Jump to content
Worriedman

HB 0995/SB 1171 Parks

Recommended Posts

I don't know but you might be able to be charged with vandalism of city property if you do anything to the signs since the signs belong to the city or county..................jmho

 

It was a tongue-in-cheek comment, thus the " :D " smilie

Edited by monkeylizard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello All,

 

I just joied this forum after reading about the passing of this bill into law.  I'm from Baton Rouge, LA, but will be visiting Nashville this summer to attend a major conference in the Bridgestone Arena.  Does anyone know for sure if the application of this new law will nullify the no weapons policy at the Bridgestone Arena?  I would sure like to be able to carry my 1911 while I'm there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since open carry of handguns is already legal in TN, there is no need to carry long guns to protest..

 

Situations not really comparable IMO.

 

- It is unlawful to carry a loaded firearm in public in TN.  Most can pay for the privilege to carry a handgun openly or concealed. It is unlawful to carry a loaded long gun in public in TN period.

 

- In TX, most can pay for the privilege to carry a handgun, but concealed only.  They wanted unlicensed open carry of handguns. Since it is not unlawful there to carry loaded long guns in public, they used that to highlight the issue.

 

- OS

Edited by Oh Shoot
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello All,
 
I just joied this forum after reading about the passing of this bill into law.  I'm from Baton Rouge, LA, but will be visiting Nashville this summer to attend a major conference in the Bridgestone Arena.  Does anyone know for sure if the application of this new law will nullify the no weapons policy at the Bridgestone Arena?  I would sure like to be able to carry my 1911 while I'm there.


You'll be disappointed then. Bridgestone is not a park, it is a privately owned venue and they wand at every event I've attended. Sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'll be disappointed then. Bridgestone is not a park, it is a privately owned venue and they wand at every event I've attended. Sorry.

 

FWIW, Wiki claims joint ownership:

 

"The Bridgestone Arena is owned by the Sports Authority of Nashville and Davidson County and operated by Powers Management Company, a subsidiary of the Nashville Predators National Hockey League franchise..."

 

- OS

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[x-post]

 

Actually, it's publicly owned. The city owns it. It's privately managed. It's clearly a civic center IMO, which puts it in a sort-of gray area right now.

 

One of the laws which was changed specifically references such buildings, which would make you think they'd be good-to-go for carry now. But another law about posting non-parks/schools may still apply.

 

To make it sticky, the Bridgestone is not actually posted in any way that I can find on any doors, but as LagerHead said, they wand everyone. It's their policy to not allow firearms, but have done nothing to legally prohibit them. So the real world application is that it's not legally prohibited at Bridgestone, but you'd be arguing the finer points of law with a minimum wage "security" person.

Edited by monkeylizard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, Wiki claims joint ownership:
 
"The Bridgestone Arena is owned by the Sports Authority of Nashville and Davidson County and operated by Powers Management Company, a subsidiary of the Nashville Predators National Hockey League franchise..."
 
- OS

 
 

[x-post]
 
Actually, it's publicly owned. The city owns it. It's privately managed. It's clearly a civic center IMO, which puts it in a sort-of gray area right now.
 
One of the laws which was changed specifically references such buildings, which would make you think they'd be good-to-go for carry now. But another law about posting non-parks/schools may still apply.
 
To make it sticky, the Bridgestone is not actually posted in any way that I can find on any doors, but as LagerHead said, they wand everyone. It's their policy to not allow firearms, but have done nothing to legally prohibit them. So the real world application is that it's not legally prohibited at Bridgestone, but you'd be arguing the finer points of law with a minimum wage "security" person.


Well, I sit corrected and now it's clear as mud.

My thinking is, they'll still wand, and if somehow you get past the wand (like if you go to eat/drink at the Petronas club beforehand) and they find out, they will ask you to leave. If you don't, be ready for Metro PD to be called and you will be "trespassed" and all that jazz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The funny thing, to me, is that many of the folks making comments criticizing this change to the law do not seem to realize that:

 

1.  This law has nothing to do with state parks.  Even some of our local media talking air-heads have stated (before it was signed) that it would make it legal to carry in state and local parks.  It has been legal to carry in state parks since before Haslam was governor.  The law changed shortly after Obama signed legislation making it legal to carry in federal parks.

