Dyersburg, Tennessee · Friday, September 3, 2010
[Masthead] Fair ~ 73°F  
High: 84°F ~ Low: 52°F
Print Email link Respond to editor Read comments (24)

After lengthy debate, city votes 6-3: no guns in parks

Tuesday, August 18, 2009
The Dyersburg Board of Mayor and Alderman took sides on a controversial issue at last night's regular board meeting, but not before board members heard from residents both for and against guns in parks legislation.

During committee reports, alderman Bob Kirk presented the minutes from a joint committee meeting of the Public Safety and Recreation committees and moved the full city board accept a recommendation that the city opt out of the state guns in parks legislation. Alderman Dennis Moody added a second and the issue opened to a lengthy discussion.

Alderman Kevin Chaney spoke against opting out of the legislation that allows residents who hold handgun carry permits to bring their weapons into parks within the city limits, stating that opting out of the new law punishes residents who have done nothing wrong.

"I don't understand this," said Chaney. "(The state keeps) strict records on (the permit holders). You are really protecting the public from people who have broken no laws. This involves a lot. I want you to give it a lot of thought."

"I would like to say that nobody would argue with an individual property owner or bar owner if he put up a sign saying no guns were allowed in his home or business," said alderman Bart Williams. "As a board, we are the custodians of that decision. It is just easier for a policeman to see a gun in the park and know that person is breaking the law."

"When the founding fathers came up with rights they thought no government should be able to take away, the second thing they thought of was the right to bear arms," said Matt Coker. "If we look at the people who would be affected by this law, it's not going to be drug dealers, gang bangers or thieves. It's going to be the mom walking in the park, the dad watching his kids play, the woman afraid of the serial rapist. If you look at where mass shootings take place, they are in schools, colleges, parks and shopping malls. Criminals are not stupid. They know where law-abiding citizens cannot carry guns."

Coker said that in his research of FBI, TBI and US Justice Department files, he only found one instance where a resident with a handgun carry permit used their gun illegally in Tennessee.

"But every day in the state of Tennessee, there is someone who breaks the law with an illegal handgun," said Coker. "(When you are making your decision), please don't let us down."

After state legislators passed the Guns in Parks legislation, the Tennessee District Attorney General made a statement that the new law would not keep schools from utilizing local parks, but that residents with carry permits were not allowed to bring them into parks when a school group was present.

"If I understand this right, guns are prohibited when a school group uses the park," said Dyersburg Activity Center Director Andy Baker. "But the very next weekend, when I have 400 girls playing softball, it's OK. Why is the life of a school child more important than the life of a child in the community?

"I've been in the parks for 20 years," continued Baker. "Our job is not easy. When you let people have guns, it's going to be twice as hard - no, 10 times as hard. As someone who deals with this day in and day out, I'm begging you not to do this."

After several residents and board members took their turn to speak, Kirk called for the question. The motion was seconded, with board members participating in a roll call vote on whether or not to stop discussion and vote on the issue.

The board voted 5-3 to continue discussion. Kirk, Moody and Charles McCright voted to end the debate and vote on the issue. Williams, Freeman Dudley, Chaney, Shannon Walker and Lewis Norman voted to continue discussion. Mayor John Holden did not vote on the question.

"Here's some food for thought," said Walker. "If we were passing an ordinance stopping public hearings and taking away the community's right to free speech, do you think this courtroom would be full? Yes, it would."

"I do not see the purpose of having a gun in a park," said Matthew 25:40 Executive Director Amy Schmitt. "I would not feel comfortable to have my 15-year old son in the park (if handguns were allowed). We've all seen the heated arguments in those basketball games. I just think you are asking for trouble."

Schmitt's son, Eric, also spoke against allowing residents with concealed-weapon permits to carry guns into Dyersburg Parks.

"Sometimes, I hang out in the park with my friends," said Eric Schmidt. "I don't feel safe in a park with a gun."

"It's a sad state when we can point to an inanimate object and blame it for the reason we have crime," said Jimmy Anderson, who owns a gun shop in the area. "I have heard from all your constituents and you have an equal responsibility to represent those people. If you pass this ordinance, all you are going to do is vilify a person who has withstood an FBI background check. Criminals will not obey your ordinance. Otherwise, you could just pass an ordinance that says 'No More Crime.'"

