The state government handed over the rights to local government to decide the fate of carrying guns in parks. This local government has exercised that right to prohibit carrying guns in local parks. It's called governing at the lowest level to do the will of the people.

I find it refreshing that an elected body still has the 'collective' common sense to 'fix' that which should never have been an issue to begin with. Now,if only some of Hamilton County's ethics, and concern for its electorate, would 'trickle up' to those who would place personal feelings and political partisanship ahead of all else.
Since I am not a citizen of your fair community I can only applaud 'their' efforts and envy those of you who will benefit from them.
Additionally, since there are several state parks close to where I do live, I will maintain hope that all local governments involved will act similarly to yours.
Thank you for your time and attention,
Woody

Finally, some adult supervision!

Kudos to the Hamilton County Commission, the Chattanooga City Council and the Red Bank Board of Commissioners.

This issue is going to come down to civil liability.

Any county or local government that doesn't want to risk a lawsuit arising from some gun-related mishap in one of its parks will follow the lead of Hamilton County, Red Bank and Chattanooga. The same will hold true for bars and restaurants. I'm sure those businesses are already calculating the increase in their liability insurance should they not ban firearms at their establishments.

I never thought I'd say this, but... thank goodness for the insurance industry!

From today's Free Press editorial page:

"We should leave public safety considerations to our police officers, not casual gun carriers."

Very true - when they're around. Let me make this perfectly clear. I am neither a police officer or a wannabe hero. I have no intention of trying to protect anyone but myself and my family against life-threatening actions by a criminal. To emphasize: LIFE THREATENING, CRIMINAL. Criminals - not irate drivers, obnoxious drunks, or even irritating liberals high on daffodil fumes. The sensationalist media hammers a segment of the population with a microscopic rate of crime of any kind, much less gun crime, while the real criminals run amok in our revolving door justice system.

How many shootings have there been in Georgia parks by people with permits?
I'm done with this. Have a nice day.

Hooray for Hamilton County TN.

To everyone living in a bubble, guns will still be in the parks, but they will be carried by gang bangers and criminals who do not abide by the law. The only thing this county measure does is make the sheep feel warm and fuzzy, while not allowing law abiding citizens to protect themselves.

I guess if I am being held at gun point by a criminal somewhere along the riverwalk or my fiance is being raped, we will have to cower there (or lie there injured/dead) and wait for Deputy Dan to arrive on his golf cart or bicycle to file a police report and clean up the mess.

This is an exercise and showing of just how disunctional government really is. State and local government cannot reach concencous and work in different directions. The mucicpalities that are flexing their muscles against the state will not take a similar uprising on behalf of public education.

The mucipalities involved are the same cities that will tell you public education is not under our control and they do absolutely nothing for education. For anti gun totin, they rise. I am not impressed.

toonfan,

I think you are hitting on an important aspect. I also believe you are looking at it 180 degrees out of phase with my own view.

If I take my kids to a park, and we are assaulted by criminals, I will sue the county for taking away my right to self defense. Without their soft headed meddling, I could likely defend myself and my family.

As for restaurants posting, the same would apply but for the fact that I will not spend one penny in an establishment which denies me my basic human rights.

------------------------------------------------

On a related note, how much are all the new signs going to cost for every entrance at every park in the county? By state law, the current signage does not apply to HCP holders. What say you great thinkers of CTFP of the county spending money on these things in a down economy?

I can't even find that they discussed the cost.

They also did not put this item on the agenda for the meeting yesterday. I know a few here who would be plenty irate about the lack of transparency if this were some other issue.

---------------------------------------

I know that many people are frightened by firearms. The anti-gun industry does a darn good job of conflating the issues of legal self defense and criminal misuse. I only wish all citizens would look back to the beginnings of our country and learn about why those very learned men codified the right to keep AND BEAR arms as an extension of our fundamental right to self defense, to ensure a civilized society, and as a balance against government tyranny.

Those who are cheering the counties move to deny our civil right to self defense should be ashamed.