I think what causes the confusion is that the state parks still have signs up at the entrance prohibiting firearms. Every time we go camping my wife asks me if I'm sure that it's legal to carry in the park because she sees the sign at the entrance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess this is going to be one of those gray areas that someone is actually going to have to challenge by getting told no, and then suing to prove otherwise.  I'll stay tuned.  I have until July.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess this is going to be one of those gray areas that someone is actually going to have to challenge by getting told no, and then suing to prove otherwise.  I'll stay tuned.  I have until July.

 

Certainly won't be the only one. TN weapons law traditionally leaves lots of gray area. It's what evolves when you start out with premise that possession of a loaded firearm is unlawful period, then add 50 exceptions, instead of beginning with no restrictions and adding some very specific ones.

 

- OS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly won't be the only one. TN weapons law traditionally leaves lots of gray area. It's what evolves when you start out with premise that possession of a loaded firearm is unlawful period, then add 50 exceptions, instead of beginning with no restrictions and adding some very specific ones.

 

- OS

 

Yeah, the whole thing needs an overhaul.  Maybe, since the Tennessee Constitution only gives the State Legislature the power to regulate "the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime" they should start with something along the lines of, "It is legal to wear or carry a loaded firearm anywhere in the state unless you plan to use it to commit a crime in which case it ain't.  This shall take effect immediately upon becoming law, the public welfare demanding it."

 

I just went to look at the summary, again, and was interested to see that there was actually some knife/blade regulation included in the bill/law.  Specifically, it says:

 

 

 

AMENDMENT #1 creates a Class A misdemeanor for any person to intentionally carry an explosive, explosive weapon, permanently disabled firearm, hoax device, imitation firearm, machete, or sword openly within 150 feet of the grounds or facilities of any public or private school, unless the person is:

(1) A person employed in the United States military or any member of the Tennessee national guard when in discharge of their official duties and acting under orders requiring them to carry arms or weapons;
(2) A civil officer of the United States in the discharge of official duties;
(3) An officer or soldier of the militia and the national guard when called into actual service;
(4) A law enforcement officer when in the discharge of official duties;
(5) A student in the ROTC or enrolled in a course of instruction, or who is a member of a club or team, that requires the student to carry arms or weapons in the discharge of official class or team duties;
(6) A private police employed by the administration or board of trustees of any public or private institution of higher education in the discharge of duties;
(7) A registered security guard discharging official duties; or
(8) Carrying a machete while employed in a profession where a machete is customarily utilized.

 

Now, I figured that carrying a machete or sword on school grounds was verboten, still, even after the change in knife law last year.  This, however, establishes that there is a 'no machete zone' of 150 feet around school property.  Of course, it also specifically prohibits the OPEN carry of a machete, sword, etc. so I guess a concealed machete would be okay, at least by the letter of this law?

 

I also think that the list of exceptions should include:

 

(9)A ninja.

Edited by JAB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

......

 
I just went to look at the summary, again, and was interested to see that there was actually some knife/blade regulation included in the bill/law.  Specifically, it says:
 
"AMENDMENT #1 creates a Class A misdemeanor for any person to intentionally carry an explosive, explosive weapon, permanently disabled firearm, hoax device, imitation firearm, machete, or sword openly within 150 feet of the grounds or facilities of any public or private school, unless the person is:'....

 
That amendment was rejected along with another one that had been passed, not in final bill as passed, that emerged from the conference committee after they were at loggerheads.
 
AFAIK, here is the final bill, as submitted from the conference committee and passed by both chambers:
 
http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/109/CCRReports/CC0001.pdf
 

- OS Edited by Oh Shoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While Bridgestone might be a grey area...  Metro Nashville has a lot more areas that aren't grey and are going to cause Metro Parks to flip out ;)

 

For clear examples of 'recreational' that appear to be covered under the new law:

 

Centennial Sportsplex - I don't see how they can argue that the sportplex isn't covered by exceptions in 39-17-1359 or 1311.

 

Parks Community Centers  - Again, they're ran by Metro Parks, don't see how they prohibit somebody from carry a firearm at those either.

 

Two Rivers Skatepark - Yeah this one too...

 

Wave Country - Entirely ran by Metro Parks...  I can see them trying to ban carry through some other method here... but legally they can't.

 

Parks/Metro Police are going to have a cow when they figure out all the areas covered by this law...

 

Bridgestone is the least of their worries...  they have a fighting chance to argue that those aren't parks...  I don't see how Metro Parks makes the argument in court stuff they run isn't a park under 1311 and 1359 with a straight face.

