Knoxville Allowing Fair to Prohibit Guns in a Park

[300winmag]

No gun signs with criminal weapons charges do not apply to park facilities like they do with other properties, such as your city hall or city library.

If you read the Knoxville news article, you'll see that the police were threatening trespass charges at the fair and not criminal weapons charges.  Trespass is not good, but it is a lot better than risking suspension of your permit, handgun confiscation, and a higher level misdemeanor that comes with a weapons charge.

[Oh Shoot]

6 hours ago, Garufa said:

This is interesting.  TFA members went to Chilhowee park to gather evidence in an effort to prevent their lawsuit against the city from being thrown out.  KPD complied by threatening arrest.

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/crime-courts/police-promise-to-arrest-violators-of-gun-ban-at-tennessee-valley-fair-3c68160f-66ce-4b6f-e053-01000-393343221.html

Yeah, here's TFA's email today regarding it, just for the record:

September 14, 2016
 

Knxoville Police threaten to arrest Tennessee Handgun Permit Holders
who ask if they can enter Chilhowee park armed

Members of the Tennessee Firearms Association have sued Knoxville claiming that the city illegally banned handgun permit holders from attending the 2015 State Fair that was being held in Chilhowee Park.  TFA members claimed that following a change in the law in 2015, local governments like Knoxville lack the legal authority under a new amendment to a state law (TCA 39-17-1311 and TCA 39-17-1314) to prohibit handgun permit holders from carrying their otherwise legally possessed handguns in a public park.  The lawsuit seeks to have Knoxville's gun ban policy declared illegal under state law. 

The city has challenged the lawsuit by claiming in a motion to dismiss the complaint that the plaintiffs have not "alleged an actual injury, such as being arrested, fined or even turned away by police ..."  The city claims that without such actual harm -- i.e., being arrested -- the plaintiffs, even as Tennessee citizens, have no standing to question whether the city was violating state law.

On September 13, 2016, seven TFA members approached Chilhowee Park near Gate 8 in the early evening to ask at least three different Knoxville police officers stationed there if they would be arrested if they entered the park as handgun permit holders in possession of their firearms.  Three times they were told that they would be arrested even after disclosing that they had state issued handgun permits.  The incident was recorded and observed by several witnesses.  Specifically, Ray and Kimberly Bergeron discussed the matter with Knoxville Police Department's deputy chief of patrol, Monty Houk, as they stood outside the gate to the fairgrounds.
 

Officer Houk confirmed to them that they would be subject to arrest on a charge of criminal trespassing if they violated Knoxville's ban of firearms in Chilhowee Park. The discussion was video taped.  When the risk of imminent arrest was clearly threatened by law enforcement, the TFA members politely thanked the Officer for his assistance and clarification and left peaceably - despite having their 2nd Amendment rights intentionally violated by the City of Knoxville.

"It is a travesty that Knoxville apparently did not admit to the trial court that it had established a policy to arrest citizens who have handgun permits and who desired to enter Chilhowee Park so that it became necessasry to have a group of our members go back out to the park with video cameras, witnesses, their handgun permits, their firearms, and purchase tickets just to stand outside the park and ask the Knoxville Police officers stationed there what would happen if they entered Chilhowee Park,"   said John Harris, Executive Director of the Tennessee Firearms Association.  "Government actions like this is why so many Tennesseans are increasingly frustrated with local and state government and are searching for alternatives to the traditional, career politicians who think that they are above the law."

"The courts should intervene and protect the constitutional rights of Tennesseans particularly when the state has by law denied any authority to local governments to ban firearms in public Parks" said Harris.  "Further, Tennessee's Legislature perhaps should expend a little more time making sure that citizens have the capacity to enforce their consittutional rights when infringed by local governments without having to do so from a jail cell."

 

[macville]

1 hour ago, 300winmag said:

No gun signs with criminal weapons charges do not apply to park facilities like they do with other properties, such as your city hall or city library.

