Last weeks OR Observer indicates that a referendum on "packing in parks" may be in OR's future. A column says that efforts have begun to gather signatures calling for a referendum to overturn council's 5-2 vote to opt out of the state's allowing guns in parks etc. in Tennessee.
Stan's editorial on the subject seems to say that because a large and passionate crowd was present to advocate for not opting out, that council did not follow the will of the citizens. At least that was my take on his thoughts. I disagree. I will bet that a referendum will fail by a 60-40 percentage or there abouts.
What say you? Yea or nay?
Better check and see if this is something you can take to referendum.
You know, it's an interesting question, especially for a liberal like me. I am a vehement supporter of the Bill of Rights, especially the rights I like most. I'm a little ambivalent about the relevance of the 2nd Amendment in 2009, since packing a pistol does not seem likely to save me much from tyranny. On the other hand, the right is pretty clearly there, so it appears as if that's one that I ought to accept.
I do have some questions:
1) How many people are really likely to carry a licensed weapon? How many already do?
2) Will legal carriers really make the parks any safer or any more unsafe? Will grandpa's 44 magnum fall out of his holster while he's hanging upside down on the monkey bars?
3) Does banning guns from local parks actually keep guns out of local parks? Who's to know? (I would guess that I unknowingly pass many weapons in my daily life.)
I suppose I would probably vote in favor of allowing licensed carriers to carry in local parks just because I can't really think of a good reason to keep them out.
I'm not convinced that they can get enough signatures to force a referendum, and I'm still not sure that's even something that is subject to change by referendum.
But assuming it is subject to referendum and enough signatures can be gathered, I think the 60-40 defeat sounds about right.
That and the bozos who complain about government spending money would be responsible for spending more.
(08-23-2009 06:21 PM)Atomic Wrote: [ -> ]You know, it's an interesting question, especially for a liberal like me. I am a vehement supporter of the Bill of Rights, especially the rights I like most. I'm a little ambivalent about the relevance of the 2nd Amendment in 2009, since packing a pistol does not seem likely to save me much from tyranny. On the other hand, the right is pretty clearly there, so it appears as if that's one that I ought to accept.
I do have some questions:
1) How many people are really likely to carry a licensed weapon? How many already do?
2) Will legal carriers really make the parks any safer or any more unsafe? Will grandpa's 44 magnum fall out of his holster while he's hanging upside down on the monkey bars?
3) Does banning guns from local parks actually keep guns out of local parks? Who's to know? (I would guess that I unknowingly pass many weapons in my daily life.)
I suppose I would probably vote in favor of allowing licensed carriers to carry in local parks just because I can't really think of a good reason to keep them out.
Quite a few years ago (probably between 15-20), there was an incident at the outdoor pool where someone had a gun in a backpack, and when the backpack was tossed on the ground, the gun discharged, shooting a nearby child in the hip.
That kind of scenario is my biggest objection to allowing firearms in parks, or at least parks with playgrounds and athletic fields. Another possible scenario is that IF the permit-holder actually attempted to stop a crime and missed, someone else could be shot by mistake. That's much less likely, I think, than a simple accident of dropping or mis-handling a firearm.
It happens all the time, as it did a couple of weeks ago when the guy shot himself in the leg in his car. Fortunately, he didn't hurt anyone else -- this time.
According to the column in the Observer, the person who is organizing the possible referendum says there are 2,000 permit holders in OR, so with their family members there are easily enough to call for the vote. And yes, the person says a referendum is perfectly legal. Who knew?
My own view is that I am much safer in a park without guns than in a school building, at least I suspect that is true on a national level. Oh well, this will be something to keep us occupied through the rest of Summer and Fall. Never a dull moment....
(08-23-2009 07:42 PM)Knight Rider Wrote: [ -> ]According to the column in the Observer, the person who is organizing the possible referendum says there are 2,000 permit holders in OR, so with their family members there are easily enough to call for the vote. And yes, the person says a referendum is perfectly legal. Who knew?
My own view is that I am much safer in a park without guns than in a school building, at least I suspect that is true on a national level. Oh well, this will be something to keep us occupied through the rest of Summer and Fall. Never a dull moment....
There are 900 people with carry permits in Oak Ridge according to the listing that was in the memphis Commercial Appeal. I just queried it and got 846. Not sure how up to date the list is.
http://www.commercialappeal.com/data/gunpermits/
My memory of the OR Observer column was 2,000 but maybe my memory is inaccurate. I do think that figure was from the M. Commercial Appeal. We shall see. I know I was surprised that OR had such a high figure.
My bad Mike. The 2,000 figure was an estmate by the possible referendum proposer of the OR permit holders AND their wives who he speculated would sign on.
(08-23-2009 06:21 PM)Atomic Wrote: [ -> ]You know, it's an interesting question, especially for a liberal like me. I am a vehement supporter of the Bill of Rights, especially the rights I like most. I'm a little ambivalent about the relevance of the 2nd Amendment in 2009, since packing a pistol does not seem likely to save me much from tyranny. On the other hand, the right is pretty clearly there, so it appears as if that's one that I ought to accept.
I do have some questions:
1) How many people are really likely to carry a licensed weapon? How many already do?
2) Will legal carriers really make the parks any safer or any more unsafe? Will grandpa's 44 magnum fall out of his holster while he's hanging upside down on the monkey bars?
3) Does banning guns from local parks actually keep guns out of local parks? Who's to know? (I would guess that I unknowingly pass many weapons in my daily life.)
I suppose I would probably vote in favor of allowing licensed carriers to carry in local parks just because I can't really think of a good reason to keep them out.
I will take a shot at addressing your questions:
1- There is no licensing for weapons in Tennessee. Out of 100 permit holders you usually have about 10-15 that carry all the time. Another 25-40 or so carry intermittently. And the rest carry rarely or just got a permit to be legal if they want to carry a gun in the car while driving.
2- There is no evidence that permit holders have a lot of accidental shootings and most Grandpas don't hang upside down on the monkey bars. A good holster will retain the weapon in any orientation.
3- Banning permit holders only keeps legal guns out of parks. Criminals are likely to carry anyway since they don't obey the law. Since nobody will be checking for weapons, there will be nothing but the honor system to keep guns out. Criminals tend to carry out attacks in places where they have less chance that their victims will be armed. That is why you don't hear about muggings in the police parking lot or at shooting ranges. You are correct in that you probably are around quite a few people who are carrying most places. You don't notice and it isn't a problem.
These bans are purely based on emotion and fear of people who don't understand the history of the issue. The same inaccurate arguments of blood running in the streets was made prior to liberalization of carry laws. Their fears haven't been realized anywhere, but they continue to lie and mislead about that. The bottom line is that nothing much will change - a few criminals may think twice if aren't sure whether their victim might be armed and if they do attack the right person, some criminals may be shot.