I have read in the paper where a vote may soon be upcoming on whether or not Kingsport opts out of the recently overwhelmingly passed state and local park carry bill. I would encourage the city to not opt out of this much needed law. I hear the same tired arguments against this as every other law favorable to licensed firearm carry. Arguments such as: "People will lose their temper and start shooting." "We don't need these guns where children are present." "It will be like the wild-west with shootouts everywhere." All of these statements show ignorance on those who speak them. Let's for once make a decision based on fact and not emotion, shall we? When firearm carry permits began to be issued pundits claimed mass road rage and other shootings would occur. It just didn't happen. In fact, statiscally law enforcement personnel are charged with firearm related crime a higher percentage of the time than carry permit holders. Also many of the cities with the strictest firearm laws on the books have more per capita gun crimes than the cities on the so called "Wild-West". Look it up. And let's face facts. Adopting a law banning guns in parks will not prevent one criminal from bringing theirs. I recently posted a comment on the Times-News web site regarding this (posted below).

"Hi, my name is Joe Criminal. I would like to go on record that I totally support the views posted by Kingsport Mayor Dennis Phillips, Police Chief Gale Osborne, City Manager John Campbell and the Brady Campaign. With the recent wave of victims now legally carrying weapons it has become increasingly unsafe for those in our line of work. It's getting so a guy can't rob, maim or rape someone without fear of some 2nd amendment nut case shooting at us. For the safety of myself and fellow co-workers, I would like to encourage the city of Kingsport to ban all weapons in not only city parks and buildings, but shopping centers, malls, businesses, streets, vehicles and homes. After all, one of the reasons Mayor Phillips gave for the park ban was the presence of children. Aren’t children also present in all of these places? If I can't have that, at least ban them in the city parks. That way I can at least bring my gun there and safely ply my trade. If not for me, then let’s do it for the children."

Obviously I wrote this not trying to be funny but to make a point. The criminals in our area will love the idea of having city zones where they know they can commit crime unhindered. You will be inadvertenly making our city parks less safe. A haven for crime. And you will be making not only me but my wife and children defenseless when we visit the many fine Kingsport parks. And Mayor Phillips, you honestly seem to be trying to play both sides. If it's a good idea for me to be able to defend myself in a federal or state park why not a city park? You mentioned isolated areas. Have you ever hiked the fire tower trail at Bays Mountain? If my wife was making that hike with my children I would want her to be able to carry her firearm that she is legally licensed to carry at Wal-Mart, church and downtown Kingsport there also. If a rapist was hiding at one of our city parks waiting on your wife or daughter to come by, would you want her armed or unarmed? Please make the right decision on this bill. Do the research for other states that allow it. The predictions of mayhem did not occur and will not here either.

BTW:

http://www.supgv.org/documents/BackgrounderIllegalGuns.pdf
Seems that bulk sales by straw purchasers, lost inventory from gun dealers and gun shows and other venues where background checks are not conducted are the three main ways that guns go from being legal to being illegal in America.

From Tony Patrick on another post

JESUS DIDN'T EVEN THREATEN THE PEOPLE THAT KILLED HIM???

Yeah, that's going to go a long way towards feeding my family when I'm dead from the guy that just shot up the whole chuch killing who knows how many people. You know what, I'll take my chances on going to HELL after I live a nice LONG life spent protecting MYSELF.

Here's some common sense safety. If someone is carjacking you at gunpoint and you fire a gun at them and miss, you are dead. You have proved yourself a threat. Besides, this is a Christian nation so people are nice to each other. (Jesus didn't even threaten the people that killed him)

Ahem! Know where most of the criminals get most of the guns they use to commit most of the violent crimes?????

Already been answered here. From the law-abiding gun owners who love their guns more than life itself. That's where.

Justifiable homicides by police and private citizens 2007-2008- the most since 1994. "Quote" Clearly there's a message out there that citizens may be able to defend themselves as well as police. "Quote" Law enforcement analysts say the numbers represent changing attitudes on the streets where police have felt more threatened by WELL ARMED OFFENDERS and citizens have taken greater responsibility for their own safety. from the FBI's web site should i go on ?

OK funny guy AGAIN I ASK WHAT WILL YOU DO ?? If the NRA'S site doesnt prove the facts to you check the TBI'S or the FBI'S plenty of facts on those too.

The NRAs website? LOLOL Ok, next I'll go check out the statistical data on hen houses from the fox's websit. LOLOLOL

That's what i thought ! yeah look at the research go to the NRA'S web site its all backed up by legitimate sources . Again i ask WHAT WILL YOU DO ????

Tony, you're wasting your breath. Until I see the research that proves all this gun mentality makes a safe society I'll keep hollering for stricter controls. We are the only western nation with a problem with gun violence. We’re also the only one with this “pry from my cold dead hands” mentality. Ok, I’ll say it. LOOK AT THE RESEARCH!

Early,everyone matters and safety is a concern but what will you do to defend yourself if it were to come to that ? just wondering who says that you wouldn't be confronted at a park ? you can knock the NRA if you like but if it where not for them this country would really be messed more than it is .

Those who are pushing this so hard are determined to put their "rights" over the public safety. Just like the NRA trying to legalize plastic handguns. As long as they can carry where ever and whenever they want the rest of us don't matter. This mental attitude is part of why we have the highest crime rates in the industrial world, highest incarceration rates, highest gun related homicides. And this stupid argument of "self protection" is nothing but more bullmess and knee-jerk reactionism. My three questions and the ONLY person who answered, and answered correctly, says it all.

The second amendment was in effect long before anyone of us were born it has all ways been a part of this country .

They say the parks are safe what about the freaks at river front park that get busted for gay sex acts or some other weird stuff ,what about all the drug deals that go on within these parks do you think these people care about you or your kids . the truth is the kingsport police cannot be everywhere at one time. our parks are no safer than anywhere else again a crook doesn't care where hes or shes at .

