Cookeville Council Meets to Ban Guns in Parks

[CarlS]

Cookeville could join several other municipalities across the state in attempting to opt out of a new state law that would allow guns in parks. The city council will consider a resolution to that effect when it meets at 6 p.m. Thursday July 2nd (tonight). Guns are already prohibited in Cookeville parks, and the city's resolution would cover all natural areas, historic parks, nature trails, campgrounds, forests, greenways, waterways and other similar public places owned or operated by the city. A violation would be considered a class E felony.

I have mailed, and will be present at tonight's meeting to present the following:

Questions for Cookeville City Council re Guns in Parks Ban

I’m not sure why you are considering banning guns in parks.

I’m hopeful you’ve actually read the law and thus know the law allows LEGAL carry of self defense weapons; that you’re aware criminals, who do NOT obey laws, are already carrying in parks.

I hope you know the Supreme Court ruled in the Heller case that the Second Amendment recognizes a pre-existing individual RIGHT. I hope you are aware of Miller v. U.S., which states that the claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime; of Murdock v. Pennsylvania , which states that government may not impose a charge for enjoyment of a right.

For those who say guns in parks aren’t needed, I refer you to Dr. Suzanna Gratia–Hupp, who, in 1991, learned the horror of watching helplessly as her parents and others were killed, while she could do nothing but cringe in fear and shame - she had left her pistol, her only effective means of self-defense, in the glovebox of her car in obedience of another No Guns law.

For those who say that police will protect you, in Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that police have no duty to protect; no liability for failing to protect. If the cops take 25 minutes to respond to your 911 call, and in those 25 minutes your assailant, kidnapper, rapist, murderer does not have a sudden change of heart, you, your family, others will suffer the burden of watching as more defenseless victims bear the effects of a gun ban.

For those who say that guns cause crime, I invite you to examine FBI statistics, which prove that where the Second Amendment is honored, crime is lower. You may want to look at Washington, DC, and Chicago, which have absolute gun bans, yet consistently achieve the highest gun crime and murder rates in the nation.

For those who don’t want others carrying guns around them, consider that criminals certainly are and will continue to do so, regardless of law.

Consider that licensed carriers are law-abiding, and have undergone background checks and other onerous, extra-Constitutional procedures. Have you checked your employees, friends and neighbors that well?

Finally, one question: If you deprive me of my inalienable right to self-defense, thereby negating the Constitution, and I suffer from your actions, just how comprehensive is the city’s and your personal insurance policy?

[johnharris]

Class E felony?

Its a Class A misdemeanor under existing state law - 39-17-1311.

How did they make it a Class E Felony? Do you have a link to that?

[CarlS]

The source is the local Herald-Citizen Newspaper .

I just returned from the meeting where I gave a short speech as outlined earlier. Upon leaving, I received a (incidental) handshake from the Chief of Police, and friendly smiles from the 2 other officers.

Ironic, they want to ban guns carried by law-abiding citizens, but apparently feel the need for protection, as we all had to be wanded before entering, and they had armed policemen on site.

The small crowd ( 20- 25 persons ) was peaceful and well-mannered. About half and half, I'd say. The supporters spoke about maintaining the status quo, about how it would make us look if we allowed guns in our parks, about what kind of society we must be to feel that need. Those of us resisting this extra-lawful denial of our rights spoke about why it should be allowed; one individual was very eloquent in stating that the state and the federal government had already spent much time and money researching this issue, and had come to the conclusion that allowing the full exercise of our rights would indeed make us safer, Another pointed out that wherever lawful carry has been done previously, there was in every case a corresponding drop in crime. One gentleman rebutted the oft-spoken worry that we don't want guns in parks, becasue those spectators / parents who punch out umpires might decide to shoot instead. His rejoinder was that people of that nature would probably not be licensed, as they would most likely have a hard time passing the FBI -TBI - Sheriff background checks that licensed individuals undergo. This being the case, if they are carrying in parks, they are carrying unlawfully anyway. QED, the licensed carriers are not the ones we need to worry about.

