Park Carry and incidental contact
One of my criticism of the various municipalities banning carry in parks was that it would create a patchwork of laws that no one could keep up with. And that if you happened to wonder through a park while otherwise lawfully carrying, you’d break the law, like if you cut through the World’s Fair Park as a shortcut while perusing Knoxville’s downtown. Well, Tennessee’s AG says that’s not the case. He also answers a whole mess of other questions, such as sign posting requirements. But this is a bit dangerous:
A handgun carry permit holder who carries a firearm into a county or municipal park where the county or municipality has prohibited such carrying could still be convicted of violating Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1311 even if such county or municipality failed to comply with the posting requirements that are set forth in section 2(e)(2) of Chapter 428.
Update: A reader emails:
This might be a good time to remind folks that an A.G. opinion is just that, an opinion. Courts are not in any way bound by such opinions and regularly ignore them.
Good point.
September 24th, 2009 at 11:07 am
The Tennessee Legislature needs to fix this immediately when they resume session.
Between what the Legislature did and what Mayor Bill Haslam did the other day we have a situation where criminals are being manufactured by stupid laws. You step across a line and an innocent person becomes a criminal via insane interpretations of geography. This is impossible to enforce.
What no one has answered is whether the $50 fine for “illegal” carrying in a Knoxville park will result in the forfeiture of a person’s carry permit. Can’t wait until the first test case comes up. Wouldn’t want to be that person.
Did Knox County Commission learn anything from Knoxville City Council’s mistake? Time will tell.
September 24th, 2009 at 11:12 am
The way I read that as well as the analysis is that if you use the parks paths, you would be in violation but you wouldn’t be in violation if you drove through the park on a city street. So essentially, you must go around the park or stay outside the fence line.
September 24th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
“The requirement set forth in Art. I, § 26, that restrictions on the wearing of arms be
made with a view to preventing crime affords the legislature with substantial latitude in passing
laws regulating the wearing of firearms. So long as the law bears a plausible relationship to the
prevention of crime, it will be valid.”
I fail to see how banning lawful firearms from parks prevents crime. Or how blanket city gun bans does.
September 24th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Prosecutors in TN are not bound by AG opinions? That kind of defeats the whole purpose. I would think that even if they are not binding an AG opinion would be a strong component of a defense.
September 24th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
This really goes back to an earlier post but I have just been watching the Governor race. I was sure the Bloomberg group was a tip-off on Mr. Bill, the park decision made it for sure. Sent a donation to Zach Wamp today and will be supporting him.
Alan
September 24th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Prosecutors in TN (or any state) are in no way, shape, or form bound by AG opinions. In fact, the AG’s office isn’t even really “bound” by its opinion. If and when someone is prosecuted under this section of the TN code, the defense could make a motion to the court that the case be dismissed as a matter of law (meaning that even if the defendant did what the prosecutors said he did, he couldn’t be guilty because what he did is not a violation of the law). The presiding judge would then make his own determination of the proper reading of the relevant statute with no real consideration of the AG’s opinion (although presumably the AG has a reasonably good basis for his opinion, so the defense would make an argument along the same lines). If the judge rules in favor of the defense and the case is dismissed, the prosecution is entitled to an immediate appeal. Whether the appeal is pursued would depend on the political predilections of the local DA. If the motion to dismiss is denied, then the defendant can’t argue the point anymore except on appeal to a different, higher court after the case and verdict by the jury.
September 26th, 2009 at 10:55 am
Give people carry licenses so that they can defend their lives and then arrest them for carrying so that they can’t defend their lives. What is the strategy behind that policy?