It is my understanding that the ccw course is 10 hours long and as long as you do not have a criminal history you will be issued a permit. Though some may be comforted by the above requirements I would feel better if the courses were 10 times longer.
I have also seen grown men and women get in physical confrontations while attending youth sports events. I would hate for a gun to come out during one of these confrontations either by one of the participants or a bystander.
I also am concerned that some ccw holders seems to think their right to carry a firearm somehow trumps others rights.
I do own guns and keep them for protection in my home. I do not have the desire to carry one around in public and frankly I question the judgment of many that do.

Charles Simpson

I am not attempting to bully anyone, just pointing out that since firearms legally carried by people with state issued carry permits do not present a danger in other public places, including state and federal parks, they would not present any danger in city parks.

Also the questions about firearm violence, are the wrong questions, because the question should be, are the public at large safer or in more danger, from legally carried firearms in the hands of licensed carry permit holders.

The answer to that question is that legally carried firearms do not present a danger to the public, but make them safer, because criminals do not know who is armed and who is not.

Don't you find it curious that gun fanatics would put their rights over the rights of everyone else, even business owners and other peaceful citizens, and DEMAND to carry their guns everywhere?

The CCW I have does not make me superior to those who prefer to not carry guns. It does not give me special rights, above and beyond the rights of others who do not carry guns.

The CCW rules and regs are many and stringent, up to and including (as our instructor stated) the seizure of said gun if it's fired at or into another person, whatever the circumstances surrounding the shooting.

In fact, the instructor stressed responsibility above almost everything else, letting us know that we carried more responsibility than most, since we KNEW the consequences of shooting another human being.

If I could have taken a survey of the 20-odd people who took the course along with me, I'd have found maybe two more people besides myself who understood the many and complex laws and rules involved with our gun carry permits.

To this day, I lack the paranoia and the deep fear of being in need of my gun in most places. There is usually no need to carry to protect myself or others from some vague threat. To live in constant fear and paranoia like that would be miserable.

No way would I force others to kneel to my rights to carry my weapon! If a business owner doesn't want guns in his or her establishment, are my rights more important than his or hers?

How do you get such an ego? All I know is that, if there's more than one gun at play (in that terrible situation these poor folks just KNOW is going to take place, maybe today, maybe tomorrow), the people who were in the establishment would not be able to tell the good guy from the bad guy. The gun is all they'd see or hear.

One more thing: as the instructor told us several times, "be absolutely certain what you are aiming at, because your bullet might not stop at the intended target, and might strike an unintended target - an innocent victim - a child, a mother, an elderly person."

Use some common sense. Don't think your rights are more valid than mine. Don't think you have special dispensation to push your beliefs over everyone else's. And, just like your driver's license, the carry permit gives you limited rights - not the right to bully those who prefer not to be armed or not to be around weapons.

1. Most gun shot wounds and deaths are due to what?
Domestice disputes within the confines of a HOME

2. What is the relationship of the shooter to most victims of gunshot wounds?
Familiar relationship and NOT random strangers within a park

3. The majority of guns on the street originate where?
Stolen from the homes of LEGAL gun owners who are the victims of a CRIME of which they should not be victimized for a second time.

I would also add :
4. Of the above crimes resulting in gun shot injuries how many involved a Handgun permit holder?

Folks -

Trying to take a facilitator role here and not take the "you are wrong" position - which happens much too often on KTN forums.... Seriously, three fair questions were just asked:

1. Most gun shot wounds and deaths are due to what?

2. What is the relationship of the shooter to most victims of gunshot wounds?

3. The majority of guns on the street originate where?

These are very, very important if you are genuinely interested in understanding why people like me REALLY don't want guns at a public space where I may take my family (e.g. Kingsport Mets game). Can someone table the 2nd amendment quotations and honestly answer these questions? I'm happy to have some dialogue and listen to other positions about this topic - it is just hard when someone is either yelling or calling the other person / postion names.

Like I said, if we did psych workup on some of these people.... Whatever, it doesn't matter. Wickie wickie wild.... wickie wickie wild wild west...

Early, permit holders are well regulated or they wouldn't have a permit your missing it .

Here's a little quiz for you all.

1. Most gun shot wounds and deaths are due to what?

2. What is the relationship of the shooter to most victims of gunshot wounds?

3. The majority of guns on the street originate where?

The right to bear arms extends only to the limits of public safety. The 2nd Amendment also spells out "well regulated" but it seems you all keep missing that little tidbit.

"The purpose of the pistol is to stop a fight that somebody else has started, almost always at very short range."

-Jeff Cooper

It is not true that guns have been banned in some Tenn. cities. Just not true.

We have the right the keep and BEAR arms. According to the Constitution of the USA. I saw a kid the other day in a local park with numchucks. Numchucks are a lethal weapon also . A person doesn't have to have a permit to carry numchucks. A baseball bat can be a lethal weapon, also a knife. All of these should be disallowed in a city park too , if guns are not allowed. This is my argument. How are they gong to control everyone? It just proves they are after the guns. If you have been convicted of stalking , been in a phyc. clinic or rehab. you can't get a carry permit, on and on. The people that carry might have committed some kind of crim since they got their permit. At the time they passed the test to get their permit and were fingerprinted they had a clean record or they would not have received their permit.

As a matter of fact, I DO know someone carrying that couldn’t pass a psych workup. I said so when I posted that. There are some on here who are carrying that shouldn't because they're nuts. One in particular that we all know and love.

No, Oliver, you aren't alone! After reading 83 comments which basically were written to trash talk the other posters anyway without saying anything constructive (which is what the majority of the KTN postings are anymore and it's getting real boring), it's amusing to see the profiling that's being done on legally carrying citizens. Just how many of these "deranged morons" who "wouldn't clear a psych workup" (Bro. Early) do any of you people personally know?? Like so many of you love to say against each other, know what you're talking about before getting those fingers in gear!!

"our right to bear arms.....is fading fast."



Tell me, where has your right to own a gun been infringed so fast recently?

So some property owners said 'no' to you carrying a gun on their property. How has your right to own this gun or that rifle been changed or taken away?

Such misleading drama.

