Local Parks - Talking Points Section

[johnharris]

TFA Member, Steve Mead, has prepared an excellent set of talking points to use regarding these local parks issues. Please use it as a starting point and feel free to share your thoughts on additions and modifications:



Posting County Parks against Permit Holders



The common goal of everyone here is to ensure our parks are a safe as possible.

1. I shall assume that in this endeavor the path chosen must be consistent with the law and the Constitution of the State of Tennessee. Do we agree?

2. It is also important that we recognize that the resolution being addressed applies only to Handgun Carry Permit holders and to no one else. The laws covering everyone else have not been changed. The law generally prohibiting weapons in the parks, and the penalty for violation remains the same. Laws regarding shooting, displaying, or any unsafe act with any weapon remain the same.

3. For many years state and federal the law prohibited the possession of weapons in all federal, state and local parks in TN, accept for personnel such as the rangers, and police and military personnel in the performance of their official duties.

4. In May this year a federal law referred to as the was passed by Congress and signed by the President that will remove that prohibition for state-licensed handgun carry permit holders in all National Parks and Wildlife Refuges – as long as it complies with the laws of the state the park is in. This was to a great extent due to a , and published in the Code of Federal Regulations which specifically addressed the impact of permit holders on safety and crime rates in parks, forests, and wildlife areas. After a year of study, and considering and responding to over 125,000 comments from across the nation, it concluded that allowing permit holders to carry concealed handguns reduced crime and improved overall safety. I have several copies of this study with me and it is easily found on-line. Bottom line, the United States government has declared that allowing permit holders to carry their handguns in parks (and similar areas) reduces crime and increases safety for everyone. Studies by universities and other gun-neutral organizations had shown this from the very first days of issuing carry permits.

5. In June this year the TN Legislature passed a law which upon enactment allowed these same permit holders to carry handguns in all state-owned or operated parks, campgrounds, waterways, forests, nature trails and similar areas. It also authorized permit holders to carry in all federal parks, wildlife refuges, and such… as allowed by federal law. In part this was because of a study conducted by the Tennessee Department of Safety that showed that permit holders are extremely safe and law abiding. They point out that during 2008 only 12/10,000th of 1% committed an act requiring their carry permits to be revoked. And only a few of these involved a violent act and fewer involved any weapon. Trust me….. If a TN permit holder committed a crime with a gun it would be in the media for at least a week. Bottom line the Legislature could no longer support that prohibiting these safe and law abiding permit holders from carrying in parks would prevent crime.

6. TN Constitution Art. I, section 26 states: “ That the citizens of this state have the right to keep and bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have the power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.” , dated Feb. 08, states: “Under the language of Art.I,” section ”26, the legislature’s authority to regulate the wearing and carrying of arms is limited to measures that are intended to prevent crime.” Bottom line – measure taken by any government body in TN to restrict the wearing or carrying of arms must be intended to prevent crime. Now laws prohibiting the general public, children, felons, persons under indictment for felonies, fugitives from justice, illegal aliens, alcohol and drug abusers, and those adjudicated as mental defectives from carrying guns – are all pretty easy to support their intent to prevent crime. But when the citizens named have been shown consistently over an extended period of time by numerous independent and government studies to prevent crime, there is no way to support that intent.

7. So what is this power to post given you by the State Legislature? First, it is not authority to violate the state constitution. It does not relieve you of the requirement to show your measures restricting the right to wear or carry arms will prevent crime. What this law does give you is the legal responsibility for any actions you take. Courts nation-wide (including the U.S Supreme Court) have ruled that when individuals, corporations, or government entities legally remove a persons’ ability to defend themselves , that that individual , corporation, or government entity becomes legally responsible for the safety of that person and anyone that person could have defended.

8. You can be sued for any damages to the permit holders disarmed by your posting, or anyone they could have defended had they been armed.

9. It will remain illegal to have weapons in parks (accept for police and military in the performance of their official duties, and the safe and law abiding permit holders we have discussed).