If you read the Knoxville news article, you'll see that the police were threatening trespass charges at the fair and not criminal weapons charges.  Trespass is not good, but it is a lot better than risking suspension of your permit, handgun confiscation, and a higher level misdemeanor that comes with a weapons charge.

But I'd bet they say that the sign would apply-in fact they should because if it doesn't, it means the park falls under the parks law.

So how can the police threaten trespassing when you are doing a perfectly legal activity and broken no laws? Are they in fact admitting that it is a park because otherwise it wouldn't be a charge under traspassing, but 1359.

Edited September 14, 2016 by macville

[DaveTN]

This is a showdown between the legislature and the city governments involved. My guess is that the legislature will blink and back off. Carrying past a sign for HCP holders only (special group) doesn’t have the support of the people.

I also think it will happen soon. If the legislature cared enough about this to get in a pizzing match with the cities over it; we would be a Constitutional carry state. They don’t.

[dawgdoc]

Georgia had this same problem when our laws changed.   Atlanta and other places had to be sued to get them to comply.  After that, the other municipalities started following the law or face their own lawsuits. 

Now, we have idiot judges who decided the law allows private entities who rent public parks and other places to ban guns, even though the law specifies that can only happen on private property.

I use this analogy in regards to a private entity renting a park:  since the government cannot ban blacks from a park, they cannot give that power to a renter of a park either, even if the KKK wanted to have a whites only event in a rented park.  Likewise, the government can't give the ability to ban guns to a private entity since it does not possess that power.   It makes sense to me, but I'm not a lawyer. 

[Worriedman]

We do have a fund specific set up for this suit, interested parties can PM me.

[Garufa]

Settlement reached today in Vreeland suit...http://www.knoxnews.com/story/news/local/2017/01/27/city-strikes-deal-chilhowee-park-gun-ban/97148064/

No guns at the fair, events, or inside buildings but any other time you can carry at Chilhowee Park...and the city still insists is is not a park but concedes that it has historically been used as such.

Edited January 27, 2017 by Garufa

[macville]

23 minutes ago, Garufa said:

Settlement reached today in Vreeland suit...http://www.knoxnews.com/story/news/local/2017/01/27/city-strikes-deal-chilhowee-park-gun-ban/97148064/

No guns at the fair, events, or inside buildings but any other time you can carry at Chilhowee Park...and the city still insists is is not a park but concedes that it has historically been used as such.

So basically the person settled to have it as it was before. There never was an issue with them being banned while there were no events happening. Kinda a head scratcher settlement. Let's hope the other lawsuit actually forces the the city to obey the law.

[MP5_Rizzo]

So it's called a park, looks like a park with park amenities, used as a park even by the cities own admission but they still claim it's NOT a park. I guess if and when the Bergeron Lawsuit makes its way into court this park or not a park will be a major issue.

[runco]

Hmm, not what I expected.

[peejman]

I'd assume that means they ran out of money to pay the attorney.  Rogero is ....  I'm glad I don't live in Knox county. 

[Worriedman]

On 1/27/2017 at 8:09 PM, peejman said:

I'd assume that means they ran out of money to pay the attorney.  Rogero is ....  I'm glad I don't live in Knox county. 

NRA is the one that backed THIS suit...they accepted the settlement, think they are out of money?

[JayC]

On 1/27/2017 at 5:19 PM, MP5_Rizzo said:

So it's called a park, looks like a park with park amenities, used as a park even by the cities own admission but they still claim it's NOT a park. I guess if and when the Bergeron Lawsuit makes its way into court this park or not a park will be a major issue.

They have a bigger problem, the city of Knoxville has argued that this site is a park under the drug laws and added years onto people's sentences for selling drugs within so many feet of a park.  The local PD and mayor are willing to put these convictions and future convictions of drug dealers at risk just to keep otherwise law abiding citizens from carrying into the park.

It's my understanding this is not the TFA backed lawsuit?  I suspect they will not settle, for anything less than the park being declared a park.

