topic, the hurry is not a matter of hitting that limit, but is being cast as a "we're saving the taxpayer money by getting done quickly and going home" line of BS.

[K191145]

 we can be portrayed as radical gun nuts who are one step away from shooting up a little league game and have no concern for the safety of children, old ladies or bed wetting hoplophobes.

 

 

 

It's funny how those so-called "progressive elitists" who will label someone as racist if you criticize Obama, homophobe if you believe in a man/woman marriage, islamiphobe if you believe most terrorist attacks are carried out by radical Muslims today, find it acceptable to pre-judge an entire group of people they don't know personally because they believe in the right to own and carry a firearm for personal protection. Judging and having disdain for a group of people because of a legal personal choice is simple bigotry, no different than to say all young black men are gang bangers or all Muslims are terrorists. Of course in their sanctimonious mind they have a superior intellect over every other human on the planet so you can't make them realize they are BIGOTS.

Edited April 23, 2015 by K191145

[tartanphantom]

It's funny how those so-called "progressive elitists" who will label someone as racist if you criticize Obama, homophobe if you believe in a man/woman marriage, islamiphobe if you believe most terrorist attacks are carried out by radical Muslims today, find it acceptable to pre-judge an entire group of people they don't know personally because they believe in the right to own and carry a firearm for personal protection. Judging and having disdain for a group of people because of a legal personal choice is simple bigotry, no different than to say all young black men are gang bangers or all Muslims are terrorists. Of course in their sanctimonious mind they have a superior intellect over every other human on the planet so you can't make them realize they are BIGOTS.

 

See? You're beginning to see the "progressivism" in its true light. :up:

Modern Liberalism is truly a mental disability-- not at all grounded in pragmatic reality. Groupthink only enforces prejudicial tendencies and is but one step away from a lynch mob.

Edited April 23, 2015 by tartanphantom

[phiferran]

Latest from Mr. Haslam.

 

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/politics/state/story/2015/apr/23/tn-governor-expects-make-decision-week-guns--parks-bill/300407/

[xsubsailor]

 I wonder if he realizes that his political career might hinge on this decision. 

[phiferran]

His NRA rating was downgraded to a C, so I wonder how far up he goes if he signs the bill-or how much lower does he go if he vetoes the bill.  I would think he wants to pull that up before the next Senate election, but who knows.   The timing is not good--he says he will decide by the end of the week right after the legislature adjourns??????

[Oh Shoot]

 I wonder if he realizes that his political career might hinge on this decision. 

 

I don't think you realize that being middle of the road is probably best these days -- hence Bob and Lamar.

 

I'd think that if the "guns in parks" issue were decided by state wide referendum, it would probably fail.

 

If I had to bet, I'd go with him not signing it, just like the changes to preemption bill last session. That's the best straddle-the-fence strategy to hedge his bet.

 

- OS

Edited April 23, 2015 by Oh Shoot

[LagerHead]

I wonder if he realizes that his political career might hinge on this decision.

Yea, he signed Knoxville ban into law when he was mayor, so I don't think he's too worried about it.

[Oh Shoot]

Yea, he signed Knoxville ban into law when he was mayor, so I don't think he's too worried about it.

 

Well, technically, they simply did nothing about it here, just continued to rely on existing grandfathered city ordinance. Which went away with the preemption change last year.

 

- OS

[LagerHead]

Well, technically, they simply did nothing about it here, just continued to rely on existing grandfathered city ordinance. Which went away with the preemption change last year.
 
- OS

My understanding of the statewide guns in parks law was that if a city/county did nothing, guns would be allowed in parks. A city had to opt out, i.e. take specific action to outlaw guns in parks. The same thing was done here in Nashville.

As far as the preemption law last year, I'm not sure to what you are referring, so I can't really comment on that.

[Oh Shoot]

My understanding of the statewide guns in parks law was that if a city/county did nothing, guns would be allowed in parks. A city had to opt out, i.e. take specific action to outlaw guns in parks. The same thing was done here in Nashville.

Correct, except for any local ordinances enacted before 4/8/1986. Knoxville already had that. City Council discussed having at least some of the parks to be carry legal and whatnot. Haslam wanted things simply left as they were, which was the decision that prevailed. No posting was required under the old ordinance, so nothing changed, no money spent, etc.

 

Knox County went the other way, and having no local ordinance, did not opt out of new state law, allowing carry in county parks.

 

Only bright side was that during those years, the Knoxville penalty was much less for anyone prosecuted than the Class A Misdemeanor you'd face on the state charge.
 

As far as the preemption law last year, I'm not sure to what you are referring, so I can't really comment on that.

 

Changes to 39-17-1314 last year took away local options for all but three local firearms laws, including those under the previously grandfathered date, removed that clause entirely.

 

The only local ordinances allowed after that passed regard:

 

- carrying of firearms by employees/contractors

- location of firing ranges

- discharge of firearms period

 

- OS

Edited April 23, 2015 by Oh Shoot

[LagerHead]

Correct, except for any local ordinances enacted before 4/8/1986. Knoxville already had that. City Council discussed having at least some of the parks to be carry legal and whatnot. Haslam wanted things simply left as they were, which was the decision that prevailed.
 
Only bright side was that during those years, the penalty was much less for anyone procecuted than the Class A Misdemeanor you'd face on the state charge.
 
 
Changes to 39-17-1314 last year took away local options for all but three local firearms laws, including those under the previously grandfathered date, removed that clause entirely.
 
- OS

Thanks. I knew you'd set me straight. And now that you have, I clearly remember that what you stated happened in Knoxville is exactly how it went down. Time had clouded my memory.

[macville]

Well, technically, they simply did nothing about it here, just continued to rely on existing grandfathered city ordinance. Which went away with the preemption change last year.

 

- OS

 

Although, they (Mayor right down to the police chief) are totally clueless that it's currently not illegal to carry in a City of Knoxville park.

[Oh Shoot]

Although, they (Mayor right down to the police chief) are totally clueless that it's currently not illegal to carry in a City of Knoxville park.

 

Yeah, who knows. Various of "they" may be aware, but if so, certainly it's been a "let sleeping dogs lie" policy thus far.

 

Course, hopefully won't matter one way or the other soon.

 

- OS

[macville]

Saw this in a "news" article tonight: "Gov. Bill Haslam said Thursday he will announce by the end of this week whether he will veto the guns-in-parks bill or let it become law."

[macville]

Yeah, who knows. Various of "they" may be aware, but if so, certainly it's been a "let sleeping dogs lie" policy thus far.

 

Course, hopefully won't matter one way or the other soon.

 

- OS

 

Quotes that I saw from both showed that they had no clue about preemption law from last year. But why does that not surprise me...

[Oh Shoot]

Quotes that I saw from both showed that they had no clue about preemption law from last year. But why does that not surprise me...

 

Ah, okay, not that I keep close finger on the pulse of local stuff, but I simply never heard the subject mentioned by anybody at all here since the law was changed.

 

- OS

Edited April 24, 2015 by Oh Shoot

[macville]

Ah, okay, not that I keep close finger on the pulse of local stuff, but I simply never heard the subject mentioned by anybody at all here since the law was changed.

 

Well, it was certainly pretty obvious from the KPD Chief's testimony in Nashville. I've seen random comments from the Mayor in a few articles that I can not find right now.

Here's another question... would a library fall under this law? I haven't seen anything in the text that would make me think (unless it was in a park), but I don't know how they are classified. 

[monkeylizard]

Nashville's libraries are not run by the parks department, so I'd say they fall under something else, at least here.

Edited April 24, 2015 by monkeylizard