10. The laws about shooting, displaying, or threatening with firearms all stay in place.

11. Just as you have probably not noticed the thousands of state-licensed permit holders living in this County (or the approximate 250,000 in TN or the several million that TN recognizes from other states) – you are not going to even notice that these folks who have been quietly and safely carrying their handguns in public for years and years. That is unless you vote to ban them from the county parks. In that case there is a guaranty that you will notice them actively supporting, financially and otherwise, your opponent during your next election.

[Vince]

These are excellent talking points, however, please cite the authority for the following statement:

So what is this power to post given you by the State Legislature? First, it is not authority to violate the state constitution. It does not relieve you of the requirement to show your measures restricting the right to wear or carry arms will prevent crime. What this law does give you is the legal responsibility for any actions you take. Courts nation-wide (including the U.S Supreme Court) have ruled that when individuals, corporations, or government entities legally remove a persons’ ability to defend themselves , that that individual , corporation, or government entity becomes legally responsible for the safety of that person and anyone that person could have defended.

I have been searching for case law that supports this idea and the closest I can come is

DESHANEY, A MINOR, BY HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, ET AL.
V.
WINNEBAGO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES ET AL.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
489 U.S. 189; 109 S. Ct. 998; 103 L. Ed. 2d 249

This case strongly hints at this principal in the dissenting opinion.

If the above takling point is used before a City Council, Commission or Board of Aldermen, they will surely require a citation.

Thank you for providing the needed citation.

[ProguninTN]

[quote="Vince"]These are excellent talking points, however, please cite the authority for the following statement:

So what is this power to post given you by the State Legislature? First, it is not authority to violate the state constitution. It does not relieve you of the requirement to show your measures restricting the right to wear or carry arms will prevent crime. What this law does give you is the legal responsibility for any actions you take. Courts nation-wide (including the U.S Supreme Court) have ruled that when individuals, corporations, or government entities legally remove a persons’ ability to defend themselves , that that individual , corporation, or government entity becomes legally responsible for the safety of that person and anyone that person could have defended.

I have been searching for case law that supports this idea and the closest I can come is

DESHANEY, A MINOR, BY HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, ET AL.
V.
WINNEBAGO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES ET AL.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
489 U.S. 189; 109 S. Ct. 998; 103 L. Ed. 2d 249

This case strongly hints at this principal in the dissenting opinion.

If the above takling point is used before a City Council, Commission or Board of Aldermen, they will surely require a citation.

Thank you for providing the needed citation.[/quote

You may also check out Gonzalez v. City of Castle Rock 545 U.S. 748 (2005), which followed stare decisis.

[Tim Nunan]

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=5007

Friday, June 26, 2009

As anticipated, Tennessee counties and municipalities have started to opt-out of the park carry law passed by the Tennessee General Assembly during the 2009 session.

Please contact your local officials and respectfully ask them not to create a confusing patchwork of laws that will close off local parks to law-abiding permit holders, who simply wish to be able to protect themselves and their families.

If you have any information on Tennessee counties and municipalities taking steps to opt-out of this important self-defense law, please contact the NRA-ILA’s State and Local Affairs Division. Contact information is provided below.


Email: state&local@nrahq.org

NRA-ILA, State & Local Affairs
C/O Scott Stevens

11250 Waples Mill Road

Fairfax, VA 22030

Phone (703) 267-1217

Fax: (703) 267-3976

Please continue to check your email and www.NRAILA.org for updates on this important issue.

[meadsteve]

TN State Attorney General Opinion No. 08-19 dated February 6, 2008:
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms under Article I, Section 26 of the Tennessee Constitution, states:

" Under the language of Art. I," section" 26, the legislature's authority to regulate the wearing and carrying of arms is limited to measures that are intended to prevent crime."

It also has a very clear discussion of how Tennessee defines the "right to bear arms" very narrowly. Every gun advocate in TN needs to know what Gov. Bredesen means when he says he support the right to bear arms.

