Knoxville Allowing Fair to Prohibit Guns in a Park

[Just2Honor]

Email just received from TFA   Cities are pushing firearm prohibition in spite of our victory on Capital Hill

 

URGENT CALL TO ACTION!
KNOXVILLE indicating it will IGNORE state law that allows handgun permit holders to carry in public parks!

The Tennessee Valley Fair has notified the public that the fair is posted, stating on page two of their Fair Guidebook: "Please note: no weapons of any kind are permitted at Chilhowee Park. All entrants are subject to search. . ."

Chilhowee Park is owned by the City of Knoxville.  State of Tennessee now prohibits by law the City from regulating the possession of firearms in local parks based on a law passed in 2015 that is now in effect.

The Tennessee Attorney General issued a formal opinion concluding that a local government may not ban handgun permit holders from carrying their handguns in the public parks (with a limited exception that is not relevant to the fair).  Further, the AG concluded that the state law now prohibits an event that rents or uses the public park from banning firearms in the park. 

Tennessee Firearms Association member Liston Matthews has been in contact with Knoxville Police Chief David Rausch, who referred him to the Executive Director of the Fair, Scott Suchomski.  Mr. Suchomski clearly stated his unwillingness to modify the Fair's policy despite applicable state law.  This places permitted citizens at risk of arrest if they attempt to enter Chilhowee Park with their lawfully carried handgun.

Interestingly, it may also place at risk the City of Knoxville, Knox County and/or the Fair and their respective decision makes at risk of being sued for violating the civil rights of handgun permit holders under color of state law. 

Please call and email your state senator, state representative, Governor Bill Haslam, Mayor Madeline Rogero, and City Law Director Charles Swanson.

Call on them to require the Tennessee Valley Fair to comply with state law since they are operating in a city park. Tell them you worked too hard to get this law passed for it to be ignored, possibly subjecting lawful permit holders to unlawful arrest.

Contact information:

Governor Bill Haslam
bill.haslam@tn.gov
615-741-2001

Mayor Madeline Rogero
mayor@knoxvilletn.gov
(865) 215-2040

City Law Director Charles Swanson
cswanson@knoxvilletn.gov
(865) 215-2050

Go to this website and enter your street address to get the contact information for your senator and representative. Enter your street address and city to get their email addresses:

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/legislators/

Click on their picture to get their phone number.

This same problem is arising in Memphis, Nashville and now Knoxville.  It is clear that these local governments are intentionally ignoring state law and apparently no one in the Haslam administration is going to step in to enforce state law, to investigate potential wholesale civil rights violations or to even seek a court order to enforce state law!

Even if you are not impacted by the Knoxville actions - it is an issue that should concern you and that must be attacked as a statewide affront to our rights as guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment!  So, no matter what part of the state you are in - call and demand that state law be enforced and that our civil rights be honored!
 

[Oh Shoot]

Rogero sent Chief of Police Rausch over to Nashville to lobby and testify against the last park bill change.

 

Also, neither even seemed aware (at least certainly wouldn't admit) that the exemption law had changed the year before, nuking Knoxville's grandfathered local ordinance, so it was already legal to carry in city parks even before.

 

- OS

Edited September 10, 2015 by Oh Shoot

[phil1979]

Well shucks, no need to get everybody riled up with emails or phone calls to your local officials and the governor. Just deep conceal at the Fair and hope you don't get patted down.

 

/sarcasm

[phil1979]

Perhaps Knoxville Mayor Madeline Rogero has some deep pockets of taxpayer money to pay out in losing lawsuits for violations of carry rights at Chilhowee Park?

 

I gave her office a call a few minutes ago to ask this very question. The young lady that answered the phone promised to give the Mayor my message.

Edited September 10, 2015 by phil1979

[Randall53]

I'd say this is the plan to attempt to get the law repealed. Complaints or lawsuits filled in response to this will be fodder for those against this from the beginning and will now begin to scream about the financial loss to cities and state.

 

Edited to add the "attempt". I have no idea if that could happen, but financial costs have stopped gun bills in the past it seems.

Edited September 10, 2015 by Randall53

[phil1979]

Well, there have been an awful lot of local governments successfully sued in Georgia but that hasn't had the effect of repealing any of our state laws that restored gun rights. Local governments will always resist such state laws, because it takes away their ability to infringe on our rights. The courts are the only and best way we have of forcing their compliance.

 

I think the message our state legislature sent them is, "Don't want to lose money? Then don't do stupid stuff to get successfully sued in court."

 

Maybe Tennessee is different. Maybe you have better ways to do this. Or maybe your legislature is incapable of sending the message above.

Edited September 10, 2015 by phil1979

[Garufa]

A statement from the Mayor is expected this afternoon.