The right to own a gun is different from the priviledge to take it onto a variety of land parcels that are owned by others. Why would a your right to own a gun trump the most basic of property rights of others?

our right to bear arms.....is fading fast.

i am not really a fan of guns. i don't own one because in the right situation with the wrong mindset....i could see myself using it.

then again, i don't blame law abiding people who want to have a firearm to protect themselves from scumbags. i've considering getting a gun for the same reason, but like i said....they scare me. i'd rather have a heated argument with my husband and know there is NOT a gun in the house...not that we hate each other, but has anybody ever watched the show "snapped". children getting ahold of guns also scares me. they just scare me, okay!

but that doesn't mean i don't think people shouldn't be able to own them. everyone should be able to make their own decision...and it's their RIGHT to do so as a law abiding citizen. i have my own skepticism, but i also believe in following the constitution....and as long as their is a right to bear arms....the people should have that right. people (like me) have the right not to bear them! if someone can be trusted at fun fest with a gun, then why can't they be trusted at applebee's? if they can be trusted at the parade, why can't they be trusted at the park?

i would have no problem if guns were banned all together. but since that's not the case, and probably never will be....quit putting limits on them! although i don't like guns....i'd sure like to have one available in the classroom to protect 20 or more kids if a psycho came into school shooting up the place. on the other hand, if guns weren't an issue....i wouldn't have to worry about a psycho shooting up the place.

it's a neverending battle....protecting our constitutional right to bear arms/protecting the people who don't bear arms (or people who aren't quick at the draw).

make up your mind....either let us have them or don't! this reminds me of the abortion argument. abortion is okay at 4 weeks, but after 6 months it's not....etc. either it's okay or it isn't! where would we be without politics....

my guess is we'd all be living a lot happier/peacefully....and a lot of fools would be without jobs.

"If a person with a CCW is asaulted in a park or business that has excluded firearms, would that government body or business owner be liable for damages?"


That is an excellent question!

I would say no, they are not liable, because, say, if Olive Garden said no to guns and a CCW holder knew that in advance and still went there to eat and was somehow shot on the premises, it was still their CHOICE to go eat there or not, knowing the restrictions in advance, and that choice ultimately is their responsibility.

Like it or not, business owners have been restricting guns in most states, even before Tennessee changed its restaurant carry law. In how many cases of mass shootings in office buildings, where guns were patently off limits on said private property because of the work setting, were those companies driven out of business by any perceived liability on their part from their no-gun rules?

In the office worker example, unlike the restaurant customer example, people don't have a choice, they have to show up at the same place everyday or lose their job. The restaurant customer DOES have a choice. If companies who force people to show up aren't put out of business, why would a company that doesn't force people to show up likewise be at risk to be put out of business?

I dont know where the 1500 number of permit holders came from but I just searched and found that there are 3,269 Carry Permit Holders in Kingsport alone as of May 1st 2009. Mr Philips, and crew at the Kingsport Board of Mayor and Aldermen might need to keep this in mind when they vote, cause we will remember this at reelection time. And the excuse of "do it for the kids" has been rode into the dirt. Wasn't the lottery supose to help the kids? DB was cryin for more money a few weeks ago. And I am suprised that Chief Osborn has given his public approvel to ban carrying in parks. I attended one of the KPD citizens academy and asked several officers of their peronal feelings of armed citizens and all talked faverable about it. And the 2nd Amendment says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It is a Right to carry, not just a privilege.

While I feel the second Amendment to our constitution is crystal clear on firearm restrictions, there is a legal question that really needs to be answered BEFORE the BMA, any government body,or business owner restricts guns from their property! If a person with a CCW is asaulted in a park or business that has excluded firearms, would that government body or business owner be liable for damages? In my mind they become instantly liable for damages as soon as they put such restrictions in place, and a BIG dollar judgement could bankrupt the person or government agency making the restriction in short order. Granted, I'm not a lawyer, but in our litigation happy society that's one question that desparately needs answering.

The BMA would be well advised to look at the poll results on this very website. They are running almost 2 to 1 against the ban. Criminals don't get hand gun carry permits. If they have no fear of law abiding citizens with handguns they have free reign to steal cars, purses, etc.

I agree that it up to the city to decide if they should ban firearms from city parks or not, because when the state allowed them in state parks, they left it up to the local cities to decide for themselves about city parks, and I have never stated otherwise.

My point being, there is absolutly no logical reason for the city to ban firearms from city parks, and to that end, I have been posting here.

That being said, without any logical reason to ban firearms, there is absolutely no reason to do so, and I believe the majority of voters agree with me.

Peter S. You dont even know what you are talking about! It is State Legislation that just passed not Federal! and to all you anti gun idiots-READ THE CONSTITUTION! You will not have the 1st amendment without the 2nd amendment! And i am sick and tired of the ignorance of the liberals when it comes to freedom and the Constitution! If you dont like the our rights and freedoms go live in China or Russia and then write back and tell us how happy you are living under a dictator! WAKE UP AMERICA!

"In my humble opinion, there is no justification for the city to restrict the legal carry of firearms in city parks, while it is legal to carry in other public places, including state parks."


...or federal parks.

Again, you are attempting to use the *precedent* argument. Just because the federal govt changes its mind and allows it does not mean the states or local municipalities automatically should fall in line and do the same.

I understand your logic, but its the product of a precedent that doesn't exist.

The right of every state, city and locale on every level to decide for themselves is the essence of states rights, is it not?

You may think it makes sense that if its allowed on the federal level and state level, it should be okay on the city level. Thats fine. Go to the BMA meeting and make your point. But their vote is the law even if it lacks the 'precedent factor' you think it should have, and that law trumps your view.

It sounds like some of you live in Walt Disney world where nothing ever goes wrong ,you all probably don't watch the news and only read certain things in the paper , wake up this is the real world people are mean with no regard for your life or mine . arm yourself take the classes become a responsible gun owner and carry your weapon of choice it may be your last line of defense one day. again crime doesn't care if its a park ,store,mall or whatever . stuff happens... Oh yeah carry a back up in case you run out of bullets. and always know whats beyond your intended target....

BTW, I wasn't talking about TN cities in my post when I said 'some cities have'.

To my knowledge, none of them have.

But thats not saying they can't.

Any TN county property, TN municipal property, or TN private property owner that is underneath the new state level law has the right to vote thumbs up or thumbs down regarding your 'privilege' with respect to their property.

