Fallguy

You do have to show more for the initial application (establish age and residency), but not for a renewal.

Sort of like the Department of Environment and Conservation responsible for state parks in TN operates instrumentally for the government of the state of TN, right?

Well yes and no.... There are lots of Pro-2A groups that HCP holders belong to. But I don't know of any organized group solely for HCP holders. Also if fighting for what is right means an outdated/stupid law has to be changed....so be it.

Very long thread already started on this subject. http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/tennessee-politics-legislation/22892-challenge-guns-bars-law-nashville-attorneys-david-randolph-smith-adam-dread.html

Had to get back here after just being on the Jackson Sun...lol Tired of reading and arguing with some of the idiots commenting on this article. Sportsplex backs gun ban in parks | jacksonsun.com |

LOL....this could be one time crow is not so bad I guess.

Sounds about right.

Welcome

Local park carry legal Sept 1

Not sure about an e-mail address. But I did call once and he, or at least someone in his office, did call me back the same day.

Name: ALL CITY PARKS City: Jackson Results of Vote: Carry not-prohibited, by Jackson City Council Tennessee Firearms Association, Inc. Legislative Action Committee Local Reports from a TFA member (Richard Archie) who attended the Jackson City Council (Madison county) meeting on July 7 reports that the city council voted 6 to 2 with one abstaining to REJECT a motion to close Jackson City parks under the local parks option.

Tennessee Firearms Association, Inc. Legislative Action Committee Local Reports from a TFA member (Richard Archie) who attended the Jackson City Council (Madison county) meeting on July 7 reports that the city council voted 6 to 2 with one abstaining to REJECT a motion to close Jackson City parks under the local parks option. http://www.cityofjackson.net/mayor/council/meetings.html

You very possibly are correct.... I do see it here a lot. One person saying something is black another saying it is non-white...lol. As you said hopefully we'll see soon enough. .....and thanks for helping to show how members of this board can have a good debate/discussion and not make it personal.

I saw that post ...and Yes, if they opt out they must post signs like the one in 39-17-1311©(1) Before even though it was against state law to carry in a park, and the law required signs, local governments could exempt themselves from having to post signs, but not now.

From handgunlaw.us AR page So from that I'd say Yes, you can carry in Logan's and Outback...at least I have in AR.

Welcome

Name: ALL CITY PARKS City: Johnson City Results of Vote: Carry prohibited (unanimous vote), by Johnson City City Council. UPDATE:* No Guns Allowed In Johnson City City Parks | TriCities

Well while they can not prohibit carry in only part of a single park, they can allow carry in some parks and not in others as a whole. So they could ban carry in the Sportsplex (which I'm not sure is really making them any money anyway) but allow it Muse Park, Highland Park and so on. I keep checking the Jackson Sun's website for any update...none yet.

I emailed all the city council members. Heard back from 4. Those four all said they would vote against the ordnance. One told me that a similar ordnance failed a couple of years ago 2-7 and thought the vote would pretty much be the same this time. As far as some of the clueless people on this and restaurant carry....I'd bet they would nearly be overwhelmed if they just knew how many times they were around those that carry in other places they go. But nothing happend...no shooting rampage or the like. Anyway...I am really hoping that Jackson will be one of the larger cities in the state not to opt out of park carry.

5 or 6. I think July 1 would have been 1 day, since he got it on June 30. The constitution says the only days that don't count are Sundays...it doesn't make any mention of holidays. So...I am counting the 4th when I say it has been 6 days.

©(3) specifically says the local government could vote not to post the sign in ©(1)...you do see that, right? (In no way am I or was I saying they could opt out of allowing or disallowing carry before) So since state law said it was illegal to carry in a park you couldn't carry there....and a local government did not have to post a sign if the exempted themselves from having to post as allowed in ©(3). It's just about that simple. I believe the "or instrumentality thereof" means those places maybe not operated directly by the state, but by others for the state or maybe even the reverse. Either way, if it would have meant counties and cities it would have said any "political sub-division" thereof. I do agree it would have been better to have required signs to be changed, but it would have created a fiscal note and that is what has killed the bill in the past. I don't think this is as a big of a problem for state parks though. One because I have never seen a "proper" 39-17-1311 sign at a state park. Secondly we know all state parks are legal and are not "opting out". The only minor problem is those from out of state that may not know the sign(s) do not apply to permitted carriers. However I hope over time those signs will be changed. On local parks if they allow carry but happen to have signs up now, they can remove them (even if (e)(1) applies to them, which I don't think it does) The only sign that will legally prohibit carry in local parks after Sept 1 is a 39-17-1311©(1) sign. So if you see that sign I would not carry. If a local park has 39-17-1311©(1) signs in place now..... ....and opt out of allowing carry, no harm no foul really. ....if they do not opt out and allow carry. They should remove their signs IMO. But part of me thinks if they went to the trouble to post proper 39-17-1311©(1) signs already (because as I said before, all the places I've seen haven't) I doubt they are going to allow carry.

No, they are not breaking the law. Read 39-17-1311©(3) in your copy and paste. They could vote to not have to post. Many places have posted "generic" no firearms signs. This signs however will not legally prohibit carry by HCP holders on Sept 1. However they can be left up to prevent carry by others. Again No, it says they SHALL post the sign authorized in 39-17-1311©(1) To be honest...I think the new 39-17-1311(e)(1) is actually for State Parks...one reason because it says July 1 another because it says "the department" (assuming it means the Parks Dept) Also it says "Owned or operated by the State" But either way it doesn't say signs can not be removed by state or local parks. So if Murfressboro doesn't vote to ban carry, they really should remove their signs, however if they don't remove them and also don't prohibit carry by HCP holders...then Yes, I grant you it would be very confusing. But I still stand by that very few places, at least in smaller population areas, have 39-17-1311©(1) signs already posted.

Don't advocate breaking the law on a public forum. Rule 5 of the CoC

I remember that thread. ...and I understand hunters getting to the location. But even they would have to keep their firearms unloaded until getting there, right? Also I though in this thread we were talking more like on or in the dam itself or other terra firma property

I think you may be looking at it a bit wrong. In the link...SECTION 2 is redoing 39-17-1311(d) completely. In the new 39-17-1311(d) it is saying despite park carry being legal per the new 39-17-1311(1)(I), (created by SECTION 1 of the bill), that local parks can ban carry by a vote. In the new 39-17-1311(e)(1) it is saying existing signs shall be left in place (local and state) since it will still be illegal for those without a HCP to carry. In the new 39-17-1311(e)(2) it is saying that if a local government elects to prohibit carry they SHALL post the sign in 39-17-1311©(1). The sign in 39-17-1311©(1) has exact wording and dimensions. So yes, if a place had a proper 39-17-1311©(1) sign and left it up, but allowed carry, it could be confusing, BUT....I am not sure I have ever seen a sign like that in 39-17-1311©(1) anywhere. One reason is because before this law, local governments could opt out of posting even....now they MUST post.