Nashville Mayor wasting no time...

[alwaysoutdoors]

To be clear though, they are not saying the firearms were purchased from a dealer.  They simply say they were purchased at the gun show.  The implication being it was a person to person transaction where there was no background check, therefore a felon was able to get a gun more easily than if they were forced to go through a background check.  
 
The direct logic is correct of course if one believes a felon will follow the law to begin with even if backgrounds checks were mandatory.  We all know that isn't the case.  
 
I am personally not against background checks, but they should be free and easily accessible for anyone who wants to do one.  It should simply state if the person is legal or not to purchase with something as simple as a DL and DOB.  If they want people to do it on thier own free will, they need to make it easy to check and free.

I don't believe the direct logic is correct. People who cannot legally buy guns from a dealer (not only felons) can buy them on the side of the road from an individual. I think your statements give credibility to the "gun show loophole" which in no way exists. People privately selling or buying guns at the gun show is no different than two people meeting to do a firearm transaction at the Kroger parking lot or at Basspro (pick your location).

[alwaysoutdoors]

Anyone here even know what the speculated or proposed development would be for this property?
I dont, but i do know it's in doo doo town.
I mean, if they wanted to take even half the low income housing out of my area and rebuild it there, I'd donate labor to start the demolition. ;)
I'm gonna have to agree, with whomever, that there are better ways to use our scarce resources than to continue to maintain this large crap hole of a property that serves a very small percentage of the county.
Those gun shows suck and the state fair there sucks and the garden show there sucks.
On the other hand, I'd like for the property to produce revenue for the city, whether that's selling it into private hands or whatever. I hope to not see it packed full of low income or section 8 housing that would in turn require its own police precinct to manage the crime in what is already the dregs.

Obviously, there is more going on at the fairgrounds then you are aware of.

[bud]

.

Edited January 6, 2016 by bud

[bud]

.

Edited January 6, 2016 by bud

[300winmag]

Another facility will probably be glad to take that gun show and rent space to the show. 

[dcloudy777]

I understand the desire to fight back when you're wronged, but honestly, good riddance to the fairgrounds.

 

Tradition aside, it's turned into a lousy venue.  Goodman and RK (and whoever else) need to go find a better one and take the revenue with them.

[Worriedman]

It makes perfect since to limit the city's culpability and potential liability, both to protect the assets of the taxpayer/city, by not exposing itself to unnecessary risk, and from a public relations standpoint. It's much easier to just say "no" and to offend the few than to continue to allow it and to expose itself to a potential lawsuit.
utionally protected, and is quite frankly going the way of the dodo bird. Maybe not this week or year, but soon.
In today's litigious society, it makes no sense to allow it.
Furthermore, gun shows at the Fair Grounds suck.



Flame
Away
:)

Cities can't be sued for such, they have qualified immunity.  They could only be sued (successfully) if they were part of, or party to, or had knowledge of illegal activity taking place on public property and did nothing about it.  You get your car stolen at the fairground at a lingerie show, you can't sue the City for its value.  You get robbed and they take your Rolex, you can not sue the City to get that value back, get your teeth kicked out, they will not pay for your pablum...

Just try suing them because they created a "gun free zone" and you were denied your Constitutional Right to bear arms for your defense because it made them feel good to disarm you.

You could pay an attorney to file suit either way, you will not win.

[bud]

.

Edited January 6, 2016 by bud

[monkeylizard]

Anyone here even know what the speculated or proposed development would be for this property?
I dont, but i do know it's in doo doo town.

 

Exactly what would go there, nobody knows. It's way too early for any developers to have invested in any really detailed plans. Developers in the mix probably only have some loose numbers about how many units, average size, rough costs and sale prices, etc. It would likely be some sort of mixed-use development with some retail, but mostly condos. Berry would be sure to mandate a percentage of the housing units be set aside for low-income/rent controlled.

 

As far as it being in a bad part of town, yes that's true today (in part because of the irony of the fairgrounds and the track being there), but I doubt that will still be true in 10-20 years time. Look at what has happened in much of East Nashville and is now actively underway in Germantown. 20 years ago it wasn't safe to drive through Germantown in the daytime. Now they're building condos going for north of 500K and the homes up there are pushing a cold million. The Chestnut Hill area around the Fairgrounds is already showing early signs of re-gentrification. New homes being built just a few blocks north of the fairgrounds are listed at close to 500K. It's close to downtown, Vandy, Belmont, Hillsboro Village, 12 South and the Interstates. If I was just looking at a map and didn't know what kind of housing and crime was in that area already, I'd think it was a pretty good spot. I wish I had bought some homes over there 10 years ago and bulldozed them just to have the land. There are still a few values to be had, but most sellers are wise to what's happening. There aren't many areas left that are close to downtown that haven't undergone some sort of resurrection in the last 15 years. Hermitage Ave on the backside of the Napier public housing project is one of the only places left that hasn't seen some of that action. I expect it to be next given its proximity to downtown. Hipsters don't seem to know how to read crime maps.

