![[Masthead]](http://www.stategazette.com/images/nameplate.png)
RSS
Print
Email link
Respond to editor
Read comments (30)
 Bonnie Davis Reid and William Christopher Reid take advantage of a sunny summer afternoon and the walking track at Okeena Park. Both say the city's recent decision to recommend opting out of state Guns in Parks Legislation was the right move. The new legislation allows residents with concealed-weapon carry permits to bring guns into state and local parks. Members of the city's recreation and public safety committees met on Wednesday morning to discuss the issue. Committee members will recommend their decision to opt out of the legislation and ban guns from parks within the city limits to the entire city board at its regular meeting on Monday, Aug. 17. |
Members of the city's recreation and public safety committees will recommend the full city board opt out of the recently passed state Guns in Parks Legislation at the regular board meeting scheduled for Monday, Aug. 17.
The legislation, recently passed by the state, allows residents with handgun permits to bring them into state and local parks throughout Tennessee. Municipalities across the state have until Sept. 1 to opt out of the legislation.
A joint meeting was called of Recreation and Public Safety committee members on Wednesday morning at the Dyersburg Activity Center to discuss the issue.
"We are here to discuss the new state law that concerns guns in parks and recreation areas," said Public Safety Committee Chairman Bob Kirk. "There are a number of communities around the state that have opted out. The comments I'm hearing from constituents is to opt out."
Mayor John Holden said city parks affected by the discussion include the girls' softball field, Bruce, Future City, Okeena, Kiwanis Park and Slayton Moore Field. He passed out information on other municipalities in Tennessee who have chosen to opt out and those who have already announced they will uphold the legislation. He also gave those attending the meeting copies of statements from the Tennessee Attorney General and Dyersburg Police Chief Art Heun, who Holden said was out of town and unable to attend the meeting.
"The command staff of the Dyersburg Police Department recommends that the City of Dyersburg opt out of guns in the park," said the memo from Heun. "The primary park in Dyersburg, Okeena Park, borders the Dyersburg State Community College grounds with no clear definition of property lines thus creating an enforcement nightmare and potentially dangerous situation for the campus and our officers."
An article supplied by the Municipal Technical Advisory Service stated the Tennessee Attorney General recently ruled that the guns in parks bill does not prohibit schools from using athletic fields or recreational facilities in public parks where handgun-carry permit holders may lawfully possess firearms. However, carry permit holders are prohibited from possessing firearms in such a park when the facility is being used by the school.
"Schools use our parks a lot," said Dyersburg Parks and Recreation Director James Earl Johnson.
Recreation Committee member Dennis Moody said he thinks residents issued carry permits should undergo psychological testing as well as the training required to carry a concealed weapon.
"I mean, you've seen some of the people who have those permits," said Moody. "Some of them are just a few fries short of a Happy Meal. We need to use some common sense and most people say the state wasn't making any sense when they passed this."
"Has anyone checked into how many handgun permits have been revoked in Dyer County?" asked alderman Kevin Chaney, who also attended the meeting. "I have. We've had two permits revoked in Dyer County. Of the 500,000 permits in the state of Tennessee, less than one percent have been revoked. (I'm afraid we are) taking it out on the people who haven't done anything."
"I haven't heard from anyone who is a staunch promoter (of the legislation)," said Recreation Committee member Bart Williams.
"I personally have no need for a gun in a park," said Chaney. "But I had a (person) who called me who has a protection order against her husband and she goes to the park and walks. She said the piece of paper protecting her has failed several times. There are people, as you have seen in the past few days, (that papers have failed to protect)."
"We are trying to diminish guns in (the community)," said Stuart Edmonds, director of the Bruce and Future City activity centers. "I think to carry a gun in a park makes people feel unsafe. If they get angry, they are going to bring it out."
"It's a never-ending debate," said Johnson. "I have been with the Dyersburg Parks for 40 years. I do not, to my knowledge, know or recall a shooting, a rape or an armed robbery. (I can understand it) in a National Parks Service when you are an hour or two away from help. The police are five minutes away from Okeena. (Park employees) will not be able to tell the good from the bad. The more guns you have the bigger the odds are you get someone shot."
Williams moved to recommend opting out of the state Guns In Parks legislation to the full board, with Moody adding a second. The motion passed unanimously by committee members present.
Committee members attending the meeting included Holden, Kirk, Moody, Williams and Public Safety Committee member Lewis Norman. Alderman Shannon Walker, chairman of the Recreation Committee and member of the Public Safety Committee was absent.
Also at the meeting were Chaney, Edmonds, Johnson, Dyersburg Fire Chief Bob Veal, DAC Director Andy Baker, City Recorder Gleyn Twilla and employees of the parks and recreation department.
