TN Attorney General Opinon On Park Property

[300winmag]

Some of you might want to go over to the AG's website and read his opinion on park property that addresses some of the questions we have had with the new park carry law.  The opinion was requested by a state senator in Memphis.

 

An opinion is just an opinion when it is not from your own attorney, but I would say the AG's office has a lot to back up his opinion regarding handgun carry permits and recreational facilities. 

 

Basically the AG's office says that if a property is a park or rec facility owned by the state, county, or city, then we should be good to go as far as carrying due to the plain reading of the statute and legislative intent.

Edited July 30, 2015 by 300winmag

[maroonandwhite]

Yep. Nice to have that on the books now.

[Worriedman]

http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2015/07/30/ag-private-companies-cant-ban-legal-guns--public-parks/30898391/

 

From the Nashville Fish Wrap...:
 

"Senate Minority Leader Lee Harris, D-Memphis, requested the opinion.

"Because we're very disturbed by this, we're convening an emergency conference call with advocates and stakeholders who are as concerned as we are about gun safety," Harris said in response to the opinion.

"Hopefully someone from the governor's office and the sponsor of this legislation will join us, because this could have negative implications across the state."

Edited July 30, 2015 by Worriedman

[monkeylizard]

Here's the AG's Opinion: http://attorneygeneral.tn.gov/op/2015/op15-063.pdf

[maroonandwhite]

I love how these guys are basically saying that they don't care about what the laws say. They think they can do whatever they want.

[300winmag]

I think it is funny reading how these city leaders are disturbed by people with handgun carry permits but have yet to care very much about gang members walking around these park areas with pistols and criminal records.  I also think it is funny that the Nashville city attorney is trying to change the definition of 'recreational property' and claim that people sitting around are not on recreational property because they are not participating in an activity/sport. 

 

There was a lady robbed and kidnapped from Overton Park in Memphis last week after a concert.  The criminals put her in the trunk of her car and drove off with the car.  She was lucky that she was somehow able to get out of her car truck on Poplar.  From what I have read, the criminals have yet to be caught and that has been a week ago.  That is just one of many incidents in Overton Park.  So, it looks like to me these city leaders need to concentrate on criminals instead of trying to hassle honest people who are trying to protect themselves. 

Edited July 30, 2015 by 300winmag

[Oh Shoot]

Here's the AG's Opinion: http://attorneygeneral.tn.gov/op/2015/op15-063.pdf

 

Excellent. I doubt seriously that Cooper would have been that clear cut about it. Slatery has clearly delineated the intent and wording of the statutes involved without bending over backward to find gray areas as Cooper would likely have done.

 

Who says elections don't matter, even when your goobernator is a RINO?

 

- OS

[btq96r]

So, it looks like to me these city leaders need to concentrate on criminals instead of trying to hassle honest people who are trying to protect themselves. 

 

Individual rights aren't much of a concern when business interests enter the conversation.

 

I really think these decisions are all about making Nashville a destination city for events by being as friendly to as many groups as possible both in and out of state, including those who don't want any guns at their events.  The AG opinion is someone not reading the script like they're expected to. 

[runco]

I like it!

[mikegideon]

Individual rights aren't much of a concern when business interests enter the conversation.

 

I really think these decisions are all about making Nashville a destination city for events by being as friendly to as many groups as possible both in and out of state, including those who don't want any guns at their events.  The AG opinion is someone not reading the script like they're expected to. 

 

"Senate Minority Leader Lee Harris, D-Memphis, requested the opinion.

 

You referred to the wrong gassbags. This one was from the garden spot of the state.

[monkeylizard]

True, but one of the key locations impacted by this is the brand new Ascend Amphitheater located entirely in Riverfront Park, fenced off, and managed by a 3rd party. Their policy is no weapons and the AG just flipped them the proverbial bird. Metro Law Director Saul Solomon said today that despite the AG's opinion, weapons are still banned in Ascend Amphitheater, thus returning the 1 fingered salute. I doubt this will be settled without a court case.

 

From the Tennesseean article:

He (Solomon) argued that the new state law references taking guns to areas owned, used or operated by a local government "for recreational purposes."

"When we think of 'recreating,' it's somebody going out and doing something, not somebody sitting around," Solomon told The Tennessean at the time, referencing why he believed the law didn't apply to the amphitheater.

 

So movies, theater, concerts, and sitting on the beach are not recreating? That's something only a crooked city lawyer could come up with.

 

 

Out of curiosity, how would one have standing to bring a suit against the city for violating state law if they were denied entry due to being legally armed? Is denial of access enough to show "harm" and have legal standing to bring suit?

