Fallguy

LOL... Didn't figure you were raised there or you'd known Decatur County is actually in West TN....not middle till you cross the river. Oh....and don't have to get too far out of Parsons, before you hit the sticks...do you? Lot more boondocks in Decatur County than there is city.....but I used to live right smack dab in the middle of Parsons, when I was there...

I define Liberty as being able to do as you see fit as long as your actions do not infringe upon another.

Welcome

Welcome from a former Deactur Countian, glad to see someone from there on here. Lived in Parsons around 37 years, until just last year.

Sorry, not familiar with the place.

Threads merged

I'll be here http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/events-gatherings/27463-second-none-celebration-liberty.html

Welcome

Agree totally Very true I admit not much on nanny laws, but to that is when the government is trying to prevent me from doing something to myself....not sure that is 100% the case here, but I see what you are saying No problem

Right or wrong, the government, by law. Sometimes a majority simply means more people or on the wrong side of an issue. The government already tells us what we can and can not do on our property at least to some degree. I wasn't trying to directly compare smoking and carrying a gun, more the thought process going into restricting/allowing each.

Individual rights always have the possibility of conflicting with each other. That is one of the reasons we have law, rules and regulations and such, right? Hopefully those things try to take into account the greater good and the least intrusion/inconvenience on the most people. Sort of like no one argues that you can smoke, that a property owner can control his property and those that want to be free from others smoke should be free from it. However the first and third can not always happen in the same place. One could think that simply the property owner exercising his control over his property could determine whether smoking would be allowed or not, however the government decided the greater good is served by not allowing smoking in most places. Apparently they also felt it less intrusive to stop smokers from smoking than making non-smokers put up with smoke. Also smoking can still allowed outside and/or in other situations (age restriction and so on) and that these were reasonable restrictions/infringements. You have a HCP and the right to carry your handgun, but again a property owner can control his property....these things are going to conflict at times. So my argument is that guns being allowed in parking lots (but not within the business) not only serves the good of HCP holders and potentially all gun owners when/if you car becomes an extension of your home, but also the good of all citizens in that your rights are protected as long as they do not unreasonable restrict another's rights. ...and I do believe that firearms being allowed in cars in the parking lot isn't an unreasonable infringement on the property owner's rights. It is not very intrusive or inconvenient, if at all. But there is no way everyone will be happy on this.....so what serves the greater good and is the least intrusive/inconvenient? You have my thoughts above.

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi2753823257/ While I'm not advocating violence against anyone....I know that in at least my neck of the woods, plea deals (usually without the input of the victim) are the norm around and there are very, very few trials. I understand that some of this may be from budget constraints and the uncertainty of what a jury may do, but I feel it is mostly from simply trying to clear the books and the thought that a conviction is a conviction even it is for a fairly minor charge compared to the original one. I like how the plot says he takes justice into his own hands and not the law.

Can totally agree with you on that. Also not that I disagree with you on the other...just rather debate it here.....before in a courtroom...

He (The AG) also notes that the whole park may not be off-limits if the school is only using part of it. So wouldn't that hold true for other places then? If the field trip is at the city library that is located in city hall...then they library may be off-limits, but the entire city hall, right? Also I would argue (and probably loose, I admit) that simply students and teacher being present doesn't mean it is being used by the school. If that same field trips stops at McDonald's...aren't they just normal patrons like everyone else? The school is not really using McDonald's for a school function.

Sons of Anarchy Motorcycle Club Redwood Original Sons of Anarchy Motorcycle Club - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome

Been a season pass on my Tivo since the second show of the last season. Got love Tivo!!!!!

Don't quote me...but a field trip to a place is not the same as "using" a place, I don't think. But it really isn't clear, I agree. While not required, he mentions in footnote 4 written agreements. Even as bad as his opinions have been...I don't think he is saying any place that students and teachers show up mean they are "using" that place for the purposes of 39-17-1309 However all of these opinions really only talk about parks and not other places. I agree changing the school law to either allow carry at schools or make it where carry is prohibited only on the actual school grounds would be better.