 

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/local-news/no-guns-allowed-at-tennessee-valley-fair_80432500

[dawgdoc]

It seems like once a law is passed, it is much harder to repeal it than it was to make it in the first place.  I think a bunch of costly lawsuits to get these municipalities to comply is worth the risk that those same municipalities will use the lawsuits as a reason as to why the law needs to be changed.

 

As Phil said, Georgia went through similar growing pains when the laws changed, and we can still carry in parks.

[macville]

It seems like once a law is passed, it is much harder to repeal it than it was to make it in the first place.  I think a bunch of costly lawsuits to get these municipalities to comply is worth the risk that those same municipalities will use the lawsuits as a reason as to why the law needs to be changed.

 

As Phil said, Georgia went through similar growing pains when the laws changed, and we can still carry in parks.

 

Plus,  the TN Constitution doesn't say anything about local gov having the power to restrict carry, only the legislature, and only with a view to prevent crime. Of course, judges don't seem to care what our state or federal constitution actually says...

[Oh Shoot]

Plus,  the TN Constitution doesn't say anything about local gov having the power to restrict carry, only the legislature, and only with a view to prevent crime. Of course, judges don't seem to care what our state or federal constitution actually says...

 

But the legislature can of course empower local government to do it, hence the previous park bill and the remaining local power regarding carry granted in 39-17-1314.

 

- OS

Edited September 10, 2015 by Oh Shoot

[macville]

But the legislature can of course empower local government to do it, hence the previous park bill and the remaining local power regarding carry granted in 39-17-1314.

 

- OS

 

Uhh, I missed the section in our Constitution that allows them to pass the power that's vested in them on to local government. Would love to see where that's listed.

[Oh Shoot]

Uhh, I missed the section in our Constitution that allows them to pass the power that's vested in them on to local government. Would love to see where that's listed.

 

Says the legislature has the power. If the legislature specifically says local government can specifically do this or that, are they not exercising that power?

 

- OS

Edited September 10, 2015 by Oh Shoot

[macville]

Says the legislature has the power. If the legislature says local government can specifically do this or that, are they not exercising that power?

 

I don't believe that's how it works. For them to be able to pass that power on, it has to be spelled out that they can pass such power on. The exact wording is, "but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime." It seems pretty clear that only the legislature has the power.  Notice the wording of Section 26 HAS to authorize the legislature to have such power to restrict carry. The constitution tells the legislature only what it is allowed do, not the other way around like laws do (everything is legal except what's defined as illegal.) Even searching through the constitution, I can not find anything that authorizes the state to pass on any powers that the constitution has given only to the Legislature. If you can find something, please point it out to me.

 

The other problem is that it says it has to be "with a view to prevent crime." That sets, while vague, some kind of standard. How is that supposed to be controlled constitutionally if any local government can enact a carry law? What's the accountability for such a law to be "with a view to prevent crime"?

[macville]

Oh Shoot, I think the question I am asking is, where in the constitution does it specify that they can pass on power that's been vested in in them? I can't find anything that clearly authorizes anything like that.

[macville]

BTW, this is what the KNS article updated to say from our wonderful city mayor:

 

"City-owned Chilhowee Park, despite its name, is not a park but “a public assembly, entertainment and education venue used for civic events and by contractors for special events,” the mayor said in a statement. “Chilhowee Park is not managed as a city of Knoxville park by the Parks and Recreation Department, nor does it function as a park or recreation facility.”

 

That's a huge load of BS. And honestly, it won't change until someone sues them.

[Oh Shoot]

Oh Shoot, I think the question I am asking is, where in the constitution does it specify that they can pass on power that's been vested in in them? I can't find anything that clearly authorizes anything like that.

 

I'd opine that's more of a argument of semantics on that point.

 

The "with a view to prevent crime" is the more valid one, but again semantics raises its head -- does that actually require "proof" that any particular carry law does that, or simply that the attempt to do so is sufficient?

 

Religion gets special consideration in both federal and state law, without any proof of gods. :)

 

- OS

Edited September 10, 2015 by Oh Shoot

[Oh Shoot]

BTW, this is what the KNS article updated to say from our wonderful city mayor:

 

"City-owned Chilhowee Park, despite its name, is not a park but “a public assembly, entertainment and education venue used for civic events and by contractors for special events,” the mayor said in a statement. “Chilhowee Park is not managed as a city of Knoxville park by the Parks and Recreation Department, nor does it function as a park or recreation facility.”

 

That's a huge load of BS. And honestly, it won't change until someone sues them.

 

Yep. Same as the other venues in the other cities that are bucking the tide, even though they use the exact terminology used in 39-17-1311 itself to define these areas.

 

... " ... 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."

 

Law suit is possible I guess, but most direct way is likely arrest and criminal court procedure.