Edited July 31, 2015 by monkeylizard

[Trekbike]

I love how these guys are basically saying that they don't care about what the laws say. They think they can do whatever they want.

They learned that trick from the guy living in the WH...

[hipower]

I think it is funny reading how these city leaders are disturbed by people with handgun carry permits but have yet to care very much about gang members walking around these park areas with pistols and criminal records.  I also think it is funny that the Nashville city attorney is trying to change the definition of 'recreational property' and claim that people sitting around are not on recreational property because they are not participating in an activity/sport. 
 
There was a lady robbed and kidnapped from Overton Park in Memphis last week after a concert.  The criminals put her in the trunk of her car and drove off with the car.  She was lucky that she was somehow able to get out of her car truck on Poplar.  From what I have read, the criminals have yet to be caught and that has been a week ago.  That is just one of many incidents in Overton Park.  So, it looks like to me these city leaders need to concentrate on criminals instead of trying to hassle honest people who are trying to protect themselves.

I think that's a good assessment of the thinking process for all those against park carry.

I just don't understand why those juveniles and older won't pay attention to gun laws. :stunned:

[dawgdoc]

True, but one of the key locations impacted by this is the brand new Ascend Amphitheater located entirely in Riverfront Park, fenced off, and managed by a 3rd party. Their policy is no weapons and the AG just flipped them the proverbial bird. Metro Law Director Saul Solomon said today that despite the AG's opinion, weapons are still banned in Ascend Amphitheater, thus returning the 1 fingered salute. I doubt this will be settled without a court case.

 

I would say the AG opinion is pretty unambiguous.  Can the AG bring an action against the city, or does someone have to sue on an individual basis?  The arrogance of Solomon is jaw-dropping.  Nashville needs to be taken down a notch and humbled.

Edited July 31, 2015 by dawgdoc

[Omega]

True, but one of the key locations impacted by this is the brand new Ascend Amphitheater located entirely in Riverfront Park, fenced off, and managed by a 3rd party. Their policy is no weapons and the AG just flipped them the proverbial bird. Metro Law Director Saul Solomon said today that despite the AG's opinion, weapons are still banned in Ascend Amphitheater, thus returning the 1 fingered salute. I doubt this will be settled without a court case.

 

From the Tennesseean article:

 

 

So movies, theater, concerts, and sitting on the beach are not recreating? That's something only a crooked city lawyer could come up with.

 

 

Out of curiosity, how would one have standing to bring a suit against the city for violating state law if they were denied entry due to being legally armed? Is denial of access enough to show "harm" and have legal standing to bring suit?

I would think so, seeing as you would of paid good money for a ticket and had to suffer the embarrassment of being denied entry.  Might even give you PTSD and a phobia against public entertainment venues.

[300winmag]

I'm guessing that new park area in Nashville is not running metal detectors.  I think for now I'd carry concealed in that area until people forget about carry being legal.

[maroonandwhite]

I'm guessing that new park area in Nashville is not running metal detectors.  I think for now I'd carry concealed in that area until people forget about carry being legal.

You know I feel the same way on one hand but on the other hand the arrogance of that guy and others on the matter just pisses me off. I can't say I am in the situation or have the resources to be the test case but I dang sure hope someone has the balls to tell them to go fly a kite.

 

Frankly I think we all have cause to be "offended" by it. How is it that people walk on eggshells around the issues of gay whatever, or civil rights (not belittling those), but when it comes to 2A rights no one worries about saying "nope not in my house." Especially when it isn't even their house!

[monkeylizard]

You know I feel the same way on one hand but on the other hand the arrogance of that guy and others on the matter just pisses me off. I can't say I am in the situation or have the resources to be the test case but I dang sure hope someone has the balls to tell them to go fly a kite.

 

Frankly I think we all have cause to be "offended" by it. How is it that people walk on eggshells around the issues of gay whatever, or civil rights (not belittling those), but when it comes to 2A rights no one worries about saying "nope not in my house." Especially when it isn't even their house!

 

I feel the exact same way.

[LagerHead]

I love how these guys are basically saying that they don't care about what the laws say. They think they can do whatever they want.

 

To be fair, they asked the AG's opinion. It's obvious they were looking for a loophole (like, "Can we sublet this to someone who sublets it to someone who sublets it someone else's uncle's cousin's former roommate, and then can that person ban guns"), but they went about it the right way. And the AG put the kibosh on that and said, "NO!"

[300winmag]

If Beale Street is still running metal detectors at night and turning people away with handgun carry permits, that would be interesting if a person turned away went to court.  Beale Street is owned by the city of Memphis and has been leased to a company from what I understand.  I don't see how Beale Street would not fall under the state pre emption law and this new park law because Handy Park is within the confines of the Beale Street entertainment area.