Baker asked if there would be time available for residents to speak on the issue at the city board meeting.
"If it passes, will you fund an armed policeman at each of the parks?" asked Baker.
"Well, there are five of us here voting to opt out," said Kirk. "And five votes are needed to pass so it should pass. If everyone stays hitched. Sometimes, they don't stay hitched."
Other municipalities opting out of the guns in parks legislation as of July 16 include Brentwood, Williamson County, Signal Mountain, Shelby County, Germantown, Martin, Clarksville, Red Bank, Chattanooga, Hamilton County, Paris, Murfreesboro, Columbia, Johnson City, Bristol, Franklin and Memphis.
Those communities allowing guns in their local parks include Jackson, Dandridge, Mt. Juliet and Kingsport.
The issue will come before the full city board at its next meeting on Monday, Aug. 17.
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please
Shouldn't even be allowed to have guns in parks, businesses or even bars!! Just creating more problems with all individuals, need to protect our society...this world is already in a MESS!! gonna get worst before it gets better!! Protect our community, our children and our families!!
Someone has to protect them. The aldermen and police sure can`t
I eecommend teachers, aldermen and locksmiths have an evaluation,
I have thought very long and hard about this issue.I personaly have a HCP and am proud to be able to do so.They are places that I don't even think about carrying my firearm,but others I would'nt be without it.People STOP and THINK of some of the places you feel uneasy or scared of because of some Legal Licensed HCP holder is already at.Now consider not all permit holders will have their firearm all the time but should have the choice to do so.I would like for our Commitee to show the factual numbers of crimes by HCP holders compared to NON HCP holders and then decide.
I hope all have prayed good and hard bening real carful as to the answer........because people who want to kill or injure any one at any time will do so,,it justhappened last week, besides been said already police are not every where at once! DSCC was held hosted years back....Remmber! So this is something to pass or not pass!
I wish these libtards could get it through their thick heads! HCP holders are not the folks to worry about. These are law abiding citizens that have the RIGHT to carry their firearms. I say if these liberal left aldermen don't vote RIGHT, we vote and let them exit stage LEFT! As one blogger correctly put it, look at the stats! These are undeniable FACTS! The facts don't lie! Criminals carrying their guns illegally are the ones I'd worry about. This goes back to the age old liberal talking points that has been proven wrong time and time again. Placing additional laws and restrictions on guns only affects those that abide by and respect the law. Not the criminals! Look at the firearms ban that Slick Willie "Bubba" Clinton signed into law back in 1994. Thankfully at the end of 2004 the Congress allowed that stupid legislation to fall victim of "sunset" because a decade's worth of statistics proved that it didn't work. Allow the guns in the parks because if you don't, guess what? The crooks will know yet another place that is a gun free zone littered with easy targets just like our schools. I saw a T-shirt once that was spot on and relates to this thread. "Confuse a liberal. Use facts and logic".
Please don't make a decision that once again gives the criminal the advantage.
There is no law on any book that will keep a criminal from carrying a gun into a park, a mall, a school, a church, a gym, a court room, etc.
Give the law abiding citizen the right to protect themselves and their families.
Look beyond Dyersburg and see the numerous situations that have been defused and the innocent people that have been saved because a criminal picked the wrong place to conduct his business, where there was a citizen with a carry permit.
If you take the guns away from citizens only criminals will have guns.
liv2ryd:Shouldn't even be allowed to have guns in parks, businesses or even bars!! Just creating more problems with all individuals, need to protect our society...this world is already in a MESS!! gonna get worst before it gets better!! Protect our community, our children and our families!!
Please tell the criminals this. US hand gun holders are NOT the ones you have to worry. Just say: Hey criminals don't hold DSCC hostage and shoot people, don't rob banks or anyone. You are not allowed to carry your gun in there.
I bet they will listen.
do you have to pass a mental test to have a HGP ? Go back to the western days and every body carry a gun if you can see it ?
Once again this law is only hurting the innocent people...Do u really think the thugs are going to put their guns down and abide by this law? They are not going to say, " shucks, i can't carry my pistol to the park".. This only affects the law abiding citizens that are licensed to bear arms...I'm not saying just take a gun to the park, but u can't put people in position where they cannot defend themselves..Can you imagine a thug just waiting 4 u, knowing u are not armed?