You know it really makes you wonder what is the point of having a state law or federal law really if the sissies that run your municipality is just going to create laws to get around the state and federal regulation. It’s good for a giggle to see folks who actually think this is going to prevent firearms from being where you don't want them because the permit holders will have them concealed. What is next? Are there going to be magometers and pat downs before you can enter Coolidge Park? Good luck with that! You have also now made the hard decision for those citizens who obtained their permit legally, whose primary concern was their own personal safety. Generally speaking, no matter what signs you put up on the front of restaurants or parks, citizens who are legally licensed to carry a firearm will in some cases still carry it in those restricted locations. Now the choice you just made for them is this: should something occur like a restaurant being held up, or someone is being assaulted in a place like Jack's Alley or Coolidge Park (and it’s not like it hasn’t ever happened in those locations) and a bystander who has a permit and is carrying a firearm will now do nothing to assist the person in danger and be forced to look the other way. Why is this? It is because it won't matter that the permit holder was trying to help this person in trouble (whether they used their weapon or not) The only thing that matter to some crazy nut job(s) is to prosecute the person with the gun for having it one them where they shouldn’t. Oh and let the assailant off with community service or a couple weekends at Silverdale. Congratulations... And the notion of businesses and/or governmental entities being sued or held liable has got to stop! The person who committed the crime must be held solely responsible for their actions. It is utterly pathetic when you hear of gun manufactures, bar owners, breweries, distilleries being sued for wrongful death when despicable act has taken place. Regardless of your personal politics, our fortieth President got it right when he said:

"We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions." R.Reagan

If we start to hold the actual people accountable for their actions, then perhaps they will have more appreciate the freedoms they have.

If the parks are totally funded by local government then fine, no guns. If local government takes one penny from the state to maintain the parks then they're out of line.

SCOTTYM, I didn't know that owning a gun was a human right. I thought it was a constitutional right. These two things are often are very different (as in this case).

I was also unaware of the anti-gun "industry." Exactly what do they make and how will they continue to prosper once guns are banned? (I'm expecting someone to tell me about a conspiracy theory when they answer this question.)

I am aware of the pro-gun industry. It's big on Wall Street and Capital Hill.

Nevertheless, I do agree that to ban guns in parks is just silly. There is no difference in carrying a gun on the sidewalk next to Miller Park than in Miller Park. These are both open, public places.

That being said, I do not think my right to keep and bear arms is unlimited. There are public safefty issues that need to be considered. Guns on commerical airplanes is a good example. A discharged weapon can have devastating safety effects.

Guns in restaurants that serve alcohol also does not seem too wise to me, but I think your view is not outside the bounds of sanity (I'd view it as a 9mm on the other side of good sense.)

I have asked you before what you would need to be okay with guns not allowed in restaurants, and I thought your answer was clever and it still makes me chuckle. (It mimicked security precautions for airplanes, courtrooms and some schools).

If nothing else, if you and rolando refuse to dine at these restaurants, maybe I'll get seated sooner.

I just don't see a lot of gun violence that would be prevented by carrying a weapon. Gang-bangers carry weapons and they are the people most frequently getting shot.

Another common victim of gun violence are "family" and "friends" in domestic disputes.

Even before we allowed guns in bars, I was not aware that crime at the Mellow-Mushroom was such a problem. Maybe it's bad at Big River, or maybe there is a coverup.

At anyrate. I'm with you on the battle you lost. I'm against you on the battle you won.

Lesson learned: if you want to win on gun-policy, don't be on my side!

Could the better-informed give me some feedback about the following?

I am interesting in learning about why the closure of records would a good thing or a bad thing. I simply do not know.

If you could just state your thoughts without a polemic and/or nick-naming, I would really appreciate it.

If you do fall back on polemic or nick-names, just use some new ones so I can find it entertaining as well as instructing.

Thank you.

X

Insp B, his Marke

***

Tennessee Senate fails to approve bill to close handgun-carry records

http://www.tennessean.com/article/200906...

moonpie wrote,
"SCOTTYM, I didn't know that owning a gun was a human right. I thought it was a constitutional right."

This is a fundamental difference in the intent of our founding fathers, and the modern statist view of rights. The founding fathers, through their writings and documents make it very clear that our rights flow from our "Creator". I'm not real big on religion, but I do recognize that we humans are something special, and unique on this planet. The idea that humans have embedded rights to freedom, and self determination is the idea, and as it stands we are still the most free nation on the planet.