If the citizens of Kingsport want to create a gunless area using park land the city owns, they absolutely have that right (by democratic vote) to potentially revoke your privileges regarding that land. That could very well be in contrast with Obama's recent granting of privileges regarding federal land used for federal parks, but thats his prerogative regarding land that the federal government owns, just like its the BMA's prerogative regarding land the city owns.

peter you sir are wrong in the state of tennessee the city by law cannot do that im sorry your brady buddies lied to you and on the other note i hope you never need to use a gun in selfdefence but if the moment should rise and your around a ccw hold please be sure to tell them not to protect you or anyone else who shares your view as it would be a waste of time and ammo

Maybe you can enlighten me on exactly which Tennessee cities have banned the carry of firearms, by licensed permit holders, on city streets, since I am only an ignorant hillbilly.

"but cities can not post their streets off limits."

You are dead wrong. They absolutely can, if thats their desire. Not too many of them have, but some larger cities with real crime problems HAVE done it.

It doesn't matter if the property is owned by private owners, city government, state government, or federal government. EVERY ONE of those entities has the right to say 'yes' or 'no' regarding your PRIVILEGE as it involved their property.

You don't like the term hillbilly, but what am I supposed to conclude?

Peter Stevenson,

I Don't know where you come off posting that permit holders are uneducated hillbillies, but that is not the case, and I for one find it very condensending of you to post such BS.

Granted individuals or business owners can post their preimses off limits to firearms, just as permit holders can decide which business they wish to patronize, but cities can not post their streets off limits.

The only reason this discussion is taking place in the first place is that when the state decided to allow firearms to be legally carried in state parks, they left it up to the individual cities to determine the issue about city parks, and it is only the city parks that are in question.

In my humble opinion, there is no justification for the city to restrict the legal carry of firearms in city parks, while it is legal to carry in other public places, including state parks.

If you have a problem with people legally carrying firearms in general, I suggest you take it up with the forty states that allow citizens that right, and stop trying to talk down to those that disagree with your views.

"Granted, this discussion is not about the right to keep and bear arms, or even the right to carry a concealed handgun in public, because the state has already settled that issue, permit holders do have that right."


Please dont assume that just because the state passed its law, that its an automatic assumption that carrying is absolute and geographically all-inclusive. All the law did was say its okay pending approval of the property owner or local government, the people who actually own the private or public property involved. The passage of the law does not bypass the will or desire of municipal or private property owners. Obama's recent activity only involved land owned by the federal government, which has no precedent bearing on private property, state property, or local municipal property.

"I am saying that it is my opinion that they should not restrict because permit holders do not impose any risk to those that use city parks."


I understand what you are saying, Calyton, but thats not the litmus test used, no matter how much that particular test supports your argument.

You could have a majority group of concerned citizens in a city who dont care about the safety track record of responsible owners. They simply dont want guns in proximity to their kids when they go to a city park, and push that restriction through their local government. Your argument, as valid as it may be, has no bearing on the law that must be followed. And as citizens in that city, they have the right to be free of guns in a park if thats the desire enacted by the local legislators. Folks like you, who *unquestionably* have the right to own a gun, simply have lost the *privilege* to carry into that particular situation.

Am I the only person with a CCW who is NOT a paranoid NRA freak?

"well peter you cannot tell me i can not carry on a tennessee street as i can do so by law."


What I did say is if the city of Kingsport doesnt want you on THEIR streets or in THEIR parks with a gun, the CAN enact a restriction. If the private owners of WalMart dont want you carrying on their property, they CAN kick your ass off their property for carrying.

You guys are attempting to use the concept of *precedent* to assert that just because one city allows it, all others *must* do the same. NO they DON'T have to do the same. Its a RIGHT to own a gun, its a PRIVILIGE to carry it into a variety of situation that involve either private property or municipal property.

Just because its a PRILIVEDE to carry a gun into XYZ park does not mean there is a *precedent* to automatically be allowed to carry a gun into ABC park elsehwere. Just because the owners of Walmart bestows you the PRIVILEDGE to conceal carry around shoppers with kids, does not mean you are automatically entitled to do the same, through your queer interpretation of *precedent*, into K-Mart or any other store where kids are common.

You hillbillies need to get educated beyond your guns.

Granted, this discussion is not about the right to keep and bear arms, or even the right to carry a concealed handgun in public, because the state has already settled that issue, permit holders do have that right.

What the discussion is about is, because the state has determined that it is legal for permit holders to carry their firearms in state parks, should the city of Kingsport prohibit those same permit holders from exercising their right to carry their concealed firearms in city parks.

It is my considered opinion that since there is no danger from permit holders in other public places, including state parks, there is no added danger for them to carry in city parks.

I know of nothing in city parks that would exclude those with state issude permits from carrying their firearms there, the same as other public places, unless there is something peculiar to city parks that is different from any other public place that causes otherwise normal people to go completely berserk.

And by the way Mr. Brandt, who the heck you callin' Dude?

Brandt, the training requirements are the easy part. All you need to do is call the State and find out the names/numbers of the certified CCW safety course instructors in your area. Then schedule a class, which consists of part lecture, part range work (target practice). When completed, you will receive a document which you will forward to the state along with your application and identification materials, then you will wait. After a local, state, and federal background check (up to six weeks, depends on the workload) you will receive your CCW. I've probably left out something important, but you can find all the info at the state web site http://www.tennessee.gov/safety/handgunmain.htm

‘‘[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.’’

— James Madison, Federalist, No. 46.
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 )
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.)

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..)
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8)
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)
"The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions." [State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921)]
I still can not find any clause that restricts parks or any remote thought of any clause from our Fathers of this land.

Also, since there is a linearity w/ posts that makes anything that is not the most recent post lost in time, can anyone tell me what the training requirements are for someone to have a CCW permit in TN? I'm really curious... thx.