Let me first say that I don't agree with this one. What's the harm in having a gun in a park? The only ones who'll get ticketed are people that legallyhave guns. But, on to my pet peeve:
People like "youknowimright" are the people that are tearing this country apart. Ann Coulter, Nancy Pelosi, Al Franken, etc etc. Anyone who throws a blanket over everything and everyone "liberal" or "conservative" should not be allowed to vote. These people never look at the facts of certain situations without bias. They always blame the other half for everything. Well guess what? Whichever half you blame, it is always right just about as much as your half is! Come on, youknowimright, you know there are things Liberals do that are right, but you're probably too staunchly set in your beliefs to admit it. Mixing different views is what makes this country great. Without it, we've got Iraq, Afghanistan, or some other tribal country that always fights and wars within itself. Logic works both ways and can stand to shoot down as many conservative talking points as it can liberal talking points. Just listen to Obama and Palin speak and that proves itself.
karmazone is correct, no thinking person is conservative all the time nor liberal all the time. we all have a thing called logic, horse sense, or good ole common sense.
our aldermen call themselves conservative. what a laugh! whether it's spending our money, or asking the federal government for a hand-out (downtown rivertown project, for instance)or cutting the budget! they are anything but conservative.
let them now stand on their "conservative" agenda and allow the law abiding people in this community to protect themselves while at the park, or anywhere else (even church!). we now see dyersburg as what it actually is. another piece of the american pie. just say "yes".
i'm a lifelong dyer countian--most of that time in the city of dyersburg. this is not the town i grew up in! this is more like dodge city!
Karmazone: I agree with liberals when they are against universal healthcare, against illegal immigration, against abortions, against raising taxes, against cutting our military, against gay marriage and civil unions, against judges legislating from the bench, etc., etc...I think you get my point. I stand proudly against all of what I just used as examples. I don't blindly vote Democrat or Republican solely because they have a D or R after their name like alot of people, democrat and republican, do. I vote the person. And, FYI, I did quote the Clinton assault weapons ban and its total failure based on FACTS and STATS! I don't "blanket" any opposing view but when I do disagree with something you'd better bring your "A" game to change my mind. I don't listen to Obama's teleprompter no more than I do Palin's notes. I can think for myself and I just so happen to disagree with these San Fran Nancy Pelosi far left views these local alderman seem to be adhering to. This is middle America. We, the conservative majority, don't think like the coast of California, the pacific northwest or the new england states. Sorry to break it to you my friend. This is a center right country and if you'll notice it looks like 90-95% of the posts here tend to agree with me. I use "youknowimright" for a reason! I AM and you KNOW it!
I guess I will be considered a criminal or law breaker when I go to the park now. I'm still going to be carrying my gun. Nobody will know it unless I have to use it, and its better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. So criminals beware! Were not as stupid as some law makers would want us to be.
YEARS AGO IT WAS VERY COMMON TO SEE SHOTGUNS, RIFLES,ETC., IN THE WINDOWS OF PICKUP TRUCKS EVERYWHERE INCLUDING SCHOOLS .MOST BOYS WERE GIVEN THEIR FIRST SHOTGUN BETWEEN THE AGES OF 10-13 .COMMON SENSE AND PROPER,TRAINING , RESPECT FOR GUNS WAS ALWAYS TAUGHT AND GIVEN .IT HAS BEEN LAW OFFICIALS AND GOVERNMENT THAT HAVE CAUSED THE CHANGES IN LAW BECAUSE OF A FEW INCIDENTS AND PEOPLE THAT CAUSED SUCH CHANGES ,NOONE KNEW THAT THESE INDIVIDUALS WOULD CARRY OUT SUCH TIRADES OF VIOLENCE ,BUT HAVING A PERMIT SHOWS THAT THESE HGP INDIVIDUALS HAVE TAKEN THE LAWFUL APPROACH TO ABIDE BY LAW TO CARRY .DO NOT CONDEMN THE INNOCENT LAW ABIDERS BECAUSE OF INDIVIDUAL ACTS OF STUPIDITY OR ANGER .THIS COULD BE THE DIFFERENCE IN INNOCENT PEOPLE PROTECTING THEMSELVES AS WELL AS OTHERS FROM THE FEW WHO WISH HARM OR ILL WILL.MOST GUN CRIMES HERE HAVE BEEN BY INDIVIDUALS THE COURTS HAVE GIVEN REPEATEDLY RELEASED WITH MINOR PUNISHMENT , WITH OTHER RECORDS OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR AND NOT LAW ABIDING HGP HOLDERS
i understand that most people that are licensed to carry a firearm are law abbiding citizen there are some that are liscensed and are crazy eniugh to kill someone. you are wanting to be allowed to carry your guns in public park where children play. I know that it is unlikly that a child could get shot by someone that is liscensed but there is a small chance that you leave you gun in your car and your child get a hold of it and shoots someone then what? I think that it is really unsafe to allow firearms in public parks not only do you have to worry about your child's safety but that should be the one place where you can let you child run and not have to really worry about that kind of thing the ones that want this to happen you are sick if you want to carry your gun do it where there are not children playing. That is like saying you are allowed to carry a gun into a school would you want that in your child's school
When threatened, a gun in the hand is better than a cop "five minutes away". I see two issues here that need a little more thought. The first is that the piecemeal prohibition of firearms makes it almost certain that otherwise law-abiding gun toting citizens are going to unwittingly enter some restricted zone and by doing so violate the law unintentionally. The second is the fact that in return for "surrendering" their guns to enter a gun free zone, state and local governments are not prepared to post trustworthy armed officers to guarantee the safety of citizens in that particular area. To phrase it a little differently, the police can't be everywhere all the time.