Holden said that the vote to opt out will not change the situation for Dyersburg residents.

"A city ordinance was passed in 1978 that stated no firearms in parks," said Holden. "That has been on the city books for 31 years."

Resident Rusty Grill said he and his wife both have concealed-carry permits. He questioned the board on whether his wife would be breaking the law if she left her gun in the car while taking a break at the park during her lunch break. Officials agreed she would.

"So then, if she visits the park at lunch, she can't bring her gun and be protected the rest of the day," said Grill.

"I know that we are dealing in terrible times these days and that people are afraid," said Bruce Community Director Stuart Edmonds. "But in a park, we just can't think of ourselves. Things can easily escalate. There are other ways to do things. If my wife felt unsafe, I would just go with her to the park to make her feel better. We don't need to add guns to our community. We need to take guns away from our community."

"The people who are going to be carrying handguns in the parks are not the ones that are going to be committing crimes," said Jonathan Keeling. "We are on a slippery slope with our gun rights. If we outlaw guns in the parks, we need to outlaw baseball bats."

"If you pass this tonight, the only people who will have guns in this area are the criminals," said resident Steve Shannon.

During the discussion, City Attorney Christine Coronado and new Dyersburg Police Chief Art Heun were asked their opinions, as well.

Finally, board members requested a vote again and no more residents answered Holden's invitation to speak on the issue. McCright requested a roll call vote at the beginning of the discussion, then refused to be the first to vote.

City Recorder Gleyn Twilla began again at the other end of the bench and the motion to opt out of state legislation allowing residents with carry permits to bring handguns into public municipal parks, natural areas, historic parks, nature trails, campgrounds, forests, greenways, waterways or other similar public places passed 6-3, with the entire board present.

Board members voting in favor of opting out included Kirk, Williams, Moody, Norman, McCright and Holden. Those against opting out of the legislation were Dudley, Chaney and Walker.


Comments
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 Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on stategazette.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

How bout it people of Dyersburg? I FEEL SAFER ALREADY!!!!! HA! I am aware Memphis is 75 miles away but we have our own troubles brewing right here.The sooner our Fool Elected Officials realize this the better off our city will be.How many criminals do you believe will stop an unlawful act just because six board members said they could not have a gun?I guess instead of using our LEGAL HANDGUNS PERMITTED BY LAW we could throw the six dummies at the crooks,because thats the only way they have made going to the park safer.I wonder which one will volunteer first Kirk,Williams,Moody,Norman,McCright or Holden? I'll stay away until I see which one HA HA!!!

-- Posted by Harleylady on Tue, Aug 18, 2009, at 11:10 AM

OK, you voted against the majority as you usually do. Why not put it to vote in the city instead of the more affluent ones. Dyersburg is backwards and will remain so until we get a change of aldermen, someone who will think for themselves.

-- Posted by The Riverman on Tue, Aug 18, 2009, at 11:41 AM

Ladies stay away from the park, the rapist knows its easy pickins now. The city fathers think they know best, Funny thing is I have only seen one of them in that park. By not allowing guns in the park We shouldn't see any more cops there either. Again trying to one up the State, local ordinance supercedes state law. What exactly is the reason they wouldn't allow a permit holder to carry? I got it, they are ol'crooks affraid someone might fire back....hahaha

-- Posted by 1* on Tue, Aug 18, 2009, at 2:00 PM

The "LEGAL HANDGUNS PERMITTED BY LAW" are permitted where it is legal. The state and local governments have a right to decide where they are legally permitted. The 2nd amendment only restricts the FEDERAL government from outlawing ownership of arms, but it does not grant the right to carry it wherever we choose.

-- Posted by shermann on Tue, Aug 18, 2009, at 2:14 PM

shermann,

So, you are saying that state and local governments have the authority to restrict our rights granted by the other twenty-six amendments? The city can control what we post here just because the disagree with it? The city can tell you where and when to go to church as they choose? The city can tell you who to vote for if they decide to allow you to vote at all? No, they can't as these rights are protected by the U.S. Constitution. They apply to all citizens. The second admendment to the U.S Constitution grants the "people" the right to "keep" (which means to own) and "bear" (which means to carry on one's person) arms, and that right shall not be infringed. The city of Dyersburg has violated the rights of U.S. citizens by infringing their 2nd Admendment rights as granted by the constitution.