James -

I'm trying to be constructive here. No one is trying to take your right to have guns / weapons at your house. Your dribble from the NRA blogs - without even paraphrasing the content - is missing the point here. Again, I repeat this discussion is about public parks spaces that I might be in with my family.

ok since i need to go further here are some real life accounts of how people protected themselves from the bad guys in kpt

The Kingsport Times-News, Kingsport, Tenn. 06/17/09
State: TN
American Rifleman Issue: 6/26/2009
A homeowner in Blountville, Tenn. noticed someone entering his camper parked in the driveway of his home. When the homeowner determined that the intruder was not someone he knew, he retrieved his handgun and confronted the criminal, who had moved onto the homeowner’s car. The homeowner detained the burglar at gun point until police arrived. The criminal faces multiple charges, including aggravated robbery and driving on a suspended license

Kingsport Times-News, Kingsport, Tenn. 09/08/08
State: TN
American Rifleman Issue: 10/15/2008
A protective order filed by his estranged wife was not enough to deter the violent actions of Donald Tomlinson of Lee County, Tenn. Tomlinson waited at his estranged wife’s residence for her return from a family outing. According to the authorities, once she arrived Tomlinson confronted her, knocked her down and began choking her. Upon witnessing the scene, the victim’s brother fired at Tomlinson, striking him in the leg. Tomlinson has been indicted for his fourth violation of the protective order as well as assault and battery. The victim’s brother was not charged.

Lowell Wilson heard a noise coming from the bedroom where his wife was resting and went to investigate. When he tried to open the door, a man closed it, so Wilson retrieved his gun. "My wife is blind, and she thought it was me [in the room]," he said. "He opened the door ... and stuck his head out. He said, 'It's cool, man. It's cool.'" But it was far from "cool." Wilson shot the intruder, who fled with an accomplice. Police planned to charge the injured suspect after his release from the hospital. Wilson said he'll always feel safe in his home as long as he has something to use for protection. "I know I can take care of myself," he said

these are just from the past few months soo i think everyone should have the rights to protect themselves cause remember when seconds count the poliece are min away

Maybe to move this discussion towards something that is constructive - and at a minimum educational for me - what are the training requirements for someone to have a CCW permit?

In addition to just not knowing what the training requirement currently is in TN, there is an obvious comparison that everyone should make between the equivalent training that is needed for carrying a weapon that can be used with deadly force in public for a uniformed officer and a civilian with a concealed gun.

Again, I reiterate that this discussion's main point could be couched in terms of whether there is a compelling need for the BMA to allow concealed guns at a Kingsport Mets' game. I say no. And do what you want at home - just not at places where I might be with my family.

“Tempers can run high and parents can at times overreact” as (their) children participate in organized games in city-run parks, Campbell said in a statement. “I’m not sure that introducing the prospect of handguns into these situations is really in the best interest of our citizens as a whole.”

-- It would seem we may need to look at banning organized sporting events in city parks, if they are so prone to causing gunfights.


“While I respect and appreciate the right of our citizens to keep and bear arms, I do think there are reasonable limitations that ought to be considered, especially in light of the presence of children,” said Phillips.
“If I were hiking the Appalachian Trail, which is largely in remote, wilderness areas, certainly I would prefer to be armed. But on the other hand I really don’t see the need for anyone to carry a firearm up at Bays Mountain Park, and certainly not at a Little League baseball game,” Phillips said. “With that said, I would add that generally I remain far more concerned about those who carry a firearm illegally than I am about those who have qualified with a firearm and gone through the process of being certified to carry a handgun.”

-- Based on the mayors comments, he's obviously concerned with criminals and since citizens can't expect the police to protect "the individual", then all the ban does is create one more area where law breakers can carry weapons without fear of their prey being armed and able to defend if the .001% situation does arise.

If the numbers are correct from another earlier poster, the 1500+ concealed carry permit holders in Sullivan Co need to be sure to vote accordingly during the next election and not sit at home.

The problem is, if you are carrying a gun legally and you happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time when some fool goes postal and starts shooting people, the chances are that you are going to get killed. Also if you don't get shot immediately and pull the gun and start shooting that some other person carrying a gun will mistake you for the shooter and shoot you. Either that or the police will shoot you. So carrying a gun in public really doesn't help protect you very much. Having a gun in your home does protect you and having a gun when you are out in the country protects you from wild animals, provided you know how to shoot.

James,

Folks do understand that you are pulling your points from the NRA and the NRA-ILA. While I am familiar with the NRA's position, thanks for the reference though. I'm just trying to dial this dialogue to specifics related to Kingsport - not the points related by talking heads on either side of the position.

can you type nra.org they are on the FAQ SHEET READ AND LEARN THANKS AND HAVE A NICE DAY

And sorry for the typos / grammatical errors in previous posts... These are off of a Blackberry. Once these are posted the errors are clear and you can't fix them!

Well, I don't understand why they have to go to city parks to vote on a hand gun ban. Couldn't they do it where they normally meet?

Well said Mr. weatherly, everyone should read some of the true stories in the NRA'S monthly magazine.

Dude -

Your posting is almost confusing and hurts my head to figure out the discrete points... You are looking to 'counter' statistics that were originally sourced from the FBI and CDC - I was honest with the secondary source where I was pulling this data from. I feel that I am being pulled down into the KTN blackhole of arguing unsubstantiated facts from biased sources. If you see that the FBI and CDC data that I used as support for my main points is incorrect, please tell me.. Please don't make this a discussion of random points that are more like ships passing in the night.

I think that it is fair to characterize the focus of this article - and subsequent postings - is whether Kingsport is "safer" if the BMA votes to allow guns in parks. As pointed out earlier, I contend that the answer is NO since the differential is that having more guns on public property is far more likely to result in accidents that are not a function of violent crime.

