MTAS Resolution Legal?

[C. Richard Archie]

In every instance, where the Boards of Alderman or City Councils have used the MTAS furnished Resolution, the argument has always been about school children and ball fields, however, the wording of banned properties includes Natural Areas, Historic Parks, Nature Trails, Campgrounds, Forest, Greenways,Waterways, or other similar places.

As I read the actual Bill, it says if one part of a park is closed to HCP Carry, the whole park is, but I do not see anything in the Bill that sets up the inclusion of these other types of City or County owned properties.

For those with legal expertise, is there any chance of winning a challenge in court to this heavy handed approach of totalitarian rule? I would think that if the entity chose to Post individual parks, then the signage would be required. This overall move to include ALL City Owned properties seems counter to the intent of the law.

[macville]

Do any counties/cities own campgrounds? I thought all campgrounds in the state were either in state or national parks, or were privately owned.

But to answer your question, they can ban anything they like. All those areas probably fall under the definition of a "park", so now if they wanted to keep people out of them with their legal guns, they need to ban them.

You've got to remember that the carry law in the first place is heavy handed and un-constitutional. I personally believe that ANY place which is off limits should have to be by law posted with a large, correct verbiage, sign.

Also remember that MTAS really isn't there to help protect your rights.

Matthew

[Dan Lee]

I can't see how ANY of what is being done is legal, because it's being done with no credible argument of a "view to prevent a crime". It's a matter of coming up with the money to challenge them. That's the bottom line. Like I said in another thread, "what are your rights worth to you?"

I think the millions of dollars of money thrown at electing a fraudulent, socialist, left wing extremist for President last year should prove to everyone that there are people who are financially vested in removing your Constitutional Rights.

[J A P]

Enacted as Public Chapter 0428 effective 9/1/09. There you find all the words.

Tpetty

[J A P]

They Do have to post any banned locations, it says State parks don't have change existing signs or add new , but if local bans they have to follow proper posting per--------you know. At least I think thats what it says.

edit- maybe I got right this time

T Petty

[J A P]

One more question, what would be considered Jointly Owned or Operated? Then it must be approved by both bodies. Say if a small city park received funds from the county to operate or maintain, would it have to be approved by both bodies?