Guns In Parks re-do

[Grunt67]

What we need to get changed next, in addition to the guns in employer parking lot situation, is reworking
the Guns In Parks bill to remove the opt in/opt out provision.
Anyone heard any rumblings of this nature on Capitol Hill?

[C. Richard Archie]

We had our Freedom Celebration In Jackson today. Over 2000 people, and you could not swing a cat and NOT hit a political candidate. We raised a lot of money for "Care Packages" for our troops, paid tribute to our Veterans, and had a great day of cooking out and enjoying the fellowship of our friends and neighbors. Children were everywhere, parents bringing them in to see the Military ceremony of Posting the Colors. Our friend and radio host Frankie Lax played TAPS on his Father's bugle, and there were more than one set of moist eyes in the crowd, as he did an excellent rendition. We prayed for our Country, and gave thanks to God for being able to live in this great Nation.

The TFA table was constantly awash in visitors, I personally spoke to two different gubernatorial candidates, three seekers of the 8th District Fed. Congressional seat, and a herd of local candidates.

I also was appraised of over 40 individuals who were carrying legally, as we defeated the "opt Out" provision relative to our parks in Jackson last September. No one seemed concerned that we were prepared to provide for our own defense. The Local LEO's who attended were aware and did not mind.

Perhaps the rest of the State should witness the fact that free men and women can walk about and mingle while enjoying their Constitutional Right to Bear Arms in safety.

[David Lewis]

Hear!! Hear!! Richard, Hear! Hear!!

Excellent report of what sounds like a great day!

David

[TNReb]

[Tim Nunan]

[PapaB]

Following up with what Tim Nunan said, when asked about guns in parks, here's wht the 3 Republican candidates for Govenor said.

Guns in parks
The legislature approved a law last year allowing handgun-carry permit holders to take guns into city, county and state parks — but it gave city councils and county commissions authority to designate one, some or all of their parks off limits to guns. Gun advocacy groups and some legislators say they will ask the legislature to remove the authority of local governments to “opt out” of the law — in effect, opening all local parks to guns whether local governments want that or not. First, do you support or oppose repealing the law that allows guns in state parks? And do you support or oppose removing the “opt-out” provision for local government?

Haslam
I support the new law allowing handgun-carry permit holders to take guns into parks and I would oppose its repeal. I also favor giving local communities as much autonomy as possible. I’m proud of the fact that Knoxville is the only big city in the state where there is no criminal penalty for legal gun permit holders carrying in parks.

Ramsey
I oppose the repeal of the 2009 law.

Wamp
I oppose repealing the 2009 law because we should not pick and predict where law abiding citizens may be called upon to defend themselves against violent criminals. A park is just like any other public place and the same rule should apply to parks that apply elsewhere. While I would support an “opt-out” provision for local governments, I would not vote to opt out on this law because it keeps Tennesseans safe. But just as there is a separation of powers between the federal and state governments, there is also a separation of powers between state and local governments. If a local government wants to opt out, they should be allowed to do so.

Both Haslam and Wamp support the opt-out provision. We need to get Ramsey to address that part.

More questions and answers can be found here:

[RobertNashville]

I'm rather disappointed that Lt. Gov. Ramsey didn't address the Opt-out issue but even more disappointed that the other two major candidates support it! We absolutely need to have Mr. Ramsey tell us his position on this.

Frankly, I have mixed feelings about this.

I want to be able to carry everywhere; I believe it's both my right and my duty. That said, I also believe that, as a matter of principal, communities/cities/counties should be given as much autonomy from the State as possible (just as I believe that each State should have as much autonomy as possible from the federal government).

The ultimate answer, in my always humble opinion, is for the people who live in those communities to elect those who best represent their views. That way, if a city government or county commission decides to ban guns in parks in those communities it should reflect the majority views of those who live in those areas. And, if you happen to live in a community with political leadership that isn't reflective of your views, you either work to elect better leadership or you move to another community.

Obviously, this and related issues is something I'm still wrestling with!

[fl0at]

I wonder if maybe asking a more pointed question would allow for a better answer, strictly speaking, "If the legislature deemed it necessary to remove the opt-out language, would you allow for their position, or would you veto the newly addressed legislation?"

If they/he answers that he would stay out of their way, he has my vote.

[PapaB]

[johnharris]

[C. Richard Archie]

I concur with PapaB.

Time and again what we have seen, with respect to the Parks Carry, is an issue of control by the local "Legislature". In some instances closed door votes by Councils or Boards of Aldermen have been held, denying even the perception of searching out the wishes of the citizenry. The MTAS sent out their instructions, and the good little children fell in line with the "directions" as provided. I never saw a single presentation of empirical data showing Parks Carry would increase crime. In the year + that the law has been in effect, has there been the blood bath at the pitchers mound that was predicted?

I personally believe that what we have witnessed relating to this issue, is the most egregious act of Official Oppression seen in the recent past. Taxpayer funded people holding positions of authority have, by design, denied the electorate their ability to enjoy their Constitutional rights, sans any evidence of the necessity to restrict those Rights. The MTAS slanted their "workup" to the municipalities, informing them that if they did not "act now" that those evil gun owners were going to gain ground and be able to carry in the very parcels of land that they paid their taxes to purchase and maintain.

[Ron W]

[SiD]

The right we are discussing is not one of those original rights deemed 'not to be infringed'?

No matter what level of government nor what the pecking order, the right of the individual to keep and bear arms should be unmolested,,, period. How can the local "leadership" be considered sovreign if in fact they refuse to recognize the divine endowment of rights granted the citizenry?


my opinion.

[RobertNashville]

[Butch Butler]

[fl0at]

Fantastic. He doesn't necessarily have to push it, so long as he doesn't get it in its way.