[LagerHead]

If Beale Street is still running metal detectors at night and turning people away with handgun carry permits, that would be interesting if a person turned away went to court.  Beale Street is owned by the city of Memphis and has been leased to a company from what I understand.  I don't see how Beale Street would not fall under the state pre emption law and this new park law because Handy Park is within the confines of the Beale Street entertainment area.

 

Unfortunately, even though it has been clearly stated by the AG, this is exactly what it will take. Same with Bridgestone Arena, LP field, etc. etc. etc. etc.

[phil1979]

Ok folks, here's the real deal now. Now it's a different ball-game with the AG's opinion out on this.

 

IF the Chief Law-Enforcement Officer of your state says doing XYZ is NOT a crime, and you then do XYZ, you CANNOT be charged with a crime, because that would be ENTRAPMENT. If they attempt to do this to you, use this as your defense.

 

The AG mentioned the word "recreation" several times in that opinion. That means publicly owned zoos, amphitheaters, stadiums, arenas, museums, etc. are all now LEGAL to carry at, either openly or concealed whether or not they are managed by a private entity, unless otherwise restricted by state law.

 

Print out this opinion and carry a copy with you to show any officer called to arrest you.

[monkeylizard]

Ok folks, here's the real deal now. Now it's a different ball-game with the AG's opinion out on this.

 

IF the Chief Law-Enforcement Officer of your state says doing XYZ is NOT a crime, and you then do XYZ, you CANNOT be charged with a crime, because that would be ENTRAPMENT. If they attempt to do this to you, use this as your defense.

 

The AG mentioned the word "recreation" several times in that opinion. That means publicly owned zoos, amphitheaters, stadiums, arenas, museums, etc. are all now LEGAL to carry at, either openly or concealed whether or not they are managed by a private entity, unless otherwise restricted by state law.

 

Print out this opinion and carry a copy with you to show any officer called to arrest you.

 

I'd not go quite that far. Arguing law with an officer on the street rarely results in an "oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know that. Thank you for furthering my education on the finer points of firearms law in the State of Tennessee. have a nice day!" Remember that this is just the AG's legal opinion. It is not case law. Even if you beat the rap, you may not beat the ride. Everyone has to ask themselves if carrying in what we think (and what the AG apparently thinks) is an OK area, but the local LEOs say otherwise, is worth the cost and hassle of fighting the charge? It seems that the plain reading of the law, and now the AG's opinion, would be on your side, but you just never know what a judge may decide. Then you have to appeal if you lose. How far are you as an individual willing and able to take that costly legal fight?

Edited August 2, 2015 by monkeylizard

[300winmag]

I would conceal but know that I am legal when I am carrying at those places.  By concealing, your carrying would probably never be an issue.  At worst, you'd probably be asked to leave.  No point in arguing with someone on the street that you are supposed to be allowed entry into a location when armed unless you have an attorney that can help you.  I think most police are understanding of people with handgun carry permits but if you just blatantly start arguing and do not leave, then that is when things become difficult without legal counsel.  I think your attitude will determine a lot of how the police deal with you if someone notices your gun at one of these recreational properties.  I hope we don't have a lot of attention seekers with cameras and microphones purposefully going to the locations to start stuff with the police.  Remember, the media is not on our side with this issue unlike other social issues.

Edited August 2, 2015 by 300winmag

[Oh Shoot]

I'd not go quite that far. Arguing law with an officer on the street rarely results in an "oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know that. Thank you for furthering my education on the finer points of firearms law in the State of Tennessee. have a nice day!" Remember that this is just the AG's legal opinion. It is not case law. Even if you beat the rap, you may not beat the ride. Everyone has to ask themselves if carrying in what we think (and what the AG apparently thinks) is an OK area, but the local LEOs say otherwise, is worth the cost and hassle of fighting the charge? It seems that the plain reading of the law, and now the AG's opinion, would be on your side, but you just never know what a judge may decide. Then you have to appeal if you lose. How far are you as an individual willing and able to take that costly legal fight?

 

Yep, unless Bill or the AG personally threatens some of these officials with contempt or something, will likely take test case to clear up. And depending on applicability of the venue in the test case, may take one for each type of area or facility.

 

The danger with the test case is that you get a chance of a judge suspending the statute as "vague" as happened in the first go around with the "guns in bars" thang, requiring legislature to tweak it.

 

Main possible problem as I see it is that 39-17-1311 and 39-17-1359 perhaps don't exactly jibe clearly enough for a higher court to totally agree with AG's opinion.

 

- OS

Edited August 2, 2015 by Oh Shoot