Fallguy

http://www.mtas.tennessee.edu/Newsletter/july_09.pdf This is from the MTAS (Municipal Technical Advisory Service) MTAS Home newsletter. I think the part that cities have to opt out by Sept 1 is wrong. But that could be why so many cities are hurrying to vote one way or the other. http://www.mtas.tennessee.edu/public/MTASPUBS.NSF/All/4232F0D9443E9FA1852575DD0057739B?OpenDocument

I think some of this maybe because of the Tennessee Municipal League Tennessee Municipal League | Home If I understood the notes in the Trenton City Council meeting's agenda, it said the league had contacted the city (so probably all cities) about the parks carry law. Didn't really say the urged them to go one way or the other, but I have noticed that many of the resolutions are worded the same, so make me wonder if they have provided a "sample resolution" for cities to use?

Well actually Dave has in his sig not to PM about problems but to post in this forum. I really don't know about the details of the board software, but I'm not sure there is a way to make an exception for PIF post unless they were in their own sub-forum. +1 on becoming a

Since today is the 15th and it says the meeting was the 14th....anyone know how it turned out?

CCW Prohibited Locations - TGO Database

Just another reason I think the posting statute has "substantially similar" That way the owner could, as you say, use the wording No Open Carry or No Concealed carry instead of No Weapons. I really don't think the intention was for the owner to be able to use less wording, just change words to be relevant to their specific situation. One thing about violating a sign and/or trespassing, they are both misdemeanors and would have to be charged by the owner unless you were still inside when the LEO arrived.

I agree, now is definitely not the time to try and test what a proper posting is...at least not at a newly posted (proper or otherwise) restaurant.

Yes, there are definitely "specific" sign requirements in other areas of the TCA, not only hunting, but for schools and parks. I do agree that the legislature did not intended for a 39-17-1359 sign to be word-for-word as what is in the statute. I'm just saying IMO (which is about worth what has been paid for it ) that the substantially similar was intended to just allow customization of the sign as to who was prohibiting carry and where it is prohibited. But I will agree that even just a No Guns sign (with or without more words or picture) pretty much relays the intent to ban firearms. Totally agree I can agree with that it relays the owners intent as stated above I think it should include a reference to the T.C.A. code as well..but just my You could very well be right. I agree with that as well. Although I know a AG opinion is just a lawyer's opinion, I am tempted to try and get one from him about what is the "minimum" elements (such as Who is prohibiting, where is the prohibition, T.C.A. and consequence) required for a 39-17-1359 sign to be substantially similar. I have had help from State Rep in getting a couple of opinions issued in the past...I may try to contact him in the coming days.

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/305434-post19.html http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/309047-post27.html

I agree ignorance abounds on this. ...it has also drawn attention to the ability to post (which ALL property owner can do BTW) to some that might not have otherwise thought about it.

I agree!

Welcome Did you see Firearms Law FAQ - Tennessee Gun Owners ?

True....but I still stand by what I said. A No Guns on Premises sign is in no way substantially similar to the wording of 39-17-1359.

Just watched channel 7 news out of Jackson. They announced that the city of Martin had voted to opt out of park carry. They said that one reason is because there is a federal law that prevents schools from using parks where firearms are allowed. Apparently one of the local schools uses a city park. Does anyone know of this law and/or can link to it?

Hmmm...I have never seen a sign that directly addressed HCP holders. Wonder why the did that? They really ought to change that sign....but who knows. Enjoy your time there!!

I don't agree..... substantially = to a great extent or degree wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn similar = alike(p): having the same or similar characteristics wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn So the legislature has said the sign must contain wording the same or alike to a great extent or degree of the wording 39-17-1359. I really don't see how "No Guns" could be interpreted that way. However I do agree an AG Opinion is simply a lawyers opinion and is not law. However his office is the one that chooses whether to prosecute people or not.

Name: ALL CITY PARKS City: Martin Results of Vote: Carry prohibited Just reported on Channel 7 News.

