![[SeMissourian.com]](http://www.t-g.com/images/nameplate.png)
RSS
Print
Email link
Respond to editor
Read comments (28)
Share link
del.icio.us
Digg
StumbleUpon
Technorati
Newsvine
Facebook
Furl
Reddit
GoogleThe newly passed Public Chapter No. 428 would authorize citizens in Tennessee with handgun carry permits to be able to lawfully possess a firearm in federal, state or local parks.
However, cities also have the option of excluding their parks by passing a resolution, according to the University of Tennessee Municipal Technical Advisory Service.
The new law allowing guns in parks goes into effect on Sept. 1 of this year, and if Shelbyville chooses to enact the resolution, it would have to be done before that date.
The item will be on the council's agenda for the month of August.
If enacted, the city would have to place signs in its parks that prohibit the weapons.
City manager Ed Craig said he was sure that "there are many pros and cons" to the issue.
"I'm sure you'll hear from your constituents," Craig told members of the council.
Craig said one issue was kids and parents in the parks for baseball games, which he said was a "big concern."
"That's the difference between local parks and state parks ... the types of activities," Craig said.
Councilman Thomas Landers said he did not know of anyone that would want to carry a firearm in a park, but then asked city attorney Ginger Shofner a legal question.
He asked a hypothetical situation put to him by a citizen -- if a woman has a firearm carry permit and is not allowed to possess one in a city park, and then she is raped, could the city be sued because she was denied the right to bear arms?
Shofner said that city has a right to "opt out" of the law and it was her opinion that there would "not be any liability whatsoever."
Council member Kay Rose said her back yard borders the park's walking trail and that she would not feel comfortable knowing someone could be walking behind her home with a weapon.
Public Chapter No. 428 would allow carry permit holders to possess a handgun "while within or on a public park, natural area, historic park, natural trail, campground, forest, greenway, waterway or other similar place that is owned or operated by the state, a county, a municipality ..."
The "opt out" option would allow a city to prohibit the carrying of a firearm in these places, as well as parks.
Also, a city could amend the resolution to prohibit handguns in some parks, while allowing them in others.
The possession of weapons was already allowed in recreational areas for individuals in certain circumstances such as law enforcement, reserve officers in training, private police, lands designated as open for hunting, persons attending gun or knife shows, or someone delivering or picking up passengers who do not use the weapon in any manner.
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please
I hope the city council realizes that the people who have went to the trouble of getting a carry permit are the law abiding folks. These are the last people who would cause problems with a firearm.
I will have to disagree with Ginger Shofner's opinion about the city's liability. If the city denies someone's constitutional right to protect themselves, they are assuming that responsibility.
Say a person has a permit and carries a gun in their car. They want to go to the park to the rec. center or to walk and leave the gun in the car. What are they to do with the gun? Do you want them to park outside the park area? If you have a permit you have gone to classes and know the extensive liabilities of shooting someone. These are responsible people. The ones who will rape, rob or shoot you don't care what the law says about carrying a gun that is a joke, if they are going to kill you getting arrested for carrying or stealing a gun is the least of their worries. They will bring their guns in anyways only the law abiding citizens will follow the law and become victims. Yes I would try to sue if something happend and I was not allowed to carry with a carry permit.
What a joke. U.S. citizens have the right to "own & bear arms". Period. The constitution makes no allowances for the states or anyone else to allow exceptions. Yet they are made by those that break the law (Congress). So, now the state has made it legal to obide by the law and yet allows cities the right to make exceptions and further make it illegal for citizens to obide by the law and excercise their constitutional rights. Make sense? If not, then read the constitution again.
JUST LEAVE IT ALONE!!!! iT IS JUST FINE THE WAY IT IS NOW!!!!!!!
I agree with MSK.... Just leave it alone.
Those who intend to do harm to other people depend on you (the city council) making sure their victims are not armed, and the ban surly won't keep them from carrying weapons.
I've seen some parents almost get in fist fights over their kids baseball game. Now they can just shoot each other.
Acoustic,
Are you saying that only people with carry permits will get in fights and shoot each other? Are only concerned with people who carry weapons legally?
These are people that know they can not drink while they have their weapon anywhere around them. They also know they will get arrested and lose their permit if they even hint that they will use their weapon without sufficient provocation.
If they allow guns in the park, I want to be able to take my dog(on a leash of course) to the park. She is a lot safer than a gun!!
Kay Rose's comment was kind of stupid . . . does she not realize someone can walk in front of her house with a gun by law? How does it make her home safer if they can't carry one in the park versus other areas? LOL!
Oh well, I dont really think a park is the best place to carry a weapon but it doesnt really bother me if they do either.
"U.S. citizens have the right to "own & bear arms". Period. The constitution makes no allowances for the states or anyone else to allow exceptions."
so, anyone should be allowed to carry a gun onto a plane, into a courtroom, to a ball game, you name it?
"I will have to disagree with Ginger Shofner's opinion about the city's liability. If the city denies someone's constitutional right to protect themselves, they are assuming that responsibility."
is this based on your legal training, or just something that you conjured out of thin air?