[300winmag]

Good job NRA for keeping the legal mines going for folks with permits in this state.  No wonder we are legal in XYZ location, maybe or maybe not in another spot, and illegal in yet another AFTER paying good money for a permit.  They do a good job at the national level but the lobbying effort NRA does in this state does not seem to be very effective.

Do the folks who run the park use metal detectors on people at this park or shake people down?  I would assume that would be unconstitutional search so I would still carry because the law is quite clear by plain reading.  The park law makes people legal when carrying unless at a school event.  The fair is not a school event so carry is legal.

[peejman]

19 hours ago, Worriedman said:

NRA is the one that backed THIS suit...they accepted the settlement, think they are out of money?

Based on all the "give us money" crap I get in the mail, surely they're down to their last nickel. 

I didn't know who was funding the suit. Regardless, when I hear "settlement", I hear "the lawyers decided it wasn't worth arguing about anymore".  

[peejman]

19 hours ago, JayC said:

They have a bigger problem, the city of Knoxville has argued that this site is a park under the drug laws and added years onto people's sentences for selling drugs within so many feet of a park.  The local PD and mayor are willing to put these convictions and future convictions of drug dealers at risk just to keep otherwise law abiding citizens from carrying into the park.

It's my understanding this is not the TFA backed lawsuit?  I suspect they will not settle, for anything less than the park being declared a park.

C'mon... surely you don't really expect them to acknowledge their hypocrisy?  

The TFA suit just got a lot more difficult as now there's precedent. 

[JayC]

2 minutes ago, peejman said:

C'mon... surely you don't really expect them to acknowledge their hypocrisy?  

The TFA suit just got a lot more difficult as now there's precedent. 

I don't expect them too...  but if I'm a defense attorney, I'm going to save every bit of this to use in my clients defense in the future.

[Chucktshoes]

25 minutes ago, JayC said:

I don't expect them too...  but if I'm a defense attorney, I'm going to save every bit of this to use in my clients defense in the future.

Out of curiosity, could an attorney use this in an appeal with regard to the sentencing enhancements? Not the conviction itself, but the criteria used for determining the sentence?

[Worriedman]

1 hour ago, peejman said:

Based on all the "give us money" crap I get in the mail, surely they're down to their last nickel. 

I didn't know who was funding the suit. Regardless, when I hear "settlement", I hear "the lawyers decided it wasn't worth arguing about anymore".  

What you should have heard is they were not willing to work, and will beat their chest in the future about how they "Won" to protect our Firearms Rights...
 

Settlement is only binding on the single individual who was named as the plaintiff...how is that for top shelf lawyering?

Edited January 30, 2017 by Worriedman

[Worriedman]

They get together with whoever is in charge, and make deals to assure future access. When they go to the Legislature they stop by Beth's office first...was not that way when Daren LaSorte was our man from Virginia...I worked Employee Safe Commute with him, he was tough as nails!

Edited January 30, 2017 by Worriedman

[300winmag]

Yeah a civil court agreement with one individual is different than a criminal court case.  I don't see any criminal court case that would over turn my understanding that carry in all rec property (except for school event) is legal.  The law does not exclude fairs, music events, or buildings in the park from legal carry.  I believe it mentions that carry is legal 'in or on park or similar property' which to me would mean that if a fair, building, or musical event is in the park property, then you can carry without fear of criminal prosecution.

[DaveTN]

A civil case can establish case law; Heller and McDonald were civil cases.

It could impact criminal case sentencing if whether or not it’s a park is in dispute.

[peejman]

48 minutes ago, 300winmag said:

... without fear of criminal prosecution.

 

[Worriedman]

21 hours ago, DaveTN said:

A civil case can establish case law; Heller and McDonald were civil cases.

It could impact criminal case sentencing if whether or not it’s a park is in dispute.

This is correct!

 The strange thing is that there were no pleadings in the case, none to dismiss, no activity whatsoever that I can find.

The blurb put out by the NRA is from the wife well known Tennessee Republican campaign advisor Ward Baker.

Conversely, if one were to be convicted of drug crimes in the "area", our "near Parks" laws may not apply there any more...