In most all other present countries, and past civilizations, rights are/were granted by the government/rulers. Those rulers/governers can then remove freedoms as they see fit, as well. This is a statist approach, the rights flow from the state to the people. The founding fathers launched our grand experiment with an outright rejection of this view, due to abuses they had suffered. (King George III was being a jerk.)[He also tried to take the colonist's guns(actually a communal gunpowder stash) away one day in Concord ;) ]

If you get a chance, read the federalist papers, and any other writings of the founding fathers. Read up on the history of the founding actors and learn about their motivations. They are very inspirational and enlightening. I stand in awe of their foresight and boldness.

All of this to say: The right to self(i.e. I own myself, I am a sovereign individual with embedded rights, voluntarily joined together with my fellow humans and giving consent to be governed by laws) naturally includes the right to defend myself. Without a right to self defense, all other rights would be in dire jeopardy from those wishing to take away my life, my freedom, or my property. The firearm just happens to be the most efficient and effective method of self defense yet devised.

The U.S. Constitution grants me no rights, it recognizes that I have natural rights and goes on in the first ten amendments to enumerate a few of them. The Bill of Rights was ratified along with Constitution to actively constrain the federal government in relation to some basic rights that had been long infringed by kings and governments.

The very fact that the right to keep and bear arms was mentioned in the BOR shows that they are an important part of the idea of freedom, and that the founders anticipated (correctly) that the government might try to usurp the right to arms.

Those guys were "gun nuts" too.

<More next, this post is gonna bust the word limit.>

Scotty - excellent explanation. You didn't pay moonpie to ask that question did you? :)

Well stated, SCOTTYM. You beat me to it.

The issue of right to bear arms has a different meaning to different folks- this difference in meaning has been the point of conflict. Let me explain.

Most all people agree that we should have the right to own guns. However, this term to to the majority of the folks mean the right to buy and keep guns in their homes for hunting and protection. For many decades the idea of anyone except law persons carrying guns was ridiculous. Even if the law person was not in uniform, if they were carrying a gun we knew they were an official for law in some form. Anyone else in possession of a gun, they were considered on the shady side,to be avoided and maybe had bad intentions.

Today, there are those that consider carrying guns no more different than carrying a cell phone. Unfortunately, the idea of such practices is not shared by all as I described above. Maybe someday we will come to a meeting of the minds but until then there is this major difference in thinking.

This was not intended to justify either side- just explain what I think are the differences.

cont.

moonpie wrote,
"I was also unaware of the anti-gun "industry.""

The Brady bunch ring a bell? Most of the mass media. Most leftists politicians. Most national police leadership organizations.(Interestingly many police officers on the streets recognize that legally armed citizens are an asset.)
There are big bucks spent on the war against guns, someone is making money.

"Exactly what do they make and how will they continue to prosper once guns are banned?"

They manufacture fear, if they could ban guns they would move on to knives, then pointy objects, and then bits of wood. I can only guess at the motivation, but likely it is due to a statist view of the rights of man. Does that sound like a conspiracy? Do you doubt that groups of people sit at meetings and conceptualize new approaches to the curtailment of gun rights? Is that not the definition of a conspiracy?

"I am aware of the pro-gun industry."

Me too, I help fund it through the purchase of firearms, ammunition and assorted paraphernalia, and through dues to my favorite civil-rights organization. ;)

"I have asked you before what you would need to be okay with guns not allowed in restaurants, and I thought your answer was clever and it still makes me chuckle. (It mimicked security precautions for airplanes, courtrooms and some schools)"

My opinion has not changed. I will only consent to being disarmed in places where I can, with good faith, assume everyone else is disarmed as well. Signs won't do the trick.
I'm glad it makes you chuckle, that means you are thinking clearly and not operating off of emotion.

"I just don't see a lot of gun violence that would be prevented by carrying a weapon."

That is the anti-gun crowd working on your perception. Most media outlets espouse a statist view of our 2nd Amend. rights.(Even this very paper we are conversing around, including editorials on the right side of the page) It has been shown that there are at least a few 100,000 self defense uses every year and perhaps as many as a few million. You won't see it on the news, or read about it on the front page of the paper, because it does not fit their narrative. There are a few websites which compile the reports of self-defensive firearms usage, but even those will not show the instances where the defender drew his/her weapon and the assailant turned tail and beat feet. Most of those instances are never reported to authorities, as the hassle is undesirable, and the police are as likely to charge the defender with brandishing as they are to actually locate and charge the assailant.
----------------------------------------

Has anyone found any information on the discussion of cost to implement the counties plan? Did they even consider it?