The unspoken bottom line here is that licensed, legal gun owners that have gone to the trouble to get licensed and jump through all the hoops that requires, simply DO NOT commit gun crimes.
If you don't believe me, check the DoJ or more on point, the Tn Dept. of Safety's data concerning gun permit holders.
Even the FBI admits that LEGAL gun owners commit less that 1/100 of one percent of gun crimes. In other words it's the ILLEGAL guns that commit 99.99% of gun crimes.
is this based on your legal training, or just something that you conjured out of thin air?
-- Posted by lazarus on Thu, Jul 2, 2009, at 6:34 PM
Legal training. I believe her argument would be that coming to the park is a voluntary choice and that every person that chooses to bears responsibility for that choice.
If that is the case, you have to ask why they have lifeguards at the pool.
so, anyone should be allowed to carry a gun onto a plane, into a courtroom, to a ball game, you name it?
-- Posted by lazarus on Thu, Jul 2, 2009, at 6:31 PM
Yes they should, because that's what the amendment says. If the people want something different, then they should amend the constitution.
the guns in parks law was a fitting capstone for one of the sorriest legisltures to ever (dis)grace the state capital. bowing to pressure from a VERY small number of VERY loud voices, they passed a law they had to know was terrible, and admitted it by dumping the burden of being responsible on local governments.
yes, i said a VERY small number. gun person here; most of my friends are gun people; some have HCP's. yet not one of them thinks this is a good law. playgrounds, swimming pools, ballfields, if these are places that you feel in imminent danger, then you should stay away. i am not a proponent of a universal ban on guns in all parks, but all parks are not the same. i could understand someone preferring to carry on the greenway (thus i never go to the greenway). but swimming pools, playgrounds, and ballfields?
as far as "self protection" goes, if you stick a gun in your pants and feel safe, then you are not. the first and best line of self protection is to be aware and alert. relying on a gun, which would only become a factor when you are actually in danger, is no way to prevent yourself from becoming a victim.
You want to hear something weird. Missouri has a CCL law that allows businesses to ban the carrying of concealed weapons on premises by posting a sign. Some signs state no firearms; some state all weapons. Most businesses have probably never read the law. The weird thing: the ban pertains only to those individuals with CCLs.
"Legal training. I believe her argument would be that coming to the park is a voluntary choice and that every person that chooses to bears responsibility for that choice."
what ginger said was (paraphrased) 'the state law allows the city to ban guns in the park, and the city has no liability for acting within state law.' perhaps your client would be better off to sue the state legislature? (where did you get your legal training?)
"you have to ask why they have lifeguards at the pool."
no i dont. they have lifeguards because the citizens want them to have lifeguards. numerous public swimming areas exist (particularly at lakes) with no lifeguards. they simply post a sign stating that fact.
"anyone should be allowed to carry a gun ... into a courtroom?"
"Yes they should, because that's what the amendment says."
no it doesnt. the amendment says: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." in the parlance of the day "bear arms" had a police/military meaning. of course, to fully put it in context would require a lengthy discourse on the laws of england prior to the inception of standing armies and police forces, in addition to the unique situations existing before the american revolution. that said, i am more than happy to interpret it as protecting my right to possess firearms. to interpret it as also protecting the right of a mental patient with 5 felony convictions to carry a 9mm into the courtroom of the judge who sentenced him might be a little ludicrous (and not particulary helpful in defending my own right to own a gun).
no it doesnt. the amendment says: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." in the parlance of the day "bear arms" had a police/military meaning. of course, to fully put it in context would require a lengthy discourse on the laws of england prior to the inception of standing armies and police forces, in addition to the unique situations existing before the american revolution.
-- Posted by lazarus on Thu, Jul 2, 2009, at 9:08 PM
As you said there were no police and no standing army during that time so the 2A recognizes citizen's right to keep and bear partly to carry out their right of self protection. Just because we now have police and armies does not negate that in the slightest, any more than a government run TV station would negate the freedom of the press.
Having read all these "posts," I could not help thinking about the statement of Kay Rose and how she might feel if a doctor was walking on the trail behind her house. Would she feel threatened?
Doesn't she know that doctors kill more people in the U.S. each year than all weapons! The fact remains: "Guns do not kill people; people kill people!" She needs to take a look at my wife. No one would be threatened by her. Yet, she has carried a weapon even before the "Carry" law went into effect. Why? Because I demand she be able to defend her person. No "army" will follow her around; neither will a policeman or deputy. Each individual must be able to defend his/her life or well being. Who knows when or where a criminal might strike. It might be in your home, in a park, in a restaurant, or even in church! Read the news!!
Lazarus,
I believe you're argument surrounding the "meaning" of the second amendment is flawed.
