You are in a park, relaxing while legally carrying your weapon, and then you are breaking the law because some school decided to have a field day.
I need to start bothering local politicians.
A lot.
Where a Hispanic Catholic, and a Computer Geek write about Gun Rights, Self Defense and whatever else we can think about.
You are in a park, relaxing while legally carrying your weapon, and then you are breaking the law because some school decided to have a field day.
I need to start bothering local politicians.
A lot.
Semi-retired like Vito Corleone before the heart attack. Consiglieri to J.Kb and AWA. I lived in a Gun Control Paradise: It sucked and got people killed. I do believe that Freedom scares the political elites.
Comments are closed.
Even TROs (Temporary Restraining Orders) and EPOs (Emergency Protective Orders) allow the person served to go about their normal business, as long as they take reasonable measures to avoid the person they’re ordered to stay away from. They are NOT a cudgel with which the “protected” person can destroy the “served” person’s life or livelihood; it’s assumed that the party seeking the protective order doesn’t want to be around the other party and will equally avoid them.
.
IOW, the “protected” person can’t hang out where the “served” person frequents just to harass them; the “protected” person can’t park outside the “served” person’s work place so that they can’t go to work and get fired, or get a job at the local grocery store with the intent that the “served” person can’t buy food during normal business hours. (I knew someone who talked about doing the latter before the hearing on the longer-term order. The judge caught wind of it and — for that and for other, more legal reasons — he [rightly] denied the longer-term order.)
.
The reason I bring this up is, it’s ridiculous that your lawful carry of a firearm can suddenly become unlawful because some “protected” third party shows up unbeknownst to you. TROs and EPOs exist to try and protect people from actual, recognized threats and they make reasonable allowances for people’s normal business unrelated to the “protected” party. A law that doesn’t make those allowances — especially for people who are NOT recognized threats — or that assumes that the free exercise of a Constitutionally-protected right makes them a threat, is unreasonable and unconstitutional.
Archer hit the nail on the head.
Are you taking reasonable steps to avoid violating the law? Yes, if you go to the park and a school bus full of kids shows up. You were there legally before they did, and assuming you do not change behavior (approach the school group, or stay in the area for longer than you expected to, etc…) you should not be in violation of the law. I will have to double check, but I believe my state is of that mindset. (If they are not, a strongly worded letter will be on its way.)
Indiana had a similar “gotcha” on the books when I lived there and had my carry permit and it sucked. The local forums referred to field trips as “roving gun free zones.”
Do they have to properly post any gun free zones in Tennessee?
If so, how do they properly post and then un-post the zones? How does the school or park district inform the legal users of the park that its firearms status has changed?
I always thought concealed was concealed? If they can’t see it, then you ain’t carrying.