Sailorman wrote,
"Scotty - excellent explanation. You didn't pay moonpie to ask that question did you? :)

Thank you, and no, with the cost of ammo going through the roof I can't spare the cash to buy setups. moonpie was nice enough to furnish it for free.

----------------------------------------------------------

Thank you Rolando.

----------------------------------------------------------

EaTn,
You are right. Unfortunately the (widely held) view that only government sanctioned people (i.e. lawmmen, and military) should have weapons at hand at all times, is exactly the opposite of what the founders intended.

I will continue to try and be a reasonable defender of the right to effective self defense. Education to overcome the bias against firearms rights is the key.

---------------------------------------------------------

I think, Inspector Buckett,"they" thought that releasing records would increase the theft of guns from legitimate holders, and place them in the hands of the criminals.

Thanks for the starter, Clara.

This closure bill seemed urgent, so I felt that I had not been attending very well.

Could any advocates of firearm liberty or firearm control sound off on the why or why not of the defeated closed records bill?

Thanks.

SCOTTYM!

I didn't expect so much in return. So thank you.

After reading your post, I would still conclude that we view some issues with fundamental differences. However, as acknowledged before, I think you have a reasonable point of view... despite that I don't agree with all of it.

I will say that I read the Federalist Papers, and at one time, everything I could get my hands on about and by the founding fathers.

This reading lead me to three conclusions: 1) these men were brilliant, 2) they were tragically fallible, 3) they didn't get everything right.

But overall, you made an excellent post, and I'm glad that you contributed all of that to this diaglogue.

After all, I don't ever expect to persuade you or rolando to another point of view. I think you and I have the same goal, to convince others who have not yet formed their world view.

You did touch on the way media reports gun crime. What do you say we have the media report this on every gun offense: 1) if the gun was purchased through legal channels, 2) if the shooter, if known, was a permit carrier.

Do you think the public has a right to know these two things?

Thanks again, and have a good night.

SCOTTYM and all those who agreed with him- the word 'creator' DOES NOT appear in the U.S. Constitution at all. It does appear in the Declaration of Independence, but the unalienable rights attributed to that 'creator' were restricted to the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Nothing about guns.

As for your point about suing the county for not allowing you to carry a gun in the park, well, good luck with that one. If you are injured from someone violating a posted law, the lawbreaker is liable, not those who created the law that was broken. Next time some speeder wrecks into you, you could try suing the government for forcing you to drive within the posted limits. After all, if you had only been allowed to speed yourself, chances are, you wouldn't have been hit in the first place. Damn that government, I was only speeding to protect myself and my family.

And finally, if you are going to boycott every restaurant that bans firearms on its premises, you might want to stock up on frozen dinners, because you won't be eating out much anymore.

InspectorBucket wrote,
"Could any advocates of firearm liberty or firearm control sound off on the why or why not of the defeated closed records bill?"

As a Handgun Carry Permitee, I was extremely disturbed to see a certain liberal media group in this state put together a database of all Permitees.

They have subsequently limited the available information, however when they first went live, they showed way to much for my tastes.

Imagine a searchable database available to anyone with an internet connection, which shows all the information the state dept. of motor vehicles has for you. Your name, address, age, etc., are included. This would be bad enough.

But this database is a shopping list for thieves. By its very design it serves as a list of people who own valuable items, which a convicted felon can not legally buy for any price. The fact that those on the list are licensed(aarrgghh!!!!!) to carry a handgun means that they likely own at least one firearm. From personal experience I'll tell you that guns are like Tribbles. Every firearm owner I know, has the same problem.

The criminals know this as well.
Most of them are not very smart, but they make up for the lack of intelligence with boldness.
Firearms safes are not cheap, and reasonably priced ones are not impenetrable. Given enough time, criminals can get in a bank vault, therefore, they can dang sure get in a $2000 dollar household safe.

The defeated law would have closed down that kind of access.

moonpie @ 11:30pm,

The admiration is mutual.

"This reading lead me to three conclusions: 1) these men were brilliant(absolutely, most were a bit humble as well), 2) they were tragically fallible(All humans are), 3) they didn't get everything right(That is why they allowed an amendment process).

"Do you think the public has a right to know these two things?"

I have zero problems with your proposition.

The first point will be impossible in most cases though. There exists no nationwide database of all firearms purchases and trades between private individuals.