I took a gun safety course a few years ago despite the hours of training I had received as a service member and weapons instructor. I have no problem with a reasonable requirement for applicants to demonstrate knowledge of proper gun safety and skill; however, handgun laws are not being written to promote gun knowledge and safety. They are being written to slowly and subtly strangle the right of citizens to even own firearms, much less carry them concealed or unconcealed. Gun owners and former military personnel like me recognize the persistent, unrelenting push for citizen disarmament as just one more area of civil liberty that is being dismantled. I don't know what must be said or done to wake the general public to the assaults on our constitution and our liberties, but it appears as though the public's apathy and ignorance will cost them both.
Let me simply say that the original purpose of our law enforcement and judicial systems was to sustain a social environment where people could enjoy life, liberty, and pursue happiness in safety. What we have learned in the past two and a half centuries is what prompted the founding fathers to write into our constitution a system of checks and balances designed to restrain the evil impulses that drive men's actions. We now see, also, that even the best system of checks and balances can be corrupted, thereby permitting unscrupulous people with ignoble intentions to use the very reins of government that were intended to ensure our liberties to enslave us with tyrannical laws and unreasonable restrictions on rights guaranteed by the constitution itself.
To the general public let me say, "WAKE UP!" To our elected representatives I will add, "READ THE CONSTITUTION AND DEFEND OUR RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY IT!" To our mayor and aldermen, I urge you to look to the larger issue of personal liberty regarding gun ownership guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. And to Mr. Moody, whom I do not know well enough to dislike or distrust, let me say thanks for your vote of non-confidence in the people you were elected to represent. Perhaps you should get out more often and meet the people you think are "...a few friew short of a Happy Meal." Being elected does not give you or anyone else a broad sweeping edict to govern as you please. It entrusts you with the responsibility to keep safe the liberties given to all men by God, not government.
This is really an non-issue as local governments cannot TRUMP the 2nd Amendment.
Supreme Court affirms Second Amendment as a fundamental civil right for citizens to keep and BEAR arms.
If this isn't enough reason to stay out of this fray, please consider the words of Jesus Christ when giving instruction to his disciplies found in Luke 22:36.
"HE WHO HAS NO SWORD, LET HIM SELL HIS GARMENT AND BUY ONE"
If this isn't authorization to BEAR arms for self protection, I don't know what is.
Perhaps Mr. Moody's comments might be better applied to elected and appointed government officials at all levels between here and Washington.
Each and every one of them have taken an oath to uphold the CONSTITUION.
ENOUGH SAID
to the liberal mother, dont worry i dont plan on going to the park any more. boycot! have you ever thought about junkies with needles in the park? oh,my! you never know whats in the grass. my gun is the last thing you have to worry about.
youknowimright, i really feel sorry for you and those of your ilk. you're against: healthcare, illegal immagrants, abortions, taxes, cutting the military, gays/marriage or civil unions, and judges that rule on things you disagree with! wow!
as far as healthcare is concerned, do you think those with medicare cards are willing to burn them like draft cards were in the 60's (i really don't think many want that); illegal immagration, well i suppose most of us would agree with you on that one--allowing for some exceptions, of course; abortions, i'm really glad i am a male & therefore, never be faced with that situation..i think late term abortions should only be for saving the mother's life, but otherwise i think we should be able to do with our own bodies as we want. leave the government out of it because it is between that mother & her future that is at stake and between her & God;taxes--well no one i know likes them with the exception of those who work for one of the governments local, state, national or military, etc..but we want and need government and that requires taxes (so get a life!); gays/marriage-civil unions, i have talked with some people male & female alike who are homosexual--almost to a person they all wish they were straight--otherwise it's no one's business what they do in their own bedrooms, again it's that person and God; judges you don't agree with, well, all i can say is i'm glad you are not a judge! please stay out of law school and attaining a judgeship!!! write some more stuff here! u so funnnny!