-- Posted by Dont Tread On Me on Tue, Aug 18, 2009, at 3:59 PM

I really don't understand how three of our aldermen can sleep at night. McCright, Bob Kirk, and Dennis Moody all three voted to end discussion when people in the audience, THEIR constituents, had their hands raised. Citizens were wanting to speak on the issue at hand, but those three had plans after the meeting I guess. They need a reality check, and hopefully it will COME IN 2010.

-- Posted by dburg on Tue, Aug 18, 2009, at 5:07 PM

glad the guns are banned in city parks.to many hotheads are carrying weapons on them and they think they are mr rambo? give the aldermen a big big hand. good work sirs.

-- Posted by jscott on Tue, Aug 18, 2009, at 6:44 PM

jscott, I have held a HCP for years and have never had to use it,but would not hesitate if my family or my life were in jeapordy.I am not a hothead nor am I a rambo.What I am is a Wife,Mother and Grandmother who is realistic and ARMED.So you will not see me or my family in or around these areas where the thugs will be.And mind you they will be there.Even with the horrendous acts of violence that has rocked our small community lately,no one can honestly say that if there had been a good samaritan with a licensed firearm in the area that it could or could not have been prevented.God only knows that answer not six city board members.

-- Posted by Harleylady on Tue, Aug 18, 2009, at 8:18 PM

I thought this issue was over....I think the public has a right to arm itself as the criminals do...But the people who are quick to say what they will do with a gun are the very ones who get jacked...I seen to many people in desert storm who talked about what they would do and when we got our first set of prisoners,,,they were shaking like a crap game....talk is cheap....

-- Posted by DMASE on Tue, Aug 18, 2009, at 8:42 PM

These aldermen do not go to the park. They are afraid. Let them send their wives, children and grandchildren there in the afternoon or at dusk. Are they afraid something would happen? Get these aldermen OFF THE BOARD. I for one, am taking names and going to vote against them and remember I am going to tell everyone I know NOT TO VOTE FOR THEM. Remember who is protecting our rights. NOT THESE PEOPLE!

-- Posted by CitizenTn on Tue, Aug 18, 2009, at 10:58 PM

I do not own a gun (probably never will), but the way I see it, a lot of law abiding citizens are being forced to break the law and become criminals. Could things get any worse? Yes, when we read in the paper that a citizen, WHO HAS BEEN GIVEN A PERMIT BY THE STATE TO CARRY A HANDGUN is arrested in the park for carrying a handgun, we will finally see the courts get tough.

-- Posted by hey_just_my_opinion on Wed, Aug 19, 2009, at 2:08 AM

Thank you Dudley, Chaney, and Walker for voting to uphold our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. At least three of our representatives know their duty to support and defend our constitution against all enemies, foreign and Dyersburgian. The other elected officials don't deserve the liberties some of us have devoted our lives protecting. These are some wrong thinking people who ought to resign before we have to vote them out of office.

-- Posted by A Citizen on Wed, Aug 19, 2009, at 4:20 AM

really trying to recall how many times that someone with a HGP has stopped a crime, can anyone help me on this?

-- Posted by jscott on Wed, Aug 19, 2009, at 6:02 AM

ONE STEP TOWARD GUN CONTROL DESPITE THE 2ND AMMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION .NEXT MCDONALDS AND OTHER FAMILY RESTARAUNTS WHERE CHILDREN ARE ALSO PRESENT .THEN YOUR OWN HOME .LEGAL HGP HOLDERS TOOK THE LEGAL ACTIONS TO CARRY ,BUT WILL NOW BECOME VICTIMS OF LEGISLATION .POLICE WHO CARRY OFF DUTY WILL NOW BE SUBJECT TO THIS VOTE ALSO ."CORRECT"? YOU HAVE JUST EMPOWERED THOSE WHO DISREGUARD THE LAW TO BEGIN WITH, AN ADVANTAGE OVER LEGAL HOLDERS ,AND A PLAYING FIELD THAT SAYS NO LEGAL HANDGUN PERMIT HOLDERS ALLOWED.HOPE YOU SLEEP WEEL AT NIGHT WHEN THE FIRST OCCURANCE HAPPENS IN THE PARK AND ASK YOURSELF WHAT COULD HAVE CHANGED THIS.