http://www.tn.gov/attorneygeneral/op/2009/OP/OP160.pdf S T A T E O F T E N N E S S E E OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL PO BOX 20207 NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE 37202 September 28, 2009 Opinion No. 09-160 Carrying of Firearms in Parks Being Used by Schools QUESTIONS 1. Please clarify the phrase “actually being used by schools†as used in Op. Tenn. Att’y Gen. 09-129. 2. If a park is being used by a school, where, and at what times, may a handgun carry permit holder lawfully carry his or her firearm in that park? 3. If handgun carry permit holders are permitted to carry firearms in parks pursuant to Chapter 428 of the 2009 Public Acts of Tennessee, and a park, where the carrying of firearms is otherwise permitted, is being used by a school, who is responsible for the posting of notices that handguns are prohibited in the park because a school is using the park, and what form should such notice take? OPINIONS 1. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1309 ( and © prohibit the carrying of firearms on anyproperty “used†by schools. A school is “using†the park when students and administrators are present on park grounds and are using park facilities for a school-sponsored activity. 2. Where and at what times a handgun carry permit holder may lawfully carry his or her firearm into a park being used by a school is fact driven and can only be determined on a caseby-case basis. 3. There is no requirement for the posting of signs while a park or its facilities are being used by a school. ANALYSIS 1. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1309( and © prohibit the carrying of firearms in anypublic or private school building, bus, grounds, campus, athletic field, or recreational facility that is owned, used, or operated by any school board, school or college. In Op. Tenn. Att’y Gen. 09-129 (July 24, 2009), this office opined that Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1309 prohibits handgun carry permit holders from possessing firearms in public parks at times during which the athletic fields or other recreational facilities are “actually being used by schools.†You have asked for a clarification of that opinion. The primary objective of statutory construction is to ascertain the intent of the legislature. LensCrafters, Inc. v. Sundquist, 33 S.W.3d 772, 777 (Tenn.2000). If the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, that intent is to be found “from the natural and ordinary meaning of the statutory language within the context of the entire statute without any forced or subtle construction that would extend or limit the statute's meaning.†State v. Flemming, 19 S.W.3d 195, 197 (Tenn. 2000). “f the language of a statute is clear, we must apply its plain meaning without a forced interpretation.†Calaway ex rel. Calaway v. Schucker, 193 S.W.3d 509, 514 (Tenn. 2005). Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-17-1309( (1) states: ( (1) It is an offense for any person to possess or carry, whether openly or concealed, with the intent to go armed, any firearm, explosive, explosive weapon, bowie knife, hawk bill knife, ice pick, dagger, slingshot, leaded cane, switchblade knife, blackjack, knuckles or any other weapon of like kind, not used solely for instructional or school-sanctioned ceremonial purposes, in any public or private school building or bus, on any public or private school campus, grounds, recreation area, athletic field or any other property owned, used or operated by any board of education, school, college or university board of trustees, regents or directors for the administration of any public or private educational institution. 1 Webster’s New College Dictionary (1995) defines “use†as “the enjoyment of property, as by occupying or exercising it.†Therefore, the plain meaning of the word indicates that the legislature intended that firearms be prohibited from park property while such property is actually being occupied or used by a school. Some examples of schools using parks include: school-sponsored tennis practice on park tennis courts, school-sponsored softball games on park fields, school-sponsored swim meets held at park recreation facilities, and school sponsored cross country meets that are run on park trails and grounds. The presence of these activities would indicate that a park is in fact being “used†by a school so that Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17- 1309 would prohibit handgun carry permit holders from carrying firearms into the area where such activities are taking place. 2. The area where firearm possession would be prohibited could cover the entire park, or portions of the park, depending upon the nature of the school activity taking place and the configuration of the park property.2 A plain reading of Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1309 indicates that guns are prohibited on property used by the school. Therefore, determining what portion of the park a school was using, as it concerns the prohibition of guns, has to be determined in accordance with what activity is taking place in relation to the configuration of the entire park in which it occurs.3 A determination of where guns could lawfully be carried in a park while a school is using the park would have to be determined on a case-by-case basis.4 3. Under the circumstances described in your question, this office can find no legal authority that would require the posting of signs in areas of parks that are being used by schools. Although Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1309 mentions the posting of signs, the statute only speaks to posting of signs “about the school.†Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1309(d)(1). The statute is silent regarding the posting of signs on property “used†by schools. Absent any legal authority to the contrary, there is no posting requirement in parks that are being used for a schoolsponsored activity. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 The language of Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1309( is similar to the language of subsection ©. The primary differences between the two are that violations of subsection ( require proof of intent to go armed while subsection © has no such requirement. 2 For example, a softball game on one field of a park might require the prohibition of firearms in the immediate area around the softball field. On the other hand, a cross country meet that is being run on park trails might require the prohibition of firearms in the entire park. 3 A school could be using a park for any number or reasons, for example, team practices, team athletic competitions, conducting class room instruction, field days, etc. 4 It is likely that schools that use public parks for athletic and other activities will have entered into a written agreement with the county or municipality that owns the park. If such an agreement exists, it will probably assist the parties in making determinations concerning the areas where firearms will be prohibited and the time such prohibitions will be in effect.

Welcome

Welcome

Welcome

Welcome

I have sent an e-mail to the parks bill sponsor Sen Beavers, I am going to send the same one to Rep Ben West (the one who requested this opinion) mentioning many of the issues we have discussed and asking them to present them to the AG and ask him to reconsider his opinion or hopefully to introduce legislation to correct this. I really feel this AG is just anti-park carry (as the governor is). He knows many smaller local governments aren't going to post proper 39-17-1311 signs, but he still wants HCP holders to fear prosecution for carry in those parks.

What the opinion addresses if you are passing through the park on a public road. He did say then as long as you stayed on the road and/or didn't enter the park, it would not be illegal. So from that I take it, if you enter the park, even in your car, that would be illegal. So it seems as usual, the media is telling half truths and giving mis-leading information.