I am not trying to influence anyone and my thinking is not scary at all and i do think at least i hope i am not a victim of a crime of any kind but criminals don't care about public policy , why take away the rights of law abiding citizens.

obviouslyy you im pretty sure no one expects to be a victim hence the words meaning so for that im prepared not to be one or let any of my family be one rember brent the Police aren't required to protect you. In Warren v. District of Columbia (1981), the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled, "official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection . . . a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular citizen." In Bowers v. DeVito (1982), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, "[T]here is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen." sited from the nra.org again you need to quit typing you have no legs to stand on

ok brant since you want to pull facts of a biased web site hows this for you from the NRA'S WEB SITE Since 1991, 23 states have adopted RTC laws, replacing laws that prohibited carrying or that issued carry permits on a very restrictive basis; many other federal, state, and local gun control laws have been eliminated or made less restrictive; and the number of privately-owned guns has risen by about 90 million. There are more RTC states, gun owners, people carrying firearms for protection, and privately owned firearms than ever before. In the same time frame, the nation's murder rate has decreased 46 percent to a 43-year low, and the total violent crime rate has decreased 41 percent to a 35-year low. RTC states have lower violent crime rates, on average, compared to the rest of the country (total violent crime by 24 percent; murder, 28 percent; robbery, 50 percent; and aggravated assault, 11 percent). also whe the right to carry went into effect Studying crime trends in every county in the U.S., John Lott and David Mustard concluded, "allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes. . . . When state concealed handgun laws went into effect in a county, murders fell by 8.5 percent, and rapes and aggravated assaults fell by 5 and 7 percent

Analyzing National Crime Victimization Survey data, criminologist Gary Kleck concluded "robbery and assault victims who used a gun to resist were less likely to be attacked or to suffer an injury than those who used any other methods of self-protection or those who did not resist at all."11 In the 1990s, Kleck and Marc Gertz found guns were used for self-protection about 2.5 million times annually.12 The late Marvin E. Wolfgang, self-described as "as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country," said, "The methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it. . . . I cannot fault their methodology."13 A study for the Justice Dept. found 34 percent of felons had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim," and 40 percent had not committed crimes, fearing victims were armed

all these sited from the nra's web site

Tony D. - I'm really not trying to be overly critical when I say that you appear to not understand public policy even though the point of your post is to influence it. While I know you are trying to make a point with a posting that does not allow much room for expansion of thought and reasoning - your thinking is frankly a bit scary. Are you really running around with a gun thinking that you might be "victim to a violent crime"? That is my exact point... One of us is missing the big picture.

What will you do Mr.Davis beg for your life or your family's , the fact is no one knows when they will fall victim to a violent crime it can happen anywhere even a K-mets game,walmart etc.... if we knew when and where would we go ? maybe never in a lifetime would this happen and i hope it never does. what ifs are just that what ifs but what happens if it does ?

The notion of the needing to have a loaded gun on your person to protect yourself against the random crazed person is just really bad public policy - that is solely based on emotion and the irrational fear that "the big bad government will take our guns away from us".

I mean think about it. Is it more likely that a pissed off Dad pulls out his piece as a big time threat threat after just getting laid off from work, having family issues, and then gets rear ended by a real aggressive jerk of a driver who caused the accident? Or is it more likely that someone threatens him at a Kingsport Mets game at 8:30 p.m.?

I admit that I am quoting a so called liberal source without doing the legwork to chase this to ground. Pulling from a quote from the Brady center "According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports and the Centers for Disease Control, out of 30,694 Americans who died by gunfire in 2006, only 192 were shot in justifiable homicides by private citizens with firearms." Please, before complaining about the source, check the facts. At worst, it is illustrative that there is a far greater danger with random loaded guns in peoples holsters than with making sure that you are not killed by random criminals.

Do what you want in your home - just don't bring it to the baseball field where I may be with my family... !!!

Ask the crook that's getting ready to shoot you if he has a hand gun permit , How will you defend yourself ? you going to beg for your life ?call the cops ? by the time they get to you its to late you will be dead ! should you be able to draw your weapon and defend yourself ? YES!!!!!!!!!!! handgun permit holders are not the people anyone should worry about , they know the laws other wise they would not have a legal permit to carry a weapon. i would hope the city doesn't ban handguns in parks as they cannot provide security 24 -7 at the city's parks.

well peter you cannot tell me i can not carry on a tennessee street as i can do so by law. so if you dont mind id rather live in gun toting redneck back wood state and carry at all possible times than be a VICTIM any day of the week only corrupt politicans and criminals prefer an unarmed society so witch are you sir? I would also like to point out that all the statistics point to an armed society being the center point for low to no crime no vigilante here i just want to and will protect my loved ones at all cost using any means necessary

And at the risk of moving this discussion onto an even crazier tangent - it is worth noting that there is an official super majority now in both the Senate and House assuming that the Democrats can operate as one block and that Senators Kennedy and Byrd can be in Washington. One could argue that President Obama and the Democratic party should not try to be as accommodating with bi-partisan legislation as was shown with the credit card legislation that clearly benefits most working Americans.

Be careful about misrepresenting the intention of the legislation that was signed here by President Obama...

Note: the concealed carry legislation that is referenced here was the "Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act of 2009" which obviously focused on things like defining rules to protect consumers from credit card companies (e.g. how changes in interest will be communicated, standardization of how interest is calculated, etc.). Most people would easily agree that the amendment provided by Sen. Coburn of OK - which understandably relegated as a secondary item in the Miscellaneous Provisions section - was not the primary intent of the bill and made it through Congress due to the need for expediency with a President who was looking for a bi-partisan approach. The bill did pass 90-5 or something along those lines...

Peter,
The fact that they can restrict has nothing to do with peoples safety in city parks, or anywhere else, for that matter, and the vast majority of them do not restrict.

I am not arguing if the city has the right to restrict or not, because the state law gave them that right. I am saying that it is my opinion that they should not restrict because permit holders do not impose any risk to those that use city parks.

Also, I feel that the firearm of a person with a carry permit is much safer on their person than left in their car, since those places that do restrict do not provide a secure place to keep said firearm when entering their place of business.

"Just about everywhere permit holders carry firearms is frequented by kids; the dowtown streets, grocery stores, clothing stores, WalMart, state parks, and etc."


And every one of these places, Clayton, CAN likewise restrict access IF THEY WISH.

Also, consider that Obama signed into law concealed carry in national parks.

Yes, yes... the government has all the answers.

Just like they did well with the idea of social security. Just like they did well with the Veteran's Affairs and keeping up their end of the bargain. Just like they did with income tax and its purpose over the years. Just like they have continually done with their micromanagement of every facet of corporate life.

The government is a consumer, not a producer.

Cash for guns brings in all sorts of broken, misplaced or otherwise inconsequential firearms. The net effect of those programs are near zero.