-- Posted by BIZCUITZNGRAVY on Wed, Aug 19, 2009, at 7:23 AM

Dont Tread On Me,

I respect your opinion, but I believe that the Supreme Court made a statement, whether we agree with them or not, that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and is subject to reasonable regulations. To me THIS is a reasonable regulation, I don't think they should be carried where alcohol is served, on school or other government property, such as a courtroom or park, or in any private property that the owner does not allow them. You absolutly have the right to own and carry a weapon, where it is permitted by law.

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. The right is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. Your 1st Amendment rights are not unlimited, you will be punished for yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater, or for libel and fraud. The are reasonable restrictions. The same applies to all our rights.

-- Posted by shermann on Wed, Aug 19, 2009, at 7:41 AM

jscott,

I'll give examples of both sides

Concealed Carry Permit Holder Stops Bank Robbery

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2008/06/co...

Law Enforcement and Private

Citizens Killed by Concealed

Handgun Permit Holders

http://www.vpc.org/studies/ccw2009.pdf

-- Posted by shermann on Wed, Aug 19, 2009, at 8:36 AM

was talking about Dyer Co, this is where i live.

-- Posted by jscott on Wed, Aug 19, 2009, at 10:04 AM

I did not say that our rights are unlimited. You said that the 2nd amendment only applied to the FEDERAL government. That is not true. I agree that the right to keep and bear arms should be restricted from individuals who are felons or have been judged mentally incompetent. However, I believe that any city that makes it a criminal act for a person licensed to carry a concealed weapon in a park has infringed on their 2nd amendment right to self defense. I fail to understand why any city would declare a part of their city a gun free zone. If a person is going to commit a criminal act would they just randomly pick someone on the street that may or may not be armed? No, they would go down to the city park where the city council has made sure the people there will not be able to protect themselves. I know criminals are not the brightest among us, but some will be able to figure this one out.

-- Posted by Dont Tread On Me on Wed, Aug 19, 2009, at 12:53 PM

The way I said it was incorrect, but the point is that the government can implement these rules and still be within the powers of the 2nd amendment.

Also, originally, the Bill of Rights restrictions applied only to the federal government and not to the state governments. Prior to the adoption of the 14th amendment, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. The 14th amendment ensured that the states would be required to recognize the individual rights the federal government was already required to respect in the Bill of Rights and in the Constitution.

-- Posted by shermann on Wed, Aug 19, 2009, at 1:34 PM

This is to DMASE what I said in an earlier post was I had never had to use my firearm under the Hand Gun Permit issued to me.Know where did I state that I had never used a weapon against another human.I hope you do not think your the only one that has ever been in combat or a situation that called for Life or Death.Yes there other people just as myself who have taken a life and was justified in doing so.So yes talk is cheap but you are wrong to generalize all people together.And I bet you were shaking as well.

-- Posted by Harleylady on Wed, Aug 19, 2009, at 1:43 PM

If I go to the park to enjoy myself and the company of friends why would I want to carry a gun.

-- Posted by c9bcc on Wed, Aug 19, 2009, at 5:03 PM

i just wont go to the parks or will i try to stop a crime , unless it's against me or my family , gun or no gun. if for instance i dont have a gun i will use any and everything to protect myself and family. i suggest everyone at the parks start walking or whatever your there for with a walking cane, tazers or mace. you dont have to go unarmed , just dont take a gun. unless your going to mug somebody. haa

-- Posted by YA DONT SAY on Wed, Aug 19, 2009, at 5:29 PM

If a place makes me wish I had a gun, I probably shouldn't be there in the first place.

-- Posted by shermann on Thu, Aug 20, 2009, at 1:25 PM

sorry harley, not generalizing all people....Only commenting on being an eyewitness to facts...never said i took a life and hope it doesn't ever come to that.....Desert storm did not shake me, but having a pistol stuck in your face, thats a different story....been a part of both..ya gotta take ur beef up with the board of mayor and alderman....i can't help ya..

-- Posted by DMASE on Sun, Aug 23, 2009, at 1:06 PM


Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account on this site, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.