 

[x-post]

 

Actually, it's publicly owned. The city owns it. It's privately managed. It's clearly a civic center IMO, which puts it in a sort-of gray area right now.

 

One of the laws which was changed specifically references such buildings, which would make you think they'd be good-to-go for carry now. But another law about posting non-parks/schools may still apply.

 

To make it sticky, the Bridgestone is not actually posted in any way that I can find on any doors, but as LagerHead said, they wand everyone. It's their policy to not allow firearms, but have done nothing to legally prohibit them. So the real world application is that it's not legally prohibited at Bridgestone, but you'd be arguing the finer points of law with a minimum wage "security" person.

Edited by JayC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except, at least to my understanding, they still won't be able to carry in Chipotle's as their antics lead to those stores being posted against carry of any type, even in states where open or concealed carry was already legal.  Please correct me if I am wrong about that..

 

They did not post. Neither did Target or Chili's. They issued a public request that people not carry openly in their stores, and the only purpose it served was to shut the Xanax mommies up. You can still carry in all of those places.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Situations not really comparable IMO.

 

- It is unlawful to carry a loaded firearm in public in TN.  Most can pay for the privilege to carry a handgun openly or concealed. It is unlawful to carry a loaded long gun in public in TN period.

 

- In TX, most can pay for the privilege to carry a handgun, but concealed only.  They wanted unlicensed open carry of handguns. Since it is not unlawful there to carry loaded long guns in public, they used that to highlight the issue.

 

- OS

 

You get my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You get my point.

 

Well, can't say I do. Saying that "Since open carry of handguns is already legal in TN, there is no need to carry long guns to protest" just doesn't compute since:

 

- The Texans are striving for something we don't have in TN either, constitutional open (and/or concealed) carry of handguns.

 

- Unlike Texans, we can't carry loaded long guns in public period.

 

It looks like Texans may actually make only a partial gain this session,  to be able to open carry handguns with a permit only, same as here.

 

- OS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While Bridgestone might be a grey area...  Metro Nashville has a lot more areas that aren't grey and are going to cause Metro Parks to flip out ;)

 

For clear examples of 'recreational' that appear to be covered under the new law:

 

Centennial Sportsplex - I don't see how they can argue that the sportplex isn't covered by exceptions in 39-17-1359 or 1311.

 

Parks Community Centers  - Again, they're ran by Metro Parks, don't see how they prohibit somebody from carry a firearm at those either.

 

Two Rivers Skatepark - Yeah this one too...

 

Wave Country - Entirely ran by Metro Parks...  I can see them trying to ban carry through some other method here... but legally they can't.

 

Parks/Metro Police are going to have a cow when they figure out all the areas covered by this law...

 

Bridgestone is the least of their worries...  they have a fighting chance to argue that those aren't parks...  I don't see how Metro Parks makes the argument in court stuff they run isn't a park under 1311 and 1359 with a straight face.

 

Go back and look at 1359 again.

 

 

(f ) This section shall not apply to the grounds of any public park, natural area, historic park, nature trail, campground, forest, greenway, waterway or other similar public place that is owned or operated by the state, a county, a municipality or instrumentality thereof. The carrying of firearms in those areas shall be governed by § 39-17-1311.

 

Neither the Sportsplex nor the Community Centers fit that description. That makes them as gray as Bridgestone IMO. You probably have a good argument for Wave Country and I think you're 100% right about the Two Rivers Skate Park since "Park" is in its official name. I think 1359 may still apply to those non "park" properties and buildings operated by parks departments and other administrative arms. 1311 clearly spells out that it applies to such places, but 1359 doesn't expressly defer to 1311 on those kinds of places. With the new change to 1311, you'd no longer be in violation of 1311 by carrying, but you may still be in violation of 1359.

Edited by monkeylizard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

..... With the new change to 1311, you'd no longer be in violation of 1311 by carrying, but you may still be in violation of 1359.

 

At least the onus of a Class A Misdemeanor has now been removed. Perhaps we are going to finally get test cases on 1359 charges as a result of this. The two biggest gray areas regarding it being "compliant signage" and also losing your permit as per 39-17-1352.

 

- OS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree...