Okay, youknowimright. I don't know why you seem to assume I am liberal. Where did I say that I was? And where did I say that it was bad to be conservative? Dyersburg has always been conservative. There's nothing wrong with that. Why you felt the need to defend your (and Dyerbsurg's) conservatism is beyond me. I've written three long responses to your last post but I didn't submit any of them. I'm not going to change your mind and I'm not going to sit at my cpu debating you. I'll just leave it at this: Some of those things you listed (universal healthcare, illegal immigration, raising taxes and cutting military) are nebulous at best. Those issues demand larger and more detailed discussion than just "I am against them". And at least one of those things (gay marriage and civil unions) is something that doesn't even concern you or I, so it shouldn't matter to us. I wish I could believe that you vote for people and not labels, but you just generalized so many issues and used the word "libtards". You referred to Democratic "talking points", but said nothing of the equally pungent Republican "talking points". I am sure that you take into account both sides of an argument, but no one who reads your posts in this thread can see that. To us, you come across as strict conservative, blaming liberals for everything. I was just pointing out that extremists don't help the causes of their parties.
And if you think about it logically and rationally, YOU'D know that I am right.
As a mother of young children,I agree with keeping guns out of our parks. We go to okeena, play softball on lake road and occasionally go to the baseball park. I do not think that these are places for guns. It is no different than restaurants banning guns in their business. I saw where all of the restaurants on Beale street do not allow guns, alcohol and guns do not mix, neither do our children and guns.
I have read the comments and have only one thing left to say.I think the people who are so against allowing guns into parks should have to wear a sign around their neck alerting all bad guys they are not armed.This way the Legal HCP holders won't be shot.And we HCP holders will not have to pull our firearm and accidently shoot you or a thug.HERE'S YOUR SIGN(SHOOT ME I'M UNARMED)!!!!!!!
I wonder how many of the elected officials mentioned in this article have a handgun carry permit? If they have one, then why bother to renew it if they can't carry a gun in a park? Does Mr. Moody have a permit? If he does, I wonder if they asked him about his french fries when he applied because a comment like that speaks volumes about what he thinks about the law abiding citizens that have gone through the process to obtain a permit. Maybe the state gazette should check on the mayor and board to see if they have permits.
I went thru the trouble of getting a permit
to carry a weapon and I will, when I feel
like it might be prudent, carry my gun. There are more than a few "odd" folks in this burg and they don'tstay away from parks and other public places.
With guns, we are 'citizens'.. Without them, we are 'subjects'.
Maybe, since we are so divided on our views about handguns in city parks, we should get rid of the parks. There is no mandate to have parks and the parks are a drain on taxpayer money that might be better spent on maintaining our city's road and utility infrastructure. Parks, after all, are not a right; gun ownership, despite the mistaken belief otherwise, is.
One thing is certain for me: I will not use my personal weapon to save someone else who ought to have been armed, should the situation ever arise. My feeling is that people should arm themselves against the distinct probability of life threatening situations. Don't blame the police for not being there to protect you when something bad happens nor law abiding gun owners who happen to be nearby. You are responsible for your personal safety, not the police and not anybody else.
Chief Heun,
I would challenge you to make it a policy that your off duty officers can not carry their weapons anywhere you suggest that law abiding citizens who have their proper permit can not carry theirs. It is no different, citizens have the same rights according to the constitution as do officers to protect themselves.
Concealed permit holders are your friend, not your enemy. I have personally walked past uniformed officers on numerous occasions when I was properly and lawfully carrying my weapon concealed. Was there a problem? No, and it won't be in your parks either.............
What is your department's response time to any park in the city on any given day? If it is more than 3 to 4 minutes, the criminal has already done his damage with no one to stop him, that is if the aldermen follow your suggestion................
A final word...Exactly how many incidents involving lawfully owned firearms in our parks have there been? Probably none I'll bet. If what I say is correct, the only reason to pass an ordinance prohibiting guns in our parks is to further limit our 2nd Amendment rights since an ordinance against unlawful use of firearms already exists.
A CITIZEN I'M WITH YOU BAN THE PARKS AND MAKE THE KIDS PLAY AT HOME , I MEAN THE PARENTS ARE USUALLY THE ONES THAT BUY THE GAMES WHERE THE KIDS ARE THE ONES SHOOTING, BEATING UP PEOPLE AND WRECKING CARS AND BLOWING UP ZOMBIES AND THEY WONDER WHERE IT COMES FROM ??? NEXT GENERATION HOODLUMS !