Oak Ridge Opts Out-

[meadsteve]

Oak Ridge passed their "opt out" resolution. The two members that voted against it specifically stated that the resolution violated the state constitution for several reasons: Use of a resolution, no well defined crime prevention purpose, and because the resolution posts not only all City-owned public parks, greenways, natural areas, but also SIMILAR PUBLIC PLACES THAT ARE USED OR OPERATED BY THE CITY OF OAK RIDGE OR ANY OF ITS INSTRUMENTALITIES FOR RECREATIONAL AND PUBLIC PURPOSES" ... it essentially allows un-named city officials to determine what areas to post. It seems to be being interpreted as all public property in the city of Oak Ridge except roadways (that are not located within places posted).

There was no fiscal note or estimate of cost of implementation which is normally required. In the meeting the City manager (on a slip of paper) estimated the cost at $5,000 - based on $15/ sign plus a little labor by city employees. Oak Ridge has quite a few large parks that are between a long road and a river or lake that are navigable waters of the state. It also has a long series of greenways extending many miles. None of these are fenced and it is my contention that signs need to be spaced along these areas road and water side because every foot along them is a normal entryway to these areas. (waterways of the state are legal carry places, as are roads that run just outside the park boundary). There are probably 15 to 20 miles like that and then 15 or twenty regular city parks (one very large) and who knows what will be included in the "Similar Places" loop hole.

The meeting (as far as the gun resolution is concerned) was a "kangaroo court". The Mayor had specially assigned two police officers with firearms, body armor and batons to the room ( taken from their duties on the street) because of all of the gun-owners attending was seen as a special risk. Gun owners were allowed to talk 3 minutes each.... the 3 minutes beginning when the prior person stopped. You got a 15 second notice and would be cut off mid sentence at 3 minutes. Those supporting the resolution (~20% of the standing-room-only crowd present) simply stated "we just don't need guns", or "I just don't want guns in parks", or voiced concern that "a parent at a ball game would get angry ,pull a gun, and shoot the coaches or umpires (and off course nearby children, etc.) Those against the resolution spoke of the constitutional issues, lack of a fiscal note or other plan of just what areas will be posted and what the cost would be; potential liability issues assumed when the city disarms permit holders; crime preventing aspects of having legal guns authorized (even when no permit holder is present because the criminals can't tell who is or isn't); the results of the US-DOI/National Park Service Final Rule concerns resolution, and that the U.S Congress, the National Park Service, the state legislature, and the County Mayor, Sheriff, District Attorney, and 80+% of the County Commission support allowing permit holders in parks for the declared purpose of reducing crime and improving public safety. They also presented national Crime statistics showing that Oak Ridge actually has higher than average violent crime; and studies showing that states with new or expanded carry by permit holders have universally seen reductions in violent crime... while areas that have eliminated or significantly infringed those rights have seen increased crime. A very good case was made for constitutional issues, rushing in before the cost or scope was determined, and that allowing permit holders to carry had a clear crime preventive benefit. When Mayor Beehan admitted his membership [only city mayor in TN (according to their web-site two days before)] of NY Mayor Bloomberg's rabidly anti-gun "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" a citizen present requested that the Mayor should not vote due to his clear conflict of interest. The Mayor laid into the young guy that brought up his Membership, and then did a little heated presentation about the evils of "Illegal Guns" including an emotional account of how he had an uncle shot down in the street by an "illegal gun". He then allowed other council members (on his side) discuss the evils of all those "illegal guns" "flooding our streets". Of course this resolution only addressed prohibition of guns legally possessed by state licensed carry permit holders, but that outburst intensified the "all guns are bad" "so less guns is always good" feelings of the resolutions supporters. Well they didn't want to hear any of input from the gun owners.

Next the Council Members were each allowed to make a statement, but apparently could only ask questions of the Police Chief, City Manager, and City Attorney who had already signed letters in support of the resolution - the Mayor controls their jobs (no conflict there). When incorrect and misleading information was provided, the public was not allowed to say anything. (Like the total cost of posting being about $5,000. a closer number would be $100,000 +).

Two of the members that voted for the "opt out" resolution were convinced that opting out would just keep things as they had been "so what is the big deal". Restoring constitutional rights to 1000 city residents was not seen as a positive change, nor reducing the probability of crime by making criminals concerned about the possible presence of armed victims or onlookers. One member indicated that we should go ahead, because it could just be reversed later if it appropriate. The City Attorney stated that there were many issues with the new state law (this I did agree with) and this new power "forced upon the local governments" had not yet be heard by the courts and recommended going ahead and letting the courts sort it out latter.


There are serious issues with TCA 39-17-1311. It actually authorizes the use of a resolution to post the parks. It does not require review of each area to be posted, it does not require consideration of the required "well defined crime prevention purpose". And off course it has the very same sign mean you can carry or you can't carry depending on who owns the parks. So even if the posting is complete and seen by all entering the area they don't know if they are in compliance until they confirm who owns the park. Compared to the anti-gun contention by folks against restaurant carry that "permit holders have no way to tell if they are in a bar or a restaurant" being to vague to allow persons to know if they are complying with the law, this park deal will be REALLY CONFUSING and often impossible to confirm what applies. For example: I come down the river and land at any city-owned property along the many miles of river. I see the 1311 posting, but there is no sign identifying who owns the property - there is no way to know. In a restaurant you just ask or see the posting and the issue is resolved.

This coming year the Legislature needs to simply determine that the clause allowing the use of a resolution (or ordnance) is unconstitutional ( State v. Andrews, TN Supreme Court, 1871) and that it also doesn't allow delegating a power reserved to the legislature to determine the Crime preventive purpose per Art. I, sec. 26. The signs posted could stay up and simply not apply to permit holders (just as in state parks now), and the authority for the local governments to post parks (and similar areas) per TCA 39-17-1359 inserted into that section must stay - requiring regulation of the carrying of arms in parks to be regulated per TCA 39-17-1311.

Note : This also brings into question the authority of local government bodies to post public buildings open to the general public, accept as specifically provided for by the Legislature - courtrooms, jails, for now schools, etc.

Steve Mead
Oak Ridge

P.S. Below is a portion of the oath of office taken by all state legislators.... followed by an applicable quote from the TN Constitution you should all know about.

"… I will not propose or assent to any bill, vote or resolution, which shall appear to me injurious to the people, or consent to any act or thing, whatever, that shall have a tendency to lessen or abridge their rights and privileges, as declared by the Constitution of this State."

TN Constitution
Article XI (Miscellaneous Provisions) Section 16. … "The declaration of rights hereto prefixed is declared to be a part of the Constitution of this State, and shall never be violated on any pretense whatever. And to guard against transgression of the high powers we have delegated, we declare that every thing in the bill of rights contained, is excepted out of the General powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate."



Thanks for all you do to promote defending all our constitutional rights.


Steve Mead
Oak Ridge, TN

[David Lewis]

Great report, Steve. Thanks!

David

[Phantom6]

[n24wheel]

I saw on the news that Oak Ridge may rethink it's vote next meeting.