• 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.

HIT this poll! Memphis to flout preemption, ban gun carry on public street with metal detectors!

Tex

New member
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
111
Location
, ,
imported post

I've been hitting this all day, and we're up to 56% but it seems like I'm the only one working it.
 

Tex

New member
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
111
Location
, ,
imported post

ok, got us over the hump to 60%, that ought to be enough to make our point!
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
imported post

Mike wrote:
Do any of you TN residents know the details about Beale Street?

What about setting up a protest outside Beale St. if police in fact do establish an illegal gun ban check point? I wonder if tourists will come to see the picket line too?
Damn makes me wish I was in Tennessee I would be up for this. This is a blatant affront to our liberties.
 

WCrawford

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2007
Messages
592
Location
Nashville, Tennessee, United States
imported post

Mike wrote:
I'm thinking some open carriers might need to try to visit Beale st. and be barred entry to ensure they have standing to sue.

Can somebody in TN take the lead on this, find out the particulars, and consider filing a lawsuit? Under Section 1983 prevailing Plaintiffs usually recoup atty fees and costs.


I think we need to take a stand now against "Beale Street Tactics" or every localitiy in the coutnry will start doing monkey see, monkee do policy making.
I just found this editorial about an ongoing lawsuit between the some of the controlling intrests of Beale Street. It clearly states the City of Memphis is the owner of the street.

http://www.memphisdailynews.com/editorial/Article.aspx?id=42768

So would state preemption laws prevent the city of Memphis from banning guns here? Definately need someone more skilled in the law than I am.
 

Task Force 16

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
2,615
Location
Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
imported post

WCrawford wrote:
Mike wrote:
I'm thinking some open carriers might need to try to visit Beale st. and be barred entry to ensure they have standing to sue.

Can somebody in TN take the lead on this, find out the particulars, and consider filing a lawsuit? Under Section 1983 prevailing Plaintiffs usually recoup atty fees and costs.


I think we need to take a stand now against "Beale Street Tactics" or every localitiy in the coutnry will start doing monkey see, monkee do policy making.
I just found this editorial about an ongoing lawsuit between the some of the controlling intrests of Beale Street. It clearly states the City of Memphis is the owner of the street.

http://www.memphisdailynews.com/editorial/Article.aspx?id=42768

So would state preemption laws prevent the city of Memphis from banning guns here? Definately need someone more skilled in the law than I am.
Doesn't Tn Statutes allow municipalities to regulate firearms on such owned properties? Although, I'm not sure how that would play out since the City of Memphis leases the buildings to private entities for business purposes.
 

NightOwl

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2008
Messages
559
Location
, California, USA
imported post

The most a lawsuit would manage is to put the security guards at the businesses instead of at the ends of the street. Still a win, and resulting in a higher per-business cost to maintain the no-firearms policy for every business on the street, but a pretty similar end result. The security guards can do a metal detector pass (or require full nudity with clown noses, for that matter) at the businesses themselves, as it's the individual's choice to agree and enter, or disagree and not enter.

Still, I hope it goes well.
 

autosurgeon

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Messages
3,831
Location
Lawrence, Michigan, United States
imported post

NightOwl wrote:
The most a lawsuit would manage is to put the security guards at the businesses instead of at the ends of the street. Still a win, and resulting in a higher per-business cost to maintain the no-firearms policy for every business on the street, but a pretty similar end result. The security guards can do a metal detector pass (or require full nudity with clown noses, for that matter) at the businesses themselves, as it's the individual's choice to agree and enter, or disagree and not enter.

Still, I hope it goes well.
In my humble opinion the higher cost would either make some businesses change their tune or at least cost them more... not only would they be losing the business of firearms carriers but they would have to employ 1 or 2 guards per facility during the entire time they are open...:celebrate I say it would serve them right!!!!
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

NightOwl wrote:
The most a lawsuit would manage is to put the security guards at the businesses instead of at the ends of the street. Still a win, and resulting in a higher per-business cost to maintain the no-firearms policy for every business on the street, but a pretty similar end result. The security guards can do a metal detector pass (or require full nudity with clown noses, for that matter) at the businesses themselves, as it's the individual's choice to agree and enter, or disagree and not enter.

Still, I hope it goes well.
I don;lt think so - the city owns the whole palce and it is run by an agent of them - [preemption should apply.
 

UTOC-45-44

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2007
Messages
2,579
Location
Morgan, Utah, USA
imported post

Yes.
spacer.gif

35%
No.
spacer.gif

65%
 

NightOwl

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2008
Messages
559
Location
, California, USA
imported post

Mike wrote:
NightOwl wrote:
The most a lawsuit would manage is to put the security guards at the businesses instead of at the ends of the street. Still a win, and resulting in a higher per-business cost to maintain the no-firearms policy for every business on the street, but a pretty similar end result. The security guards can do a metal detector pass (or require full nudity with clown noses, for that matter) at the businesses themselves, as it's the individual's choice to agree and enter, or disagree and not enter.

Still, I hope it goes well.
I don;lt think so - the city owns the whole palce and it is run by an agent of them - [preemption should apply.

I don't believe that is correct, though I most certainly could be wrong. According to this link it is a mix of public and private property (National Register of Historic Places application .pdf, it's a bit of a slow load): http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NHLS/Text/66000731.pdf I'm understanding that as the street itself being public, with the businesses/buildings (some/most?)being private. I couldn't find an exact listing of who owns each individual property or what was owned by the city and what was private business not owned by them, for which I apologize.

I do want to clairify though that I support the effort. In no way should a public street be allowed an exemption to the law. I believe it should be up to each individual business to determine their own policy, but that policy ends at the property line.
 
Top