 

This section shall not apply to the grounds of any public park, natural area, historic park, nature trail, campground, forest, greenway, waterway or other similar public place that is owned or operated by the state, a county, a municipality or instrumentality thereof. The carrying of firearms in those areas shall be governed by § 39-17-1311.

 

39-17-1311a

 

It is an offense for any person to possess or carry, whether openly or concealed, with the intent to go armed, any weapon prohibited by § 39-17-1302(a), not used solely for instructional, display or sanctioned ceremonial purposes, in or on the grounds of any public park, playground, civic center or other building facility, area or property owned, used or operated by any municipal, county or state government, or instrumentality thereof, for recreational purposes.

 

I agree there is no case law, but it's clear the legislative intent is for areas covered by 39-17-1311 to be exempt from 39-17-1359...  Also, none of those locations are currently posted via 39-17-1359.

 

I think the argument you'll have for Community Centers is the fact they sit entirely within the confines of public parks in most cases in Metro Nashville...  I can't see the government saying with a straight face the law says you can run around the entire park with a firearm, but can not access a building within that park because it's called a Community Center.

 

At the end of the day somebody (hopefully the TFA) will test the attempts by Nashville, Knoxville or Memphis to violate 39-17-1311/1359.

 

Some examples:

 

'Bellevue Community Center" - https://www.google.com/maps/search/Bellevue+Recreation+Center/@36.0713775,-86.9328273,18z

 

"The Parthenon" - https://www.google.com/maps/place/The+Parthenon/@36.1497249,-86.8126882,18z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x0000000000000000:0x70f4d37bc63ae1a6

 

"Hermitage Community Center" - https://www.google.com/maps/place/3720+James+Kay+Ln,+Hermitage,+TN+37076/@36.1772803,-86.614717,19z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x88646afbfbcd5fe1:0xf89d058f22dbf138

 

"Madison Community Center" - https://www.google.com/maps/place/510+Cumberland+Ave,+Madison,+TN+37115/@36.2657108,-86.6999561,18z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x886443aa05c0d1b1:0x83d5724a7f833b68

 

Here is a list of Metro Community Centers, all but 6 clear sit entirely inside the boundaries of a 'Park'...  

 

http://www.nashville.gov/Parks-and-Recreation/Community-Centers-and-Recreation.aspx

 

OhShoot, you really think these examples aren't covered by 39-17-1311...  These Community Centers are smack dab in the middle of 'Parks' in each case.  If the skate 'park' is in, I can't see how the entirety of a city park including any community centers listed are in as well.

 

Go back and look at 1359 again.

 

Neither the Sportsplex nor the Community Centers fit that description. That makes them as gray as Bridgestone IMO. You probably have a good argument for Wave Country and I think you're 100% right about the Two Rivers Skate Park since "Park" is in its official name. I think 1359 may still apply to those non "park" properties and buildings operated by parks departments and other administrative arms. 1311 clearly spells out that it applies to such places, but 1359 doesn't expressly defer to 1311 on those kinds of places. With the new change to 1311, you'd no longer be in violation of 1311 by carrying, but you may still be in violation of 1359.

Edited by JayC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I am behind on this as well.

 

However I believe I have a good excuse in my personal life right now.

 

So, gather Cities/counties don't have to remove the signs that say no guns, but they have no meaning for those of us with a valid permit.  Much like the signs at State/National Parks.

 

Is this in affect now or do we have to wait until July 1st?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ww.nashville.gov/Parks-and-Recreation/Community-Centers-and-Recreation.aspx

 

OhShoot, you really think these examples aren't covered by 39-17-1311...  These Community Centers are smack dab in the middle of 'Parks' in each case.  If the skate 'park' is in, I can't see how the entirety of a city park including any community centers listed are in as well.

 

I don't know which will prove to be under parks and which will not. Any place that sits entirely within the confines of a park "should be" under 1311 -- you'd think. Then again, you'd got federal law example where you can't carry in federal buildings completely within park boundaries, just as a juxtaposition of something similar.

 

Though the statues don't mention it, maybe will be argued under what division of the city/county a facility is administered may make a dif, who the frig knows. Some counties will have more pull than others to "tweak" the actual statutes, or at least think they will, who knows.  I just think it's going to mostly be a facility by facility hassle as time goes along. Obviously logic doesn't necessarily figure, especially with the weapons section of TCA enforcement, since as usual there are separate statutes that don't exactly jibe with each other.