There isn't going to be one either.

You can bank on it.

They could report whether the perpetrator is legally allowed to own firearms. NICS(National Instant Check System) is available 24-7-365 and from my experience is pretty quick, on the order of 10 mins.

As for the second, the information is instantly available to any law enforcement officer in the country. I'm thinking that information is already included in the reports. It just doesn't happen very often.

toonfan,
I am in a good mood and I'll play.

I said,
"The founding fathers, through their writings and documents make it very clear that our rights flow from our "Creator". "

I don't see where I said that the word "Creator" appears in the U.S. Constitution, but that was a good kill on the strawman.
Also, good job covering my position by pointing out that the D.O.I. does refer to a "Creator". It also refers to God as well.

toonfan wrote,
"Nothing about guns." refering to the D.O.I.

I give you,
"they have full power to levy war"
How ya going to do that without guns?

toonfan wrote,
"As for your point about suing the county for not allowing you to carry a gun in the park......Damn that government, I was only speeding to protect myself and my family."

You started out good and lapsed into nonsense.

Your analogy about cars would work better if you had the local government outlawing brakes and seat belts.

Also, way up the page, you said,
"Any county or local government that doesn't want to risk a lawsuit arising from some gun-related mishap in one of its parks will follow the lead of Hamilton County, Red Bank and Chattanooga."

Then you say,
"If you are injured from someone violating a posted law, the lawbreaker is liable, .......

Which is it? Your statements are mutually exclusive. I was poking at your post about lawsuits, I' m glad that we both agree that, as you later said,
"If you are injured from someone violating a posted law, the lawbreaker is liable, ...."

This logic applies to restaurants as well.

In 37 states firearms are allowed in restaurants that serve alcohol. In all my travels, I can't remember ever seeing a single sign overriding state law. However, it is possible that some business owners do not want my money. I am OK with that as this is a free country, and a man's/woman's business belongs to them and they should be free to run it as they see fit. Also moonpie will be seated sooner.

Here is a little tidbit to chew on. HCP holders are about 3% of the state population. Probably closer to 6-7% of the adult population. Restaurants run on 3-5% profit margins.

I only eat out a few times a month, but when we go, we rack up a tab. ;) I tip good too.

Also, next time you are at the mall or wallyworld or bi-lo shopping, think about that 6-7% number. If there are 200 adults in the store with you, statistically speaking, 12-14 of them have a firearm on their person.

We are already among you. Most of us conceal to avoid scaring the sheep.

Thanks, ScottyM. I truly did not know.

What the name of the activist group in favor of disclosure? I am an intelligence junkie--I like data. Thanks again.

And does anyone with another view on firearms think that there are benefits from the public disclosure of gun records?

Thanks in advance.

moonpie said "Even before we allowed guns in bars, I was not aware that crime at the Mellow-Mushroom was such a problem. Maybe it's bad at Big River, or maybe there is a coverup."

It's not necessarily that I am worried about a shooting in the restaurant itself. What worries me more is the walk through downtown or the parking lot. Also, don't assume that I am afraid of everything and would be better off not leaving my house. I have my own personal reasons for carrying as do all permit holders. It will also be nice to be out around town or walking around all day and not have to worry about going back to your car or finsing a place to store your weapon since all of a sudden after you cross the threshold of a restaurant serving alcohol, you are a changed person. The following excerpt which I saw on another forum sums it up nicely. Credit goes to David.

"The flaw in their logic goes a bit further. Essentially what these morons have been telling Tennessee's permit holders for years now is that you somehow change, insidiously, at a very deep level the moment you step into a restaurant where alcohol is served, an suddenly are no longer trustworthy.

Think about that for a moment. You are allowed to carry your sidearm all day long and go in and out of countless public and private places without incident, but the moment you enter a Chili's or a Logan's Roadhouse restaurant where someone across the restaurant might be enjoying a beer or a Jack and Coke, you are no longer the same trustworthy, even keeled person that you were just outside of that building.

Never mind that you, as an armed person, are not allowed to consume alcohol while carrying. Never mind that this new law does not provide you the latitude of doing so, and comes with stiff repercussions if you do and are caught.

All that matters under this distorted, agenda based mockery of logic is that on one side of the restaurant's doorway you are trustworthy and on the other side, you are not.

Sheer brilliance."