However, Cookeville is a "feel good" liberal Democratic bastion. I fear the council may have already decided, but for now at least, they deferred the vote until the August meeting. They did ask that we, for or against, contact our council members and let them know our thoughts, so I will be working hard to drum up "the resistance".

Upon returning home, I had a message from John Harris of Tennessee Firearms Association asking “Class E felony? Its a Class A misdemeanor under existing state law - 39-17-1311. How did they make it a Class E Felony?” [ If you’re not a member and believe in the Law of The Land, you should join. ]

Looks as if there may be grounds for yet another lawsuit. Where oh where is the ACLU when you need them to protect actual, delineated in the Constitution rights?

[CarlS]

Follow-up; here is the local news on the meeting.

Council delays guns in parks decision
Mary Jo Denton
Herald-Citizen Staff
Friday, Jul 03, 2009

COOKEVILLE -- Will it soon be legal to carry guns in Cane Creek Park and other city parks and recreation areas?

A decision on that question was put off by the Cookeville city council last night so that the five council members can have time for "further study," as Councilman Ricky Shelton put it when he moved to postpone the matter.

"We've received a lot of comment on this, and I think we should defer it for further study and just listen to public comment tonight," Shelton said. The other council members -- Mayor Sam Sallee, Vice Mayor Jean Davis, Ryan Williams, and Alma Anderson -- agreed and settled back to listen to citizens who came to the meeting to express their views.

The issue is whether to continue the city code that forbids carrying weapons in city parks. Under a new law passed by the Tennessee legislature recently, by September, those who have handgun carry permits will be allowed to carry guns into public parks.

But cities are allowed to opt out of the law for their city parks, and some cities have already done so. Cookeville's current city ordinances include the following ban on weapons in parks:

"It shall be unlawful for any person to carry in any manner whatever, with the intent to go armed, any razor, dirk, knife, blackjack, brassknucks, pistol, revolver, air rifle, air gun 'BB' gun, or any other dangerous weapon such as hand-thrown spears, bows and arrows or crossbows, or any other implements designed to discharge missiles in the air or under the water which are capable of destroying animal life."

Citizens on both sides of the issue spoke to the council last night. Some said they fear what might happen if people carry guns into city parks, while others said they would feel safer if guns were allowed there.

One man said, "I think you should continue to prohibit guns in these areas. I think of the Sportsplex on the west side of town, where children participate in sports. I would hate to think of people taking guns there."

Another man, who said he is a "transplanted military retiree," claimed that even though the city already has banned guns in city parks, he sees "concealed weapons there every day." He said being able to carry a gun in public parks might save lives by providing protection against such criminals as kidnappers and rapists during the time it might take police to respond to a call for help.

Dr. Sam Glasgow urged the council to continue the ban on guns in parks. He said he is concerned about children and said there are more firearms deaths in this country than in other countries.

"Law enforcement agencies are primarily opposed to increasing handguns in public places, and we should listen to them," Glasgow said. "As Cookeville Police Chief Bob Terry has said, this is not Dodge City."

Susan Ford told the council, "I would like to see guns continue to be prohibited."

Don Burton said, "A lot of time, money, and expense was done recently by our representatives in (the legislature) studying guns, and they decided overwhelmingly to allow guns in state parks. And I don't know how we think the city is smarter than they are."

One man said he fears that if guns are allowed in city parks, some people who get angry enough watching kids' baseball games to "punch the umpire in the face" might "just be irrational enough to pull out a gun and shoot the umpire."

John Johnson said he seriously doubts that anyone who would punch an umpire could "get through the background checks" required for a handgun carry permit. He said he believes crime decreases when criminals know that potential victims have guns.

Max Atnip said he also believes the fact that "there are people in our community who can carry guns" makes for "a pretty good deterrent" to crime.

"Let state law prevail," Atnip said.

Council members thanked each citizen for their comments, and Councilwoman Alma Anderson said, "We encourage all people who feel strongly on this issue to seek out council members and let their opinions be known."

The council will take up the matter again in August.

SOURCE:

[CarlS]

July 15, 2009

Cookeville City Council Members:

At the July meeting, You approved a motion to delay any votes on the Guns in City Parks issue until August, giving you time to hear from your constituents and to further research the issue.

