Lawmaker Says Memphis In May Breaking The Law

[The Legion]

http://www.localmemphis.com/story/d/story/lawmaker-says-memphis-in-may-breaking-the-law/37186/bK-60R_8skmvovB64wuwcQ

 

(This was on the news this evening)

 

MEMPHIS, TN (localmemphis.com) -- Lawmakers say people who run the Memphis In May festival are breaking the law.

Festival organizers say they have the right to tell people they cannot take handguns to the park, but a state senator says not so fast.

A law approved this year allows people who are licensed to carry guns in parks.

The park is getting pork ready. Stands going up where various barbecue teams gather during the big championship event.

Plenty of people, alcohol, and no handguns.

At least that is what organizers said.

"I sympathize with them. I want them to ban guns. I am all for them banning guns. The question is whether it's legal to ban guns and it's not," State Senator Lee Harris of Memphis said.

Harris voted against the bill to allow people to legally carry guns in parks. It is now the law, by the way.

Folks with Memphis in May said in a statement, “as a producer of events we have the right to stipulate rules and guidelines for patrons entering the leased park space to attend our events. We prohibit any type of weapon.”

Senator Harris said they cannot do that. 

"And so the fact that there's a non-profit organization renting park property for the month of May doesn't make that park property not subject to state laws," Harris said.

Harris says some cities are now trying to get around the law by saying their parks aren't parks.

It sounds silly, but this is what the city of Nashville is doing.

"Their city attorney's office is reclassifying some of their properties. They have some outdoor pavilions and some outdoor amphitheaters and they're reclassifying those saying they're not parks, because parks are for recreation and these are for sitting down, observing, and being entertained," Harris said.

No one is sure what will happen if anybody is banned or challenges the rules.

[mikegideon]

Makes you wanna just hide your gun and not worry about all this pettiness

[Chucktshoes]

Makes you wanna just hide your gun and not worry about all this pettiness

It's what I've always done whatever I've attended Memphis in May in the past. :o

[dawgdoc]

Makes you wanna just hide your gun and not worry about all this pettiness

Sounds like that is what they want, a chilling effect on the your ability to carry. If a few people who don't know the actual law decide not to carry, then the other side has won..

If we don't follow the law, we get fined or jailed. If a large enough group, private or government, does not follow the law, nothing happens except maybe eventually they have to pay legal costs in a lawsuit.

[A.J. Holst]

"Harris says some cities are now trying to get around the law by saying their parks aren't parks"

I have yet to hear a cognitive argument of why a legally armed citizen is a danger to the public safety.

[Worriedman]

"Harris says some cities are now trying to get around the law by saying their parks aren't parks"

I have yet to hear a cognitive argument of why a legally armed citizen is a danger to the public safety.

And here is the violation of their oaths, (legislators), sans empirical data showing restricting the law abiding citizen's Right ( and yes Dave, it is a right, the legislators have just subverted, or more correctly Oppressed it) to wear arms reduces crime, then their (legislators) prescriptions are unconstitutional per Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. 165, 181 (1871) where the TN Supreme Court said:

 

“The Tennessee Supreme Court has recognized that the General Assembly has the authority, under this section of the Constitution, to enact legislation to regulate the wearing and carrying of arms in public. Any such enactment, however, “must be guided by, and restrained to this end, and bear some well defined relation to the prevention of crime, or else it is unauthorized by this clause of the Constitution.” (Article 1 Section 26)

 

Edited May 12, 2015 by Worriedman

[300winmag]

Let Memphis in May feel good about their rules.  I would just conceal my handgun like I always do and carry down there at the park.  I guarantee you others will also.  The BBQ event itself is pretty safe.  It is the walking from the event to your car where you can have a problem.  People carrying at the BBQ event is no different than anywhere else.  The handgun stays holstered and 99% of people conceal so no one knows about it.

[LagerHead]

"Harris says some cities are now trying to get around the law by saying their parks aren't parks"

I have yet to hear a cognitive argument of why a legally armed citizen is a danger to the public safety.

Put your head the same place they have theirs. It will become clear to you, I promise.

[Chucktshoes]

Put your head the same place they have theirs. It will become clear to you, I promise.

[mikegideon]

Put your head the same place they have theirs. It will become clear to you, I promise.