Name: ALL CITY PARKS City: Danridge Results of Vote: Carry Allowed. (Vote 4-2) http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/tennessee-politics-legislation/24099-danridge-considers-park-ban.html http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2009/jul/15/gun-ban-in-parks-denied-in-dandridge/ DANDRIDGE - Retired police officer Ronnie Smith of Dandridge has a gun-carry permit and is a pistol-packing believer in the right to carry firearms. "Most of the time I'm awake I've got mine," said Smith during a Tuesday night Dandridge City Council meeting that included a resolution to prohibit hand guns in public parks in the Jefferson County town. Smith, 68, was pleased with City Council's 4-2 vote which nixed the resolution that would have prohibited any person authorized to carry a handgun from possessing a handgun while within a public park, natural area, historic park, nature trail, campground, forest, greenway or waterway that is owned or operated by the town of Dandridge. "Criminals don't go to the police station or Army base, they go to parks, nursing homes and schools," said Smith as he addressed the gathering of 20 people at the meeting. Dandridge is one of many cities in Tennessee that has been mulling a new state law that comes into effect Sept. 1 that will allow citizens with handgun permits to carry guns in public parks. The new law has a loophole that allows cities and counties to axe the provision and keep their parks free from guns - after adoption of a resolution by the legislative body. Tuesday's decision by City Council was of particular note because Dandridge was rocked by a 2006 shooting where three adults were killed in an ongoing dispute between two families at a city ballpark complex at Grace Schrader Park called the "Field of Dreams." The shooting took place as more than 50 spectators filed out of a youth baseball contest at the complex on U.S. Highway 25W-70. The shooting was not related to any developments during the game. The other municipal park in Dandridge affected by Tuesday's vote is the Point Resort and Marina. Smith, along with several members of City Council, deemed the resolution as unenforceable. "You'd have to have 100 officers down there to pat people down," said Smith. "It's unenforceable and something we don't need. You have an incident that happened three years ago infringing on my rights." Town Administrator James Hutchins said he doubted any law banning firearms in the park would deter criminals from carrying guns. "No law we make can make people obey the law," said Hutchins. Like Smith, Dandridge resident Sabrina Large has a gun-carry permit and believes she should be able to carry a handgun in the city's parks. Large, 32, said the Field of Dreams shooting was part of the reason she decided to obtain a gun-carry permit. "That, and how the world is today," said Large, who frequently attends games and events at Field of Dreams. "People who have carry permits ought to be able to carry guns for their own safety - that's what we got them for."

I can't remember if it was in this thread or another, but I posted the relevant CFR (Code of Federal Regulations). So a special order doesn't circumvent the law, they are allowed by law. It gives reasons that they can issue special orders, that apply to whatever lands are under their control...so lets say there is a regional supervisor, he could issue one that would effect what ever forests, etc...that he was responsable for. Anyway...one of the reasons they can issue a special order is for "public safety". To be honest I think the intention of that code was like to allow a ranger to close a part of the forest to the public if there had been trouble with animals there, flooding etc..... but some have used it to issue a general prohobition on handgun carry. I don't think it is right, but it is the way it is in some places.

VC...I think everyone is right...there is not direct Federal Law or Federal Regulation that prohibits carry in a National Forest...and now no TN state law. The only thing is local rangers can issue "special orders" as has been said and some have done that to prohibit carry. Hope you hear back from the soon.

I don't think the statement about having to opt out by Sept 1 is correct. Yes, on Sept 1 local park carry will be legal, and that is to give time to local goverments to ban before that date, however AFAIK the could still opt out at any point in the future.

39-17-1311((1) has a list of exemptions to the prohibition of firearms in parks. The new law added ...(I) and (J) to the list, but (G) is the one we are discussing here. It says... So 39-17-1311((1)(G)(iv) has the entering and leaving part, but not in it or anywhere else does say about leaving it in a locked vehicle.

Guess his true colors are showing now that he can't run again.

Welcome

Welcome