Guns in Parks

[johnharris]

What about handgun permit holders possessing their handguns in public parks? Hint: Check 39-17-1311

[MitchSchaft]

Not legally

[edson13@aol.com]

Not Legally.....but I am not sure of reasoning for this. personally if you have a carry permit I think you should be able to carry your weapon.

[Datawatch99]

I know that TVA doesn't allow firearms in their parks. They have signs at every lake that I have been to, stating 'No firearms' as well as no alcohol. I have seen this sign at Cherokee Lake, Douglas Lake, Ft. Loudon, Telico Lake, etc. I don't know if this is only at the park area, and your allowed to carry on your boat. Probably not, as the lake is considered TVA property.

[TNRebel]

Not in any Tennessee parks can you carry legally even with a permit according to TN state law. Which is totally unfair. This just makes it easier to be attacked, especially women.

[kqf]

not legally, my sources tell me that u will not be bothered if caught. this should be changed in the law

[Anonymous]

yes, in TN state parks. The section John referred to states in essence that "illegal weapons" can't be taken into the park. It then describes those weapons, virtually none of which would be carried by a law abiding armed citizen.

[MitchSchaft]

Look it up and see for yourself. http://198.187.128.12/tennessee/lpext.d ... in.htm&2.0

[f5fstop]

Ok, I looked it up and I have not carried any weapons mentioned in many years. So, does this mean I can or cannot carry legally a handgun, with a valid permit, in a Tennessee State Park. Or, does this mean no one has taken this to court yet, and won?

[MitchSchaft]

Ask the lawyer, I don't know .

[hog106]

Oh, I would feel much safer if everyone was allowed to carry guns in parks and on our playgrounds. Just knowing that everyone was carrying would make me feel warm and fuzzy. It makes a person wish they were still living in wild west days where everyone carried a gun everywhere all the time. How can any sane and reasonable person think that more people wearing guns on their hips will be safer for our kids and us? There are alternatives to carrying guns for women in parks. Try a strong pepper spray. If it is taken away in an attack, a resonding police officer can't be killed with it and if the badguy uses it on the victim, it will cause a couple of hours of discomfort and not death. Most attacks happen so quickly and covertly that no weapon will help, even if the victim has it in their hand. It is a false sense of security. But, if the John Harris's of the world have their way, we will see that someday real soon. Imagine dodging bullets at a tee ball game when two otherwise reasonable people resort to violence over a called third strike. Some people need to get a grip!

[Anonymous]

But, if the John Harris's of the world have their way, we will see that someday real soon.

This is the second reference to John Harris. Seems our "guest" has a personal problem with Mr. Harris as well as a total absence of knowledge on how peacefully the "wild west" really was. So we begin to see the antis make their emotional comments rather than presenting facts. ::sighs::

[Datawatch99]

Ahh, we have our first troll, looking for a flame war. Not gonna bite, sorry.

[MitchSchaft]

It makes a person wish they were still living in wild west days

That's hilarious. If you understood how little of a problem there was reguarding crime back in the "wild west", you would not have made that statement.

[hog106]

You guys need to really look at statistics regarding violence now as compared to our country's history. The difference is today there are many more newspapers, radios, and tvs that exploit violence. The chance of being a victim is less today than in the 1800's. Look it up!

[Zander]

Imagine dodging bullets at a tee ball game when two otherwise reasonable people resort to violence over a called third strike. Some people need to get a grip! -- hog106

That's the sort of nonsense the Tennessean published in 1994 when our move to shall-issue permits was contemplated. Blood running in the streets! People shooting each other for breaking line at the movie theater! Toddlers gunned down at the grocery store! Cops shot for writing speeding tickets!

None of it happened...and it's not going to happen for one very good reason:

The person who takes the time and absorbs the expense to trade an inherent Right for a state-sanctioned privilege is a member of the most law-abiding sub-segment of the population. The statistics prove it, just as they prove that police officers are much more likely to commit crimes than permit holders.

Yet in state after state, we see and hear the same outrageous hyperbole and outright lies from those who don't want honest citizens carrying firearms as they go about their daily business. And in state after state, real facts prove the citizen disarmament fanatics wrong.

Years ago, I coined a phrase to describe the belief that simply possessing and/or carrying a firearm leads a person to use that firearm in inappropriate or criminal ways: Gun Voodoo.