 

[JAB]

http://www.localmemphis.com/story/d/story/lawmaker-says-memphis-in-may-breaking-the-law/37186/bK-60R_8skmvovB64wuwcQ

 

It sounds silly, but this is what the city of Nashville is doing.

"Their city attorney's office is reclassifying some of their properties. They have some outdoor pavilions and some outdoor amphitheaters and they're reclassifying those saying they're not parks, because parks are for recreation and these are for sitting down, observing, and being entertained," Harris said.
 

 

So, sitting down and being entertained isn't a recreational activity?  "Recreation" doesn't always mean kicking a soccer ball, throwing a frisbee, jogging or playing on a swing set.

 

According to the 2006 edition of Webster's New Explorer Encyclopedic Dictionary, :

 

 

 

rec*re*a*tion - refreshment of strength and spirits after work; also: a means of refreshment or diversion: hobby

 

So, yeah, it looks like a bunch of presumably well paid, dumb bass city attorneys can't even manage to do something so simple as looking up a word in a dictionary and then realizing that sitting, observing and being entertained clearly and easily does fall under the definition of 'recreation.'  Idiots.

 

I try to be a law-abiding citizen but when folks like this try and tell me that the law doesn't say what the law says or when something that is completely legal one moment suddenly becomes illegal just because a school softball team shows up to play on the field in the park then I start developing the attitude that my firearm is concealed so if I don't see metal detectors at the entrance then screw 'em.  I'm am also glad I don't live in Nashville or Memphis.  Heck, I am glad I no longer live in Knox County, for that matter, even though I do still work in Knox County.

 

Of course, twisting and bending the law to say whatever they want it to say probably wouldn't be justifiable if not for places like Memphis having such low violent crime rates because of having such rules in place.  Oh, wait - they don't have low crime rates, do they?

 

As far as the Memphis in May folks saying they have the 'right' to prohibit the carrying of guns in a public park where it is legal to carry guns just because they are leasing some space and having an event, well, by that logic I pay for my vehicle, I pay for the gas to operate my vehicle, I pay for a driver's license to be legally able to drive my vehicle, I pay for the license plates to be able to legally operate that vehicle on public roads and I pay taxes which help to pay for those roads so I guess, then by their logic I have the legal right to ignore the law and do not legally have to obey the set speed limits along said roads.

Edited May 12, 2015 by JAB

[Oh Shoot]

Well, too bad Kwik doesn't have a carry permit any more, perfect venue for him to open carry.

 

- OS

[monkeylizard]

Harris says some cities are now trying to get around the law by saying their parks aren't parks.

It sounds silly, but this is what the city of Nashville is doing.

"Their city attorney's office is reclassifying some of their properties. They have some outdoor pavilions and some outdoor amphitheaters and they're reclassifying those saying they're not parks, because parks are for recreation and these are for sitting down, observing, and being entertained," Harris said.

No one is sure what will happen if anybody is banned or challenges the rules.

 

This is distinction I've been harping about in the other threads on park carry. Notice that the deference in 1359 to 1311 does not contain the same list of places contained in 1311.

 

1359 only defers to 1311 for 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.

 

1311 specifically lists the grounds of 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.
 

Notice that 1359 does not mention civic centers or other building facilities and does not include the recreational purposes phrase. Amptheaters, zoos, stadiums, etc. don't fit any of the properties listed in 1359 unless they are in fact public parks. They aren't natural areas, campgrounds, greenways, etc., they are not parks in the traditional sense of an open green space, and they are usually not open to the public the way a regular park is because they charge admission. I don't know that admission charging can change whether something is or isn't a park. The National Park Service and some states charge admission to many of their parks, but they're still parks.

 

To me it's clear that carrying in any of these gov'mt owned/operated places is no longer a violation of 1311, but it's unclear if 1359 would apply or not.

[300winmag]

The Memphis Zoo is within Overton Park and Memphis in May is within Tom Lee Park.  Can you believe that Nashville is going through the paperwork to try to reclassify parks because people who have been fingerprinted and background checked might be carrying?  They sure never went through that when all the gang bangers have been carrying in the parks.  Same thing with Memphis.  Both Memphis and Nashville are some of the most violent cities in the country about every year according to crime stats and instead of dealing with gang bangers they put the focus on hassling us.

 

HB 995 that became law says for the new exemption:

 

"Persons possessing a handgun, who are authorize to carry the handgun pursuant to 39-17-1351, while within or on a public park, natural area, historic park, nature trail, campground forest, greenway, waterway, or other similar pubic place..........."