 

Coliseums and sports arenas are generally not within park property, but most are certainly used mostly exclusively for recreational purposes. Would seem any that are even partially owned or managed by the city/county would fit into 1311, but I imagine these will be particularly heated bones of contention.

 

- OS

Edited by Oh Shoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know which will prove to be under parks and which will not. Any place that sits entirely within the confines of a park "should be" under 1311 -- you'd think. Then again, you'd got federal law example where you can't carry in federal buildings completely within park boundaries, just as a juxtaposition of something similar.

 

- OS

 

 

Actually, federal law does not prohibit carry in all buildings within federal parks, does it?  My understanding is that the law only prohibits carry in buildings within the parks where/when federal workers are present, right?  Buildings where federal workers are not normally present (such as unstaffed restroom facilities, for example) are not off limits for carry, correct?  So, since (at least in my experience) most community centers do not have regular staff who are present during events held there then any precedent in federal law should go toward allowing, not prohibiting, carry.  Besides, aren't federal buildings still supposed to be posted in order for the prohibition to be enforced?  Under the new state law, however, postings on places such as community centers should hold no validity for permit holders.

Edited by JAB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, the only consequence you might be tagged with is losing your permit under 1359? What if the person is carrying on a Georgia weapons license? They can't take that away. LOL

 

Wow, just when I thought things got a lot better in Tennessee, they also got a lot murkier. Hope y'all can clear this mess up. What will it take, and is there the will for folks to step up to the plate?

 

 

At least the onus of a Class A Misdemeanor has now been removed. Perhaps we are going to finally get test cases on 1359 charges as a result of this. The two biggest gray areas regarding it being "compliant signage" and also losing your permit as per 39-17-1352.

 

- OS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, just when I thought things got a lot better in Tennessee, they also got a lot murkier. Hope y'all can clear this mess up. What will it take, and is there the will for folks to step up to the plate?

 

As OS said, I think the only way things are going to get clearer is if the law is completely overhauled to make carrying a handgun legal in TN with a short list of very specific exceptions to that rule rather than the opposite situation we currently have.  By the letter of our state constitution, blanket laws making all carry illegal then offering exemptions/defenses isn't really 'legal' in my non-lawyer opinion but not being legal never stops politicians from passing laws, anyway.  At any rate, because of the blanket prohibition of carry with certain exceptions/defenses situation we have a bunch of piecemeal legislation that - even when some things change for the better - leaves bits and pieces of existing legislation in place which isn't always cleaned up to make new laws/regulations more clear to the average citizen.  You also have legislators who, even when a bill starts out 'clean' and clearly in favor of gun/carry rights, will insist on amending it to death before it will ever have a chance at passage so you get stupid crap like carry being off limits in places where it is normally legal if the local middle school happens to be holding their field day there at the time then you can (maybe) still carry in most of the park where it is usually legal for you to carry but not in the 'general vicinity' of the three-legged race or the potato race because, God knows, seeing a bunch of adolescents engaging in a sack race will turn a normally responsible, trustworthy permit holder, who could usually stand in that exact spot while carrying a loaded firearm with no problem, into a raging killer.

Edited by JAB
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, the only consequence you might be tagged with is losing your permit under 1359? What if the person is carrying on a Georgia weapons license? They can't take that away. LOL

 

Wow, just when I thought things got a lot better in Tennessee, they also got a lot murkier. Hope y'all can clear this mess up. What will it take, and is there the will for folks to step up to the plate?

The way I understand it under reciprocity with Georgia your permit would fall under Tennessee state laws/penalties while you are in this state.

I don't know if Tennessee can revoke it but I'm sure they would get Georgia to do it.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


The Fine Print

Tennessee Gun Owners (TNGunOwners.com) is the premier Community and Discussion Forum for gun owners, firearm enthusiasts, sportsmen and Second Amendment proponents in the state of Tennessee and surrounding region.

TNGunOwners.com (TGO) is a presentation of Enthusiast Productions. The TGO state flag logo and the TGO tri-hole "icon" logo are trademarks of Tennessee Gun Owners. The TGO logos and all content presented on this site may not be reproduced in any form without express written permission. The opinions expressed on TGO are those of their authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the site's owners or staff.

Before engaging in any transaction of goods or services on TGO, all parties involved must know and follow the local, state and Federal laws regarding those transactions. TGO makes no claims, guarantees or assurances regarding any such transactions.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to the following.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Guidelines