Steve Mead

[Mousegun]

When is a law not a law?????? Some may say when it is unjust or unconstitutional etc. Maybe so BUT ---------

I say it is not a law when after it is passed by a state, the state allows localities to "opt out" of the law.

Using this logic it is clear to see that the parks law in Tennessee is ridiculous and appears to be not a law at all but simply status quo.

When the smoke clears on this one, my bet is that more counties and cities "opt out" of our new so called law than opt in.

They still just don't get it.

Maybe in time some will come around but who knows.

[backwoodsman]

I understand what your saying Bob, with all the media attention, for sure if they opt out, the criminals will be listening and aware they have a new place to thrive in their business .should that occur, I simply will not use the parks, and continue to lobby thru phone and email, my council members on their segregating of their community, those who are lazy liberal leeches looking for the next hand out in their role as sheep ,and those who abide by the doctrines of our fore fathers

[CharlesH]

To the Board of Mayor and Alderman,
Just in case you wanted to know the company that the city of Bartlett would be keeping by allowing guns in parks. Please feel free to review the stautes in the refrence links provided below.


Top 10 Best Places to Live 2009
Money's list of America's best small towns

1. Louisville, CO -- Allows permit holders to carry in parks
2. Chanhassen, MN -- Allows permit holders to carry in parks
3. Papillion, NE -- Allows permit holders to carry in parks
4. Middleton, WI -- WI does not issue gun permits
5. Milton, MA -- Allows permit holders to carry in parks
6. Warren, NJ -- Allows permit holders to carry in parks
7. Keller, TX -- Allows permit holders to carry in parks
8. Peachtree City, GA -- Allows local gov to ban however Peachtree has chosen to permit holders to carry in parks
9. Lake St. Louis, MO -- Allows permit holders to carry in parks
10. Mukilteo, WA -- Allows permit holders to carry in parks

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag ... index.html
http://cbi.state.co.us/ccw/relatedstats.asp
http://www.bca.state.mn.us/CJIS/Documen ... prohibited
http://www.nsp.state.ne.us/Docs/forms/C ... d_Regs.pdf
http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=eopssubtopi ... &sid=Eeops
http://nj.gov/oag/
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/ftp/forms/LS-16.pdf
http://www.georgiapacking.org/gflnol.php
http://www.moga.mo.gov/STATUTES/C571.HTM
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.050

[rich]

I agree that because a lot of folks are opting out it seems we haven't accomplished much. But like it was stated before that because our right has been recognized and the municipality made the choice to opt out the liability seems to be on them and I feel that will help influence some now and maybe some after a lawsuit or two ensues. So we are gaining ground. The frustrating part about offering to vote against a candidate is that, in many cases, there isn't anyone that agrees with our view to vote for.
Rich

[johnharris]

Then we need to have gun owners / permit holders running for office - that is what liberals do....

[macville]

Does anyone know if it's legal to have a firearm in your car if it's unloaded, no ammo in the mag, and the gun/ammo are in separate compartments? Also, how do that work in a place that is legally posted? Are we under the same situation in our cars where there needs to be at least 3 steps before you can fire the weapon?

Matthew

[lilredhunter]

I have been told by several judges that in a car either the weapon or the ammo should be in the trunk or the ammo, and the other should be up front. With the firearm preferably to be in the trunk. Unless the firearm is in a locked box and then you could have it up front. Now that is what 3 different judges told me this. I do not have the law or case law handy to be able to look it up for you. Mr. Harris may chime in with the law for you. I do know of case in Columbia where a man had a .22 revolver that was empty and laying on the passenger side front seat. He was pulled over for having a brake light out. When the officer saw the gun he claimed probable cause to search the car. In the console between the seats there were 5 rounds of .223 . The officer charged the guy with carrying for the purpose of going armed. Get this it stood up in court. He got 11/29 probation. The officer claimed he saw the caliber on the gun and saw the .22 on the .223 ammo and thought they went together. The judge said that was good enough. Thank god that judge is now dead.

[PapaB]

[johnharris]