When finding against the District of Columbia last year (Heller vs. DC) The court found the following;
* that the operative clause of the Second Amendment--"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"--is controlling and refers to a pre-existing right of individuals to possess and carry personal weapons for self-defense and intrinsically for defense against tyranny, based on the bare meaning of the words, the usage of "the people" elsewhere in the Constitution, and historical materials on the clause's original public meaning;
* that the prefatory clause, which announces a purpose of a "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", comports with the meaning of the operative clause and refers to a well-trained citizen militia, which "comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense", as being necessary to the security of a free polity;
* that historical materials support this interpretation, including "analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions" at the time, the drafting history of the Second Amendment, and interpretation of the Second Amendment "by scholars, courts, and legislators" through the late nineteenth century;
* that none of the Supreme Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation, specifically United States v. Cruikshank (1875), Presser v. Illinois (1886), nor United States v. Miller (1939)
Hey just give everybody a gun, let them go where they want, and let them be the judge of when they need to take the "law into their own hands". We don't need police, security gaurds, or even judges or attorneys anymore. Let "the people" decide what to do with all the laws. "Power to the people". Now want that be a plan? We will save a "TON" of money, and perhaps America will get out of debt, and the dollar bill will be worth that and more. ROFL.
Reminds me of Gunsmoke, or Billy the Kid (outlaw type movies). No sherrif of the town just every man for them selves. ROFL.
Happy, Safe 4th. of July to everyone.
Momof3
In a different blog I explained to you the police are under no legal requirement to protect individuals. You agreed and even posted some links that explained it. Have you forgotten that already? ROFL
How about a gun analogy anyone can understand?
There are three kinds of people in the world Wolves/predators/criminals,Sheep/victims/slaves and Sheepdogs/protectors/freemen.
Sheep are afraid of teeth,they are so afraid they can't tell the wolves from the sheepdogs.
This fear makes them want to ban teeth.
However, wolves will not turn in their teeth and without the sheepdog's teeth the wolves will kill the sheep.
Moral of the story?
Don't think like a sheep,fear will get you killed,if you don't have balls enough for teeth of your own,leave the sheepdogs alone.
I read several of the comments here and all make good points. But one thing I disagree with is this. The city could not get judgement against them for banning guns in parks. Could they be sued yes BUT: If it is posted No Firearms Allowed and you enter on you own account you assume the risk. You dont have to go in there if you dont want to nobody is making you. It would be the same as sueing a city because you drive thru a area posted Dangerous Intersection Ahead and are involved in a accident you assumed the risk so dont blame anyone else. The bottom line is weather they ban guns or not in parks you dont have to go in there if you dont like it.I am against having a gun in a park. Most of you have been to these ball games and have seen a "few" ruin kids ball games by argueing and fighting put a gun in the mix and it could end trajic because of a moment of anger.To me we need to grow up teach our kids good values and responsibility and lead them by example in a couple of years we may not need guns for protection. God Bless and have a happy fourth and remember the people that gave us the right to express our oppinions
I read several of the comments here and all make good points. But one thing I disagree with is this. The city could not get judgement against them for banning guns in parks. Could they be sued yes BUT: If it is posted No Firearms Allowed and you enter on you own account you assume the risk. You dont have to go in there if you dont want to nobody is making you. It would be the same as sueing a city because you drive thru a area posted Dangerous Intersection Ahead and are involved in a accident you assumed the risk so dont blame anyone else. The bottom line is weather they ban guns or not in parks you dont have to go in there if you dont like it.I am against having a gun in a park. Most of you have been to these ball games and have seen a "few" ruin kids ball games by argueing and fighting put a gun in the mix and it could end trajic because of a moment of anger.To me we need to grow up teach our kids good values and responsibility and lead them by example in a couple of years we may not need guns for protection. God Bless and have a happy fourth and remember the people that gave us the right to express our oppinions
golly quite mike, i always heard there were only 3 kinds of people: those who can count, and those who cant.
on a more serious note, you left out the 4th group: the lap dogs. they think themselves to be quite worldly, because they have seen the yard when they are taken out on a leash to pee. and they bark all the time, because they are afraid of everything.
on a more serious note, you left out the 4th group: the lap dogs. they think themselves to be quite worldly, because they have seen the yard when they are taken out on a leash to pee. and they bark all the time, because they are afraid of everything.
-- Posted by lazarus on Sat, Jul 4, 2009, at 9:46 AM
Interesting that you would see a dog with a collar around its neck being told where to go pee as something other than a slave.
Strange parallel that you wish for the government to tell you where you can go and what you can do when you get there. ;-)
But one thing I disagree with is this. The city could not get judgement against them for banning guns in parks. Could they be sued yes BUT: If it is posted No Firearms Allowed and you enter on you own account you assume the risk. You dont have to go in there if you dont want to nobody is making you.
-- Posted by WEask4IT on Sat, Jul 4, 2009, at 9:44 AM
No one made an old lady go to McDonalds and order coffee either, but that didn't prevent a multi-million dollar judgment.
Any lawyer that talks in terms of absolutes, such as we would have "no liability" is posturing plain and simple. There is nothing absolutely certain in the law, if there were attorneys would be out of business.