In terms of everything else you brought up (which has nothing to do with gun control) -- it was a Republican that started our exit from Vietnam (and a Republican that finished it), Dwight Eisenhower pushed for and signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1957 (BTW, MLK Jr. was a Republican), Abe Lincoln ended slavery after pressure from those in power aided by Fredrick Douglas (a Republican). Also, consider that Obama is keeping the status quo on most things concerning the War on Terror.

The Round Earth theory was tested by those seeking to escape government control of their Religion... ESCAPE GOVERNMENT CONTROL.

So if the government (in particular, the Left) controlled everything, we'd still have segregation, slavery, possibly still be pursuing Vietnamese action, and would still be subjects of the Crown.

And don't assume I'm a Republican.

Lets vote to remove the first amendment from Schools then churches then ball parks, lets not stop there all public places.

Brother Early,

Just what does your opposition to guns, in general, have to do with any added danger to citizens in city parks by those holding carry permits, since the permit holders are not the ones indulging in gun violence, but act as a barrier between honest citizens and the criminals that do?

In my life, as a civilian, I have only had two occasions where I actually needed a firearm for self defense and did not have one. In the most serious instance a family member was shot four times by a criminal intent upon commiting murder.

So, for my part, I would rather carry a firearm the rest of my life and never need it than need it just one time and not have it.

Also, for your information, I have never commited a gun crime, or endangered children in any setting by carrying a concealed firearm, and would not do so in a city park.

Thank God that I live in Massachusetts... This concept - and commentary - is absolutely crazy!

It will happen the 5th of NEVER.

Let's just put up metal detectors and an entrance to be able to go into a park that our tax dollars pay to keep up. It's ridiculous. BTW it is not going to happen.

Craig, think what you will about me. I don't really care. Once again, you missed the point entirely. Have I at any point said ban all guns? I’m just sick of the culture of firearms. The facts speak for themselves. Look at gun violence AFTER the “cash for guns” programs were instigated in certain cities. Gun related violence dropped significantly. Only in the United States are we obsessed with guns. Guess that explains our high gun violence rates compared to ZERO in other western nations.

Time will prove us on the left correct yet again, but I’m sure just like every cause labled as “liberal,” i.e. Vietnam debacle, Bush’s multiple disasters, Palin, voter registration, labor rights, child labor, women suffrage, slavery, segregation, round earth, germ theory, etc. (LOL) the wingnuts would rather die than admit it.

Didn't police,recently,upgrade to bigger,more deadly weapons,& ammo?

Peter, before you make the statement that nobody thinks the situation is out of control or nobody thinks there will be a bloodbath out there courtesy of permit holders if firearms are allowed in city parks, you should read some of the other post by those who wish to prevent permit holders from legally carrying firearms in city parks.

Just about everywhere permit holders carry firearms is frequented by kids; the dowtown streets, grocery stores, clothing stores, WalMart, state parks, and etc. without them being put in danger by permit holders, so why would city parks be any different?

Do you actually believe that a permit holder is going to go crazy and put kids in danger just because they are in a city park, in lieu of all other public places?

Children should be taught firearm safety, not firearm fear.

Also, as I posted before, most if not all, permit holders carry concealed, so no one will know that a permit holder is actually carrying or not.

Please, inform me exactly how legally carried firearms, in a city park, will put children in danger, when they are not put in danger by those same permit holders, in all other public places?

Brother Early,

Your level of intolerance and hoplophobia is stunning. So you want to take guns out of the hands of everyone? I don't think the same, but I agree -- if we take guns away from everyone, including police and the military, this world would be much safer.

Oh wait, you want the police and military to have guns, you say? So you're not really anti-gun, you're pro-elitism.

Isnt it amazing that crime was down so much in between the passage of the gun bill and these restrictions! You carry folks sure did ride to our rescue!

"By the way, gun control is being able to hit your target." Right there is the mentality I'm talking about. You all just push stupid yahoo "I can pee further than you" slogans. Just buy a longer car or put a lift kit under your truck. Stop putting everyone else in danger because of your inadequacy complex.

Hi, my name is Joe Criminal. I would like to go on record that I totally support the views posted by Kingsport Mayor Dennis Phillips, Police Chief Gale Osborne, City Manager John Campbell and the Brady Campaign. With the recent wave of victims now legally carrying weapons it has become increasingly unsafe for those in our line of work. It's getting so a guy can't rob, maim or rape someone without fear of some 2nd amendment nut case shooting at us. For the safety of myself and fellow co-workers, I would like to encourage the city of Kingsport to ban all weapons in not only city parks and buildings, but shopping centers, malls, businesses, streets, vehicles and homes. After all, one of the reasons Mayor Phillips gave for the park ban was the presence of children. Aren’t children also present in all of these places? If I can't have that, at least ban them in the city parks. That way I can at least bring my gun there and safely ply my trade. If not for me, then let’s do it for the children.

Clayton, nobody thinks the situation is out of control. Nobody thinks there is a bloodbath out there courtesy of permit holders.

Its about common sense, and not having guns in proximity to places frequented by kids. Its common freakin sense about what is socially tolerable, that people like you who are blinded by your 'rights concerns', cannot see.

"What are they going to do next......random patdowns? "


Is that any different than randon seatbelt checkpoints? Or random DUI roadblocks?

I do not know where some people get the, answer to wrong is another wrong crap, or that firearms carried by permit holders is letting guns get out of control, but staticits prove them wrong.

As I stated before, since October 1996, the Department of Safety has issued more than 339,000 handgun carry permits in Tennessee, without turning us into any type of wild west mentaility, or causing any shoot outs in the streets, as fear mongers had predicted.

There are only ten states that do not allow citizens to carry firearms, and Tennessee is one of the thirty-five states that have shall issue gun laws, and none of these states have had any of the problems that were claimed would happen if firearms were allowed to be carried.

The only people with firearms you need to worry about are criminals, not law abiding permit holders.

Also, since most, if not all, carry permit holders carry concealed, you will never know which of us are carrying and which are not, so you will never know when to have your scariest thoughts ever.

By the way, gun control is being able to hit your target.

I just think this state is glorifying the vigilanty mentality. These foolish lifting of restrictions is going to come back to haunt.

