Knoxville settles suit against it over gun ban in parks
The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) applauds the settlement reached in Vreeland v. City of Knoxville. This settlement strikes a reasonable balance between the right to carry firearms in public parks within Knoxville, as guaranteed by Tennessee law, and the citys use of Chilhowee Park as a secure facility for private or ticketed events. At its core, this settlement reaffirms that individuals have the right to defend themselves with lawfully possessed firearms throughout Tennessee.
I was unaware it was settled and found the NRA’s statement to be short on detail. A little searching and I find that the ban on carry is lifted when there’s not a ticketed event. And guns are not allowed in the buildings. Doesn’t strike me as a worthy of NRA’s applause, personally.
January 30th, 2017 at 7:08 pm
“This settlement strikes a reasonable balance between the right to carry firearms in public parks within Knoxville, as guaranteed by Tennessee law, and the citys use of Chilhowee Park as a secure facility for private or ticketed events.”
That’s weasel-speak, right there. There IS NO “balance” between a person’s right to self defense and anything else.
Stop it, NRA. At best, this is a step in the right direction. Don’t undermine future cases by saying this is a “reasonable balance”. That’s like saying Jim Crow laws were a “reasonable balance” between legal slavery and full, equal citizenship for black people.
So yeah, actually; fuck you.
January 30th, 2017 at 10:02 pm
I think they sold us out. There’s another one, financed by the TN Firearms Owners Assoc still pending and I doubt Knoxville will get off as easily.
February 1st, 2017 at 2:39 am
To clarify; said private or ticketed event, which is a “gun-free zone”, gets attacked by Johnnie Jihad trying to kill as many people as possible. More people are killed because there are no armed citizens. THAT is what, in effect, is being called a “reasonable balance” by the NRA.
Say someone flouts said restriction and carries anyway. Same scenario except that our rule-breaker shoots Johnnie Jihad, saving an indeterminable number of innocent lives. He then goes to jail for breaking the rule? “Reasonable balance”.
Now say our rule-breaker stops Johnnie Jihad, but in the process he hits an innocent, killing or seriously injuring said innocent. He still saved an indeterminable but large number of lives. If a cop had done the same thing, he’d almost certainly walk free. Doing his duty and all. If our rule-breaker does it, he’ll likely be put away for a long time. “Reasonable Balance”?
In other words; there is no “Reasonable Balance” there at all, in the result. If you want to argue that “Reasonable Balance” during the debate over the rule was necessary to gain any ground at all given the political situation, well, that’s a different argument. Don’t try to tell me that the result itself is a “Reasonable Balance” because that’s arguing that no further progress is needed or even desirable. Say instead that it is a “Step in the Right Direction” (meaning there will be subsequent steps) and I’ll listen.