 

The bill description says this:

 

" As enacted, allows permit holders to carry handguns in parks and other public recreation areas owned or operated by local governments except when the property is in use by a school for an athletic event or other school-related activity; prohibits permit holders from carrying handguns in parks and other such areas that are owned or operated by a school; removes authority of local governments to prohibit handguns in parks by posting. - Amends TCA Title 39, Chapter 17, Part 13."

 

 

I'd say if any of those amphitheaters and pavilions are inside park land or other similar public place in Nashville, you should be legal there jus like the Memphis Zoo.  I'd even think that it is probably illegal for Beale Street to keep people with handgun carry permits from carrying on Beale Street since that is a historical area and a public street. 

Edited May 12, 2015 by 300winmag

[Trekbike]

If any cities successfully get parks reclassified into something else I just hope they find they screwed themselves out of some benefits of it being a park. For sure they shouldn't be allowed to use the Parks & Recreation dept anymore to take care of the area. Also got to layoff the Park Rangers, etc. I just hope Karma bites them good... Edited May 13, 2015 by Trekbike

[Oh Shoot]

If any of these places are to be claimed as no longer for "recreation", then they need to pay everyone who frequents them, as they must then be obviously at "work".

 

- OS

[btq96r]

This can be fixed with a legislative tool.  Just pass a state law, and local ordinances that says every contract/agreement to lease public parks or land must include a clause that the lessee cannot prohibit the lawful possession of firearms as would normally be allowed at the park or land.

[JayC]

This can be fixed with a legislative tool.  Just pass a state law, and local ordinances that says every contract/agreement to lease public parks or land must include a clause that the lessee cannot prohibit the lawful possession of firearms as would normally be allowed at the park or land.

Simpler is just remove local governments from 39-17-1359

Problem solved.

[btq96r]

Simpler is just remove local governments from 39-17-1359

Problem solved.

 

I think local governments should be able to decide if carry is permitted on properties they own just like every other property owner.  If they can't do it, then the state has to do it for them, and that's a can of worms I'd rather not see.

 

Plus the chances of amending 39-17-1359 as you suggest are as close to zero as can be.

[Garufa]

I think local governments should be able to decide if carry is permitted on properties they own just like every other property owner.

 

I have a problem with the notion of governments "owning" property.  Yes, they can and should dictate how some property is used under their control but they do not own it.  The people do.

 

It's a matter of semantics but still I think should be keep in mind.

[Mike.357]

I think local governments should be able to decide if carry is permitted on properties they own just like every other property owner.  If they can't do it, then the state has to do it for them, and that's a can of worms I'd rather not see.

 

Plus the chances of amending 39-17-1359 as you suggest are as close to zero as can be.

 

Explain please how government owns anything?

[btq96r]

I have a problem with the notion of governments "owning" property.  Yes, they can and should dictate how some property is used under their control but they do not own it.  The people do.

 

It's a matter of semantics but still I think should be keep in mind.

 

Explain please how government owns anything?

 

Ownership as in a government agency can be the legal entity owning a property.  The Property Clause is pretty firm in legal ground on this.

 

Yeah, I get it that "the people" ultimately own government property, but like Garufa said, it's semantics.

[Worriedman]

I think local governments should be able to decide if carry is permitted on properties they own just like every other property owner.  If they can't do it, then the state has to do it for them, and that's a can of worms I'd rather not see.

 

Article 1 Section 26 already says only the State Legislature can occupy that field, we do not need new laws, we need new legislators.

[btq96r]

Article 1 Section 26 already says only the State Legislature can occupy that field, we do not need new laws, we need new legislators.

 

The word only doesn't appear in Art 1, Sec 26. 

 

With 39-17-1359, the authority to regulate has been delegated to an individuals, corporations, business entities, and local, state or federal government entities or agents thereof to make the call on their properties.

Edited May 14, 2015 by btq96r

[ou812]

Tennessee Senate Majority Leader Mark Norris' office had their legal team double check this for FOX13: They told us, in fact, state law trumps any local legislation banning guns in the parks even Memphis in May. 

 

But I guess it is gong to take a a court to decide this!

 

 

http://www.myfoxmemphis.com/story/29058599/memphis-in-may-ban-on-guns-may-violate-state-law