• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

City of Crossville wanting to ban firearms on public property

FLMason

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
55
Location
Franklin, Tennessee, USA
imported post

I,m not sure this can apply to permit holders but if it does and passes it will be a snowball effect forevery city in tn



Complete State Preemption of All Firearm Laws except those ordinances that were in effect at the time preemption was passed.

NOTE: Almost all states allow local regulation of the discharge of firearms
 

Fallguy

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Messages
715
Location
McKenzie Tennessee, USA
imported post

It's true that 39-17-1314 preempts local governments from passing laws that regulate firearms.

However 39-17-1359 does allow local governments to post their property just like private property owners.

So at some point the city attorney or state AG may tell Crossville they can't pass an ordnance to prohibit carry, but if the city really wants to prohibit carry on it's property all it really has to do is post signs per 39-17-1359 unfortunately.
 

Fallguy

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Messages
715
Location
McKenzie Tennessee, USA
imported post

From what I've read my take is they are trying to ban carry on city owned property like city hall, police dept, water treatment building, park etc.... not in the entire city or on the streets.

But 39-17-1359 does allow the owner of the property to post the entire premises as off limits, not just buildings.
 

suntzu

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
1,230
Location
The south land
imported post

Fallguy wrote:
From what I've read my take is they are trying to ban carry on city owned property like city hall, police dept, water treatment building, park etc.... not in the entire city or on the streets.

But 39-17-1359 does allow the owner of the property to post the entire premises as off limits, not just buildings.
It still comes down to them trying to tell us that if we just will "give up" our rights--they will protect us....

like the criminals will obey any laws passed.
 

Fallguy

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Messages
715
Location
McKenzie Tennessee, USA
imported post

I'm in no way trying to say what they are attempting to do is right.

I don't think any place should be off limits actually, but ESPECIALLY not publicly owned government property.

I'm just pointing out that unfortunately that even without passing any local ordnance, state law already allows them to accomplish what there end goal seems to be.

However I still suggest contacting the Crossville government and strongly protesting and attempt to redistrict carry in the city.
 
Top