kwikrnu
Banned
imported post
Attorney General Opinion concerning lack of signs at parks. Best bet may be to not not carry in a park at all until the Legislature fixes this preemption garbage.
New opinion as of 9-22-09 09-158.
Question 6
"If a county or municipality chooses to prohibit the carrying of firearms in parks which
[align=left]they own, could a permit holder be convicted of violating Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1311 if such[/align]county or municipality failed to comply with the posting requirements set forth in Chapter 428?"
Opinion 6
[align=left]"A handgun carry permit holder who carries a firearm into a county or municipal park[/align]
[align=left]where the county or municipality has prohibited such carrying could still be convicted of[/align]
[align=left]violating Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1311 even if such county or municipality failed to comply[/align]with the posting requirements that are set forth in section 2(e)(2) of Chapter 428."
Analysis 6
[align=left]"You ask if a handgun carry permit holder could be convicted of violating Tenn. Code[/align]
[align=left]Ann. § 39-17-1311 for carrying a firearm into a county or municipal park where such carrying is[/align]
[align=left]prohibited if the county or municipality failed to comply with the posting requirements that are[/align]
[align=left]set forth in Chapter 428. In the prosecution of a criminal case, the State bears the burden of[/align]
[align=left]proving every element of an offense. State v. Dotson, 254 S.W.3d 378 (Tenn. 2008). The[/align]
[align=left]question is thus whether proof that such signs were properly posted is an element of the offense.[/align]
[align=left]If the failure to post signs in a park where the carrying of firearms is prohibited is such an[/align]
[align=left]element, then a carry permit holder could not be convicted of violating Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-[/align]
[align=left]17-1311 if the state failed to prove that such signs were posted. On the other hand if proof of[/align]
[align=left]such posting is not an element, then a handgun carry permit holder could be convicted of[/align]
[align=left]violating Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1311 even if the county or municipality that has prohibited[/align]
[align=left]the carrying of firearms in parks which they own has failed to post the required signage.[/align]
[align=left]State v. Brooks, 741 S.W.2d 920 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987), is directly on point. In that[/align]
[align=left]case, the court held that the failure of a school to satisfy the sign posting requirements was not a[/align]
[align=left]defense to a charge of carrying a firearm on school grounds. The court concluded that the sign[/align]
[align=left]posting requirement was not an element of the offense. Applying the reasoning in Brooks to[/align]
[align=left]Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1311, as amended by Chapter 428, the posting of signs in parks where[/align]
[align=left]the carrying of firearms is prohibited is not an element of a violation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-[/align]
[align=left]17-1311. A handgun carry permit holder could therefore be convicted of violating Tenn. Code[/align]
[align=left]Ann. § 39-17-1311 for carrying a firearm into a county or municipal park, where such carrying is[/align]
prohibited, even if such county or municipality failed to post the required signs."
The AG points to State v. Brooks, 741 S.W.2d 920 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). TCA 39-17-1309 states that the school grounds shall be posted in prominent locations about a school. When was the last last time you saw a sign posted at a school? My daughters school has 1 sign inside the building and it isn't posted in a prominent location. The opinion sucks, but it does make sense.
Attorney General Opinion concerning lack of signs at parks. Best bet may be to not not carry in a park at all until the Legislature fixes this preemption garbage.
New opinion as of 9-22-09 09-158.
Question 6
"If a county or municipality chooses to prohibit the carrying of firearms in parks which
[align=left]they own, could a permit holder be convicted of violating Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1311 if such[/align]county or municipality failed to comply with the posting requirements set forth in Chapter 428?"
Opinion 6
[align=left]"A handgun carry permit holder who carries a firearm into a county or municipal park[/align]
[align=left]where the county or municipality has prohibited such carrying could still be convicted of[/align]
[align=left]violating Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1311 even if such county or municipality failed to comply[/align]with the posting requirements that are set forth in section 2(e)(2) of Chapter 428."
Analysis 6
[align=left]"You ask if a handgun carry permit holder could be convicted of violating Tenn. Code[/align]
[align=left]Ann. § 39-17-1311 for carrying a firearm into a county or municipal park where such carrying is[/align]
[align=left]prohibited if the county or municipality failed to comply with the posting requirements that are[/align]
[align=left]set forth in Chapter 428. In the prosecution of a criminal case, the State bears the burden of[/align]
[align=left]proving every element of an offense. State v. Dotson, 254 S.W.3d 378 (Tenn. 2008). The[/align]
[align=left]question is thus whether proof that such signs were properly posted is an element of the offense.[/align]
[align=left]If the failure to post signs in a park where the carrying of firearms is prohibited is such an[/align]
[align=left]element, then a carry permit holder could not be convicted of violating Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-[/align]
[align=left]17-1311 if the state failed to prove that such signs were posted. On the other hand if proof of[/align]
[align=left]such posting is not an element, then a handgun carry permit holder could be convicted of[/align]
[align=left]violating Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1311 even if the county or municipality that has prohibited[/align]
[align=left]the carrying of firearms in parks which they own has failed to post the required signage.[/align]
[align=left]State v. Brooks, 741 S.W.2d 920 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987), is directly on point. In that[/align]
[align=left]case, the court held that the failure of a school to satisfy the sign posting requirements was not a[/align]
[align=left]defense to a charge of carrying a firearm on school grounds. The court concluded that the sign[/align]
[align=left]posting requirement was not an element of the offense. Applying the reasoning in Brooks to[/align]
[align=left]Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1311, as amended by Chapter 428, the posting of signs in parks where[/align]
[align=left]the carrying of firearms is prohibited is not an element of a violation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-[/align]
[align=left]17-1311. A handgun carry permit holder could therefore be convicted of violating Tenn. Code[/align]
[align=left]Ann. § 39-17-1311 for carrying a firearm into a county or municipal park, where such carrying is[/align]
prohibited, even if such county or municipality failed to post the required signs."
The AG points to State v. Brooks, 741 S.W.2d 920 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). TCA 39-17-1309 states that the school grounds shall be posted in prominent locations about a school. When was the last last time you saw a sign posted at a school? My daughters school has 1 sign inside the building and it isn't posted in a prominent location. The opinion sucks, but it does make sense.