Also, you didn't answer my question. :}

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


Oh, you have the right to carry. This is just part of the 'well regulated' aspect.

Bro. Early:

You're getting painfully predictable in your responses concerning firearms.

Trying to bunch together "lawfully-abiding citizens" (with training and certification) and criminals- with the common theme being firearms- is absolutely the height of ignorance. For someone who prides himself with using logic and reasoning on other topics, you seem to favor the "shrieking woman" tactic to reason concerning firearms.

According to Tennessee State data- there's a whopping 1503 concealed carry permits TOTAL in Sullivan County. How many of those given permit-carrying citizens are enjoying the city park at the same time that you are?

Better question: How many of those citizens are predisposed to "blowing your head off"; by the mere possession of a firearm that causes them to lose all semblance of reason and morality?

Methinks that you can't honestly be that dense. would suspect that you're trolling on the issue.

Yup, Doris, keep pushing your “answer to wrong is another wrong” crap. Let's just let guns get out of control. Knowing you're packing is one of the scariest thoughts ever and the best argument for gun control. Let’s see a show of hands. Who thinks it’s marvelous that Doris is carrying a gun? Bet I know exactly how this will line up.

I see a need to carry a firearm when I am in a park to play tennis or to walk at dusk. There are many stray dogs as well as wierd O's . I perfer to BE armed. No matter what Phillips perfers.

These are concealed weapons for protection. What are they going to do next......random patdowns? The "establishment " is trying their best to take our right away to keep and bear arms. The people on the streets of IRAN were beaten to death by the police and the old guard. Those people didn't have guns. As Charlton Heston said ......They will have to pry my gun out of my cold dead hand.

I though we had already had the aurgment about how allowing law abiding citizens to obtain a state issued permit to carry a handgun would somehow create a wild west where people would kill each other in the streets over someone looking suspicious or heaven forbid that they sneeze at a permit holder, or someone exposed themselves.

Lets just put those lies to rest, because since October 1996, the Department of Safety has issued more than 339,000 handgun carry permits, and it did not happen, and will not happen in a city park any more than it happened downtown, at WalMart, or anywhere else permit holders are present.

Although the state has recognized it is safe for permit holders to carry firearms in state parks, for some reason, that excapes me, those same people will present a danger in city parks.

Unless there is something specific about city parks that brings out the criminal in us all, or makes us become deranged, causing us to kill each other, just because we have the means, the aurgment for banning firearms in city parks is just a bunch of hot air.

Yea, that's the answer, lawlessness for lawlessness. No place for the justice system. Vigilantism at its best. Next thing you know they'll want to make lynching the norm.

Somewhere we have lost the meaning of parks here. All of the sexual perverts and gunslingers can hang out as long as they don't bring drugs or alcohol. When people in the 60's started saying that smoking pot killed and all of the flower children dissapeared, it turns out that they have resurfaced and are bringing a new message. It is all in the way you look at things. When you go into the bathroom and someone exposes themselves, shoot em. We get enough dead preachers, teachers, and a few lawmakers heads hanging over the mantle, we can change the law back to no guns no problems.

Yea, it worked really well then. LOL What a joke this state has become.

I've got a GREAT idea. Lets all get a gun and carry it everywhere. According to the reasoning of some....that would put a stop to all crime. Sort of like the wild west.

I'm at the point of saying, "To hell with the 2nd Amendment." I keep getting sick to my stomach with the all or nothing idiots wanting to bring guns into the public place. No one is safe in this vigilantly mentality state. Look suspicious and sneeze and some deranged moron will blow your head off. Don't give me that crap about good ol' law abiding citizens. Every single one of the concealed permit holder I know would never clear a psych workup. You tell me how someone who can’t even pass a drivers exam because she’s legally blind is able to get a concealed weapon permit. In the State of TN the greater safety of all the citizens is being supplanted by the yahoos wanting to carry their penile extensions in their pockets.

That's Right Kingsport BMA, go a head and ban handguns in the city parks. That the only ones that will have them in the criminal element of your well protected MODEL CITY. So if one of your law abiding street gangs decide to beat up some unlawful park goer just for something to do, no has away to protect themselves or their families.
The Kingsport BMA should be voted out of office and replaced with people with some common since.

Yeah we really need this ban, cause we are so tired of the hundreds of news reports of carry permit holders killing and maiming the children of our cities. When in doubt, always bring in the children.
Last I checked there was only one TN permit holder waiting trial and the case against him was shakey at best. Not bad for the tens of thousands of permits issued.

Maybe Mr. Osborne would do well to recruit some of the fine citizens of the Handgun Carry Permit community. I think a lot of dog owners, ex-spouses, and property owners would sleep better.

What a hypocrite. Someone who Carries a weapon 24/7 telling me that I don't have a reason to carry in (insert location).

When Mr. Osborne makes it his departments policy to not carry in city parks ( why should they? it's not needed) then maybe I'll respect his position more.

Whatta you say Gale? It works for the British Bobbies. Don't let your unfounded paranoia tarnish the image of our safe "model city". Drop those gun belts and we can all hug it out. I'm sure the crime rate will drop like a stone once everyone realizes we mean them no harm.

We can even have new arm patches made for our officers. We'll replace "To serve and protect" with " Can't we all just get along".

Its sad when we have to vote away our rights.

The Second amendment just as the first has no buts or ands about it. Just as the 1st carries over to any new media we can come up with today. The second does the same.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Now please show me where parks etc can be found to infringe upon?

Good lord. Culture of guns. This will all come back to bite us in the collective butts yet.

Hey, let's make sure the law abiding citizens can't carry while creating another meaningless law for criminals to ignore!

Since it has already an established fact that is is safe for permit holders to carry firearms on our streets, and in our shopping areas, why would it be dangerous to carry them in a park setting?

The state has already determined that it is safe for permit holders to carry firearms in state parks so I don't see why city parks should be any different from state parks.

Since it has already an established fact that is is safe for permit holders to carry firearms on our streets, and in our shopping areas, why would it be dangerous to carry them in a park setting?

The state has already determined that it is safe for permit holders to carry firearms in state parks so I don't see why city parks should be any different from state parks.