 

- OS

Edited September 10, 2015 by Oh Shoot

[btq96r]

Civil disobedience may be required if the cities are going to be reminded what the law actually is.

 

Get 100 or so people with a valid HCP, have them open carry for demonstrative purposes, and dare the public venue to deny them admission, and/or the local police to arrest them for trying to do so.  Politely but firmly, stand in line as a group, refuse to move aside until you're allowed admission, and let the situation develop from there.  If the city wants to arrest 100 people for exercising their legal rights, they will have to risk more problems and a class action lawsuit to do so.

 

I really don't see an alternative that won't take years in court battles.

[phil1979]

+1000 :thumbsup:

 

 

Civil disobedience may be required if the cities are going to be reminded what the law actually is.

 

Get 100 or so people with a valid HCP, have them open carry for demonstrative purposes, and dare the public venue to deny them admission, and/or the local police to arrest them for trying to do so.  Politely but firmly, stand in line as a group, refuse to move aside until you're allowed admission, and let the situation develop from there.  If the city wants to arrest 100 people for exercising their legal rights, they will have to risk more problems and a class action lawsuit to do so.

 

I really don't see an alternative that won't take years in court battles.

[macville]

Yep. Same as the other venues in the other cities that are bucking the tide, even though they use the exact terminology used in 39-17-1311 itself to define these areas.

 

... " ... 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."

 

Law suit is possible I guess, but most direct way is likely arrest and criminal court procedure.

 

The only problem is that section H1 says, "while within or on a 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 of the state, a county, or municipality;" Honestly, I believe it was meant to qualify all the things listed in Section A of 39-17-1311 as a "park" and even the AG agrees (shockingly) with me, and multiple times at that.

 

http://attorneygeneral.tn.gov/op/2015/op15-063.pdf

 

I hadn't read the AG's full opinion before, but it's rather interesting and frankly, quite clear. Simply put in the AG's own words, "By its terms, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1311 applies “in or on the grounds of any public park, playground or 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 do not know how it can be any clearer. I understand that the AG opinion doesn't have any legal power, but I am kinda shocked that they would go so boldly against a very clear recent opinion. Of course, they say it's a "public assembly, entertainment and education venue used for civic events" Maybe my degree in communications makes me stupid, but wouldn't, at the very least, a property that is used for civic events is a civic center??? Let alone that the front page of the Chilhowee website lists these recreational events "Bike Rallies * Fairs * Festivals Concerts * Animal Events * Car Shows * Sporting Events * Tractor Pulls" I think they are grasping a straws hoping that no one will sue them.

[macville]

Civil disobedience may be required if the cities are going to be reminded what the law actually is.

 

Get 100 or so people with a valid HCP, have them open carry for demonstrative purposes, and dare the public venue to deny them admission, and/or the local police to arrest them for trying to do so.  Politely but firmly, stand in line as a group, refuse to move aside until you're allowed admission, and let the situation develop from there.  If the city wants to arrest 100 people for exercising their legal rights, they will have to risk more problems and a class action lawsuit to do so.

 

I really don't see an alternative that won't take years in court battles.

 

I agree. But I don't think there are enough people around here that will open carry and do something like that. I would totally if there are 100, but if you had 15 or under, I think the City would take the chance. But you never know. They may just be playing a weak bluff. I do know that you'd want a lawyer with you and a few unarmed people videoing the entire encounter at the same time.

So can the AG go after someone like the mayor or the City for restricting peoples rights and now following state law? Surely he can, right?

[phil1979]

Knoxville City Attorney contact info:

 

Charles Swanson

cswanson@knoxvilletn.gov

(865) 215-2050

 

Perhaps enough of us calling and emailing to remind him of possible lawsuits will help him start giving good advice to Mayor Rogero?

[Oh Shoot]

I agree. But I don't think there are enough people around here that will open carry and do something like that. I would totally if there are 100, but if you had 15 or under, I think the City would take the chance

 

Would just take one to have clear standing for a suit. Show up, make sure you have a vid rolling.

 

In suit, your demands are modest, reasonable compensation for missing out on the fair and time wasted on lawsuit, attorney fees, but mainly a clear injunction on the city doing anything like this is in the future.

 

Probably Kwik would have already been involved here and there -- if he still had a permit to carry in the first place.

 

- OS

[runco]

Folks I know its the point and the law, but really the Knoxville fair lost its luster to me 30 years ago.  I wouldn't go if they paid me $5 to open carry, but I will say parking and walking to the fair at night, I would probably want to open carry in my hand in that area.

Edited September 11, 2015 by Runco

[DaveTN]

If they stand their ground I bet it will just be turning people away. I don’t think many cops (or a department) would want to arrest someone when they know, or should have known, it’s not a crime.

Obviously they don’t agree with the Attorney General; so a court will need to hear this.