It would appear you are stacking the deck; that the outcome is pre-determined. I hope I am mis-interpreting the following news reports:

June 30th, 2009 Cookeville Council Meets to Ban Guns in Parks ( article no longer available online )
“Cookeville could join several other municipalities across the state in attempting to opt out of a new state law that would allow guns in parks. The city council will consider a resolution to that effect when it meets at 6 p.m. Thursday.” [ July 2, 2009 ] “… the city's resolution would cover all natural areas, historic parks, nature trails, campgrounds, forests, greenways, waterways and other similar public places owned or operated by the city. A violation would be considered a class E felony.”

July 3, 2009 Council delays guns in parks decision

“A decision on that question was put off by the Cookeville city council last night so that the five council members can have time for "further study," ….. The council will take up the matter again in August.”

July 7, 2009 Police chief opposes guns in parks

“Chief Terry feels there is no need for anyone to carry weapons in city parks or restaurants, and he fears for public safety ….”

QUESTIONS: How Does he know what the future, 10 minutes or 10 days from now, might hold ? Is he clairvoyant ? Or do you intend to increase taxes to fund a full-time police officer in every park, and if so, will there be enough of them to provide bodyguard service to each individual, or group ? Why does he fear for public safety, given the safety record of legally licensed individuals both in Tennessee and the 30+ other states which have already tested his theory? Where, Herald-Citizen News, are the “fair and balanced” reports? How does this square with the following statements by other law enforcement officers?

August 7, 2007 – “In my opinion, if there were more students with (concealed weapons permits), the world would be safer”, Latah County Sheriff Wayne Rausch told the Lewiston Tribune on Tuesday. “Just because we (law enforcement officers) are charged with protecting the public, doesn’t mean the public shouldn’t be able to protect itself.”

Law Enforcement Alliance of America - Cops and Gun Control: The REAL Story – “Cops and Gun Control: The REAL Story: One of the driving forces behind LEAA’s founding was to dispel the false impression that America’s police favor more gun control. We know, and research backs us up, an overwhelming majority of America’s rank-and-file cops support private ownership of firearms. That’s because they know, better than most, that disarming honest citizens does nothing to reduce crime, but will deprive citizens of the means of defending themselves from violent predators. ….. many veteran law enforcement officers can recount episodes where the intervention of an armed private citizen has saved lives ¬ often the officer’s!”

July 14, 2009 Committee weighs in on guns in parks

“A resolution to not allow guns in Putnam County parks, including the fairgrounds, will be presented to the full commission Monday (July 20th) after a lengthy discussion on the matter last night …Ron Chaffin with the fair board expressed concerns with it, saying that this doesn’t involve the concealed weapons law. “I’m not against gun-permit carrying people,” he said. “I’m concerned with (the fact that) you don’t have to conceal your weapon when you go into the gates of a park. What’s to keep somebody from running up behind them and taking it out and shooting people?”

QUESTIONS: Was this an open meeting; where is the announcement; where are the minutes? Have each of you actually read Tennessee’s laws? Are you aware that concealed carry is not required, anywhere, not just in parks? Taking it away from them? Are you aware that the record, nation-wide, demonstrates that police officers lose their guns, misuse their guns, harm innocent bystanders, much more frequently than those of us who are not in law enforcement? Are you aware of the millions of times weapons are used for self-defense each year?


I thank you for adding ammo ( pun not intended, but it seems appropriate ) to the movement to pass a preemption statute. I foresee other effects – a realignment in business profits and sales tax collections as gun owners “put their money where their mouth gets filled”, and perhaps a change in voting alignments.

Sincerely,

William Shires
Cookeville

{ insert here an image of TFA's new 'Please Don't Post' card ]

The purpose of the card is to provide a polite and non-confrontational means of communicating to businesses,
including restaurants, that permit holder are or have been patrons and that we are requesting that they do not elect to
post their properties against handgun permit holders. In the context of a merchant, for example, the cards can be left
with the payment, left with a tip, handed to a host and/or the manager. It is not necessary to verbally debate the issue.