You seem to be an adherent, hog106. Perhaps you can explain to us how a piece of machinery has the ability to alter our minds.

Regardless, that sort of illogical, irrational "thinking" is your problem. I'm going to carry and don't much care whether you like it or not. I'll assess my risks and provide my own self-defense. After all, it's not like we can depend on cops with an attitude...

[marauder]

You guys need to really look at statistics regarding violence now as compared to our country's history. The difference is today there are many more newspapers, radios, and tvs that exploit violence. The chance of being a victim is less today than in the 1800's. Look it up!

yeah it was much more dangerous back then. the taliban used to fly planes into skyscrapers evey week in 1893.

[hog106]

Oh, I didn't realize that carrying a gun would protect us from terrorists flying planes. I guess a gun on your hip will do about anything you want, even cure warts! You guys need to get a grip! But you know what, I am whupped and I give. But, before I go let me have one parting shot. Can any of you tell me how you can ensure that a nut doesn't get a permit to carry. I understand that all one must do is tell the state you are not a mental case, no way to verify, and pass a hand gun course that is window dressing, and never have been convicted of a felony or crime of violence. A few years ago, I arrested a man who murdered his girlfriend with a gun after two years of beating and abusing her. She was trying to get away from him. He had been arrested in Tennessee, Kentucky, and Alabama and charged with felonies. But, they were are dismissed because he talked her into kissing and making up. He shot her, actually blew her guts into the street in front of her home with her 6 months old daughter in her hands. And guess what? This murdered is one of those law abiding citizens who would have still qualified for a hand gun carry permit. A real law abider. If there was a way to guarantee that everyone that carries a gun is sane and truly free of crime, I would be for it. Until then, I will oppose any enhancements for permits. Enough is enough! One more thing; another big difference between police officers and civilians is that police have to pass a psychcological, and extensive background, much more intensive than handgun permits, and undergo extensive training initially and annually to carry a gun, on or off duty. And still, we have police that do bad things. So how in the hell can you ensure that all permit holders all "good, law abiding, citizens"? Answer that for me and I will come to your side! Until you can, get a grip!

[johnharris]

So how in the hell can you ensure that all permit holders all "good, law abiding, citizens"? Answer that for me and I will come to your side! Until you can, get a grip!

We obviously cannot guarantee that anymore than we can guarantee that everyone who has access to a pen, a typewriter, a pedestal or the internet will properly exercise their rights under the First Amendment. Recall that by many accounts it was Hitlers' exercise of the art and power of speech, a First Amendment right, which enabled him upon his terrible path. He first persuaded then terrorized with the power he seized through persuasion.

The point is that we cannot and should not restrict those rights which are constitutionally recognized to exist in the apprehension that someone might somewhere, someday, misuse those rights. History tells us that whatever level of free choice we are given, from the very Garden of Eden, is subject to misuse and abuse. We do not avoid those problems by banning or else God could have banned the apple. We do not avoid murder, or else God could have made the very rocks and stones too soft to kill or our bodies too strong to be killed.

I do not believe that the answer lies in the power of government, which is often abused at the expense of the entire citizenry, to redress potential crime by disenfranchising all citizens in the hopes of averting the conduct of a small minority. Humans will by our very nature remain incapable of creating rules and laws that cannot be violated. More prophylactic laws and restrictions do nothing to avert the potential for harm or crime except to the extent that the individual believes that his or her violation of a specific law would result in specific, swift and certain punishment in excess of any gain to be achieved by the misconduct then contemplated.

These comments aside, please understand hog106, that I would much prefer for you to feel welcome at this forum and to participate constructively, pro or con, than to perceive that you have been whupped with the intent of shunning you. For example, coming forth with an authority (case or statute) to clarify the duty of an officer would be helpful. Appropriately edited stories about real life experiences with permit holders are useful. I prefer to view the Second Amendment as not an us or them vis-a-vis each other but an us versus the potential that our Founding Fathers perceived as a realisitic potential for a state or federal government to become every bit the suppressive tyrant that the kings of England had been.

[MitchSchaft]

You can't ensure that people won't do bad things. That's kind of the reason for me carrying a gun. To ensure that I will atleast have a chance to live if one of those people does something bad.
Criminals carry guns all the time and they do not have permits to carry.

About the airplane deal; if people on that plane had guns the hijackers wouldn't have made it very far.

I'd rather die as a fighter in my own blood than as a coward in my own piss.