 

As a taxpayer, I'm glad Dean didn't get his way. He was trying to sell too soon. If we're going to sell it, I want that to happen between 3 and 10 years from now. That should be the peak. Nashville can't stay the "It" city forever. The downside to selling it is that we can never get it back. If a future generation of Nashvillians needs a large parcel of land somewhat near downtown for a public works project to benefit the city, that lot won't be an option like it is today.

Edited December 7, 2015 by monkeylizard

[Lumber_Jack]

It's actually on the edge of redevelopment movement. Drive east on woodmont from 21st. The growth is moving down past 8th Ave. as you pass under I-65 it's still pretty crummy but there are new houses being built monthly on the north east side of woodmont/I-65. If they built restaurants/higher end apartments, anything it would change the dynamics of that whole area.

I think the fairgrounds is probably the worst thing for that area. I hate to see a ban on gun shows, but I don't attend the Nashville shoes anyway. Nashville has a lot of things, space to build isn't one of them. I say develop it.

[Hozzie]

I don't believe the direct logic is correct. People who cannot legally buy guns from a dealer (not only felons) can buy them on the side of the road from an individual. I think your statements give credibility to the "gun show loophole" which in no way exists. People privately selling or buying guns at the gun show is no different than two people meeting to do a firearm transaction at the Kroger parking lot or at Basspro (pick your location).

 

I think you misunderstand my post.  I am saying that if criminals followed laws, they wouldn't buy a gun, no matter the arena.  So the direct logic is correct.  If a buyer had to go through a background check (and followed the law and did it), then it would prevent someone from owning a gun that shouldn't.  

 

Their argument is everyone should have to go through a background check.  We know criminals won't.

[monkeylizard]

Nashville has a lot of things, space to build isn't one of them. I say develop it.

 

Me too, but not yet. Let's wait and get more money for it.  :)

 

Here's an almost 3 year old study done for Metro. http://www.nashville.gov/Portals/0/SiteContent/Planning/docs/fairgrounds/TN%20Fairgrounds%20presentation%202013_02_21b.pdf

 

I notice that Option 5 is missing. Sell the whole thing and get out of the fair business entirely.

Edited December 7, 2015 by monkeylizard

[monkeylizard]

it would prevent someone from owning a gun that shouldn't.  

 

Not always. Plenty of people commit horrible crimes after passing back ground checks.

[Hozzie]

Not always. Plenty of people commit horrible crimes after passing back ground checks.

 

Understood, but we are talking about those things for which one would knowingly not pass a background check.  You can never guarantee anything.   Again, I will say in theory and in absolute logic, background checks for every sale would reduce the total number of guns sold to someone that isn't qualified (based on the availability of disqualifying info in the background check).  The illogical part they will not admit is that these same people don't follow laws.  

[monkeylizard]

True dat!

[Oh Shoot]

Understood, but we are talking about those things for which one would knowingly not pass a background check.  You can never guarantee anything.   Again, I will say in theory and in absolute logic, background checks for every sale would reduce the total number of guns sold to someone that isn't qualified (based on the availability of disqualifying info in the background check).  The illogical part they will not admit is that these same people don't follow laws.  

 

It takes two criminals to knowingly transfer a gun to a prohibited person now. If universal background check becomes the law, would still take two criminals, only diff is that the seller becomes a criminal transferring a firearm to anyone.

 

Logically, universal background checks would indeed lessen the ease and increase the price for prohibited persons to acquire firearms. Because law abiding sellers, which includes most of us, would quit selling them in personal transactions.

 

I've said it many times -- while there isn't a "gun show loophole" per se, if I'm a prohibited person, that's the first place I'd go to score some, simply because of the selection all in one place from personal sales.

 

Whether it would actually reduce overall crime committed with illegally obtained firearms is a tangential but really separate issue.

 

- OS

Edited December 8, 2015 by Oh Shoot