Gun Ban Debate In Knoxville

For those of you who don't know, the State of Tennessee enacted a law which allows persons with a handgun permit to carry their weapon(s) in state and local parks beginning September 1 provided that local governments do not "opt out" of the legislation by that time.

Yesterday evening, July 29, the Knoxville City Council voted to postpone the "opt out (gun ban)" vote until the 25th of August in order to entertain a public forum on August 20th at 5:00 PM at the City/County Building. Here is a local story on yesterday's events. The story is pretty accurate, but there is one thing missing from the article. During the meeting, the council asked for a show of support first for the measure to ban guns in local parks, then, against. From my vantage point, which I believe I was able to see all attendees, there were no persons showing support for the measure. Conversely, there were approximately 30 people showing support against the measure.

Here is an image of the resolution. The most important text of the resolution is this:

Section 1:

Any person authorized to carry a handgun under Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-17-1351, is prohibited from possessing any handgun while within a public park, natural area, historic park, nature trail, campground, forest, greenway, waterway, or other similar public place that is owned or operated by the City of Knoxville or any of its instrumentalities. This prohibition of handguns within any municipal park applies to the entire park, notwithstanding the provisions of T.C.A. § 39-17-1311(b)(1)(I). However, this Resolution does not prohibit lawful possession of any handgun in accordance with T.C.A. § 39-17-1311(b)(1)(A)-(H).

The definition of places which this law applies seems very expansive. What is a "similar public place?" Does "waterway" mean that I may not be in possession of a firearm and travel by boat through the City of Knoxville? If so, a "waterway" seems to be a similar public place to a roadway. The language of this resolution seems to suggest that it will apply to any publicly owned or operated space. What exactly is an instrumentality? Could this mean that in addition to any public place directly operated or owned by the City of Knoxville, any place indirectly owned or operated by the City of Knoxville will be affected by this? If these concerns are credible, this resolution will outlaw the exercise of the Second Amendment in all places except your home, the homes of your friends and family, any private businesses including the area in which you must travel between them.

Most of us by now have heard (or argued) the typical arguments against guns; and usually, they fall into a genre of safety. If there weren't guns, there wouldn't be as many violent crimes, etc., etc. These arguments make no logical sense are simply not true. If someone is willing to harm you by an illegal activity, I see no rational train of thought which to suggest that the criminal would be concerned with doing it in a lawful manner. It is my opinion that the people who are supporters of gun control dislike guns and attack them politically due to the emotion they feel about the subject. Therefore this and other logical arguments surely will have little effect on such people; but when you boil down their emotional argument, you find a very different one.

This country if founded upon one very basic principal above all others which is self-governance. So long as you are not interfering with the rights of another, you are allowed to make your own decisions. The gun control debate falls square in the lap of the principal. Not only that, but it is an argument for or against self-governance. Proponents of gun control make the decision for themselves that they do not want to own or use firearms. I have no issue with the personal decisions of anyone who chooses not to use guns. The problem is that proponents of gun control do not stop there. They believe that their decision making is superior to others' ability to make decisions, and through the force of government, make the decisions for everyone else through an ultimatum of confiscation of property or imprisonment to defy these decisions. These political activities are are directly contrary to the idea of self-governance and incompatible with it.

This of course is not the only problem with gun control.

Second Amendment

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.

Isn't it interesting that the framers of the constitution chose the word "infringed" and not another word like "denied." "Infringed" to me seems to mean a slight injury. Therefore, we could rewrite the Amendment to read, "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not even slightly be injured." I believe that certain exceptional areas in the gun control debate have their own unique discussion such as weapons of mass destruction and bearing arms during proceedings which may result in the confiscation of liberty or property (court rooms), but we are not talking about these types of situations. We are talking about the average citizen who has a handgun permit in average everyday places and situations. To deny someone their 2nd Amendment in these parameters as defined in this resolution is an irresponsible and irrational act. It is incompatible with self-governance, liberty, the Constitution, and logic.

Really agree with what you read? Really disagree? Somewhere in the middle?....Let yourself be heard in the comments!
_