|
|
|
OpenCarry.org - Discussion Forum > Stories From The States > Tennessee > HIT this poll! Memphis to flout preemption, ban gun carry on public street with metal detectors!
|
|
||
| OpenCarry.org - Discussion Forum > Stories From The States > Tennessee > HIT this poll! Memphis to flout preemption, ban gun carry on public street with metal detectors!
|
|||
| Moderated by: jpierce | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
And keep hitting the poll fe "Beale Street Tactics"! -- http://www.wmctv.com/global/story.asp?s=10551474 -- Somebody needs to file a federal lawsuit under 42 USC 1983 seeking an emergency injunction as violative of the Fourth Amendment. Mike Stollenwerk -- "Sept. 11, 2001, already a day of immeasurable tragedy, cannot be the day liberty perished in this country." -- Judge Gerald Tjoflat, writing for the unanimous 11th federal Circuit Court of Appeals panel quashing the use of metal detectors to "screen" demonstrators in public areas on 15 October 2004 in Bourgeouis v. Peters, Dozier, and the City of Columbus, GA at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/11th/0216886p.pdf. Last edited on Thu Jun 18th, 2009 10:00 pm by Mike |
|||||||||
|
falcon1 Regular Member 
|
Link is about SAF and DC? |
|||||||||
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
falcon1 wrote: Link is about SAF and DC?fixed, thanks. |
|||||||||
|
Brass Magnet Founder's Club Member 
|
Mike wrote: And keep hitting the poll! I just hit the poll and Egads! Freedom is losing! People better keep hitting it up. |
|||||||||
|
rpyne Regular Member
|
falcon1 wrote: Link is about SAF and DC? I just followed both links and they go exactly where they say they do. The first to the story about Beale Street and the second to the court decision. |
|||||||||
|
TFred Regular Member
|
In keeping with the age-old theme: "Criminals Are Stupid", it's always nice when people go on the record in a newspaper article when they plan to break the law. Action should be swift and punitive. I want to see arrests. Of course, there are laws for anti-gunners (which are apparently just suggestions), and there are laws for the rest of us... there will be no arrests... I'd be surprised if anything at all is done. Such is the world of double standards in which we live. TFred |
|||||||||
|
KansasMustang Regular Member 
|
Seems to me that these folks are taking the law into their own hands. They've already lost that battle but they think they can overturn it on the streets. That's called vigilante law where i come from, and it's as illegal as if it was the other way around. If I lived in TN I'd march on down there and with a good number of my OC-ing friends we'd just wait for the S*#t to hit the fan. Then let the Supreme court of TN rule on it. But that's just me sayin it. The other side of it is that John Elkington in the article said he was going to take whatever steps necessary to make sure you're safe. So if anyone gets shot by BG's God forbid,,,,sue HIM. Typo edit Last edited on Thu Jun 18th, 2009 09:10 pm by KansasMustang |
|||||||||
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
I'm thinking some open carriers might need to try to visit Beale st. and be barred entry to ensure they have standing to sue. Can somebody in TN take the lead on this, find out the particulars, and consider filing a lawsuit? Under Section 1983 prevailing Plaintiffs usually recoup atty fees and costs. I think we need to take a stand now against "Beale Street Tactics" or every localitiy in the coutnry will start doing monkey see, monkee do policy making. Last edited on Thu Jun 18th, 2009 10:01 pm by Mike |
|||||||||
|
tito887 Regular Member 
|
If the bars truly do not want guns in their property then I see no problem with that. Let the liberty community vote with their dollars. Maybe they will be fine without the money. Maybe not. Of course I don't see how they can ban firearms on sidewalks. |
|||||||||
|
rpyne Regular Member
|
tito887 wrote: If the bars truly do not want guns in their property then I see no problem with that. Let the liberty community vote with their dollars. Maybe they will be fine without the money. Maybe not. Of course I don't see how they can ban firearms on sidewalks. "Their" property is fine, but the public street outside is a completely different story. The ONLY way that would be legal is if the property owners went in together and bought the street from the city. Using the price paid and the inflation rate from a case here in Utah where a private entity bought a block of a street from a city, it should be worth about $50 million per block. |
|||||||||
|
DoubleR Activist Member 
|
Not only is it illegal to block a public street... It's one of the dumbest boneheaded ideas I've ever heard of. The no's are still losing... |
|||||||||
|
carracer Regular Member
|
6pm mtn time and yes at 63% |
|||||||||
|
Bullbuster Regular Member 
|
I just hit the poll and it was.... 60%--YES 40%--NO |
|||||||||
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
Do any of you TN residents know the details about Beale Street? What about setting up a protest outside Beale St. if police in fact do establish an illegal gun ban check point? I wonder if tourists will come to see the picket line too? |
|||||||||
|
Huck Regular Member 
|
"John Elkington of Performa Entertainment says he wants to offer muggers and other thugs the opportunity to visit Beale without the fear of encountering armed citizens." There ya go John, fixed it for you! "Merchants will have to cover the cost, but they say it's worth it to maintain Beale Street's reputation as one of the country's safest entertainment districts." There's a "safe" district in Memphis? And how is making the area a crime encouragement zone going to make it safe? |
|||||||||
|
Geoff Regular Member 
|
I just voted and its 59% yes 41% no. We're making headway, but not much. |
|||||||||
|
Task Force 16 Campaign Veteran
|
The wmctv link doesn't work. |
|||||||||
|
rpyne Regular Member
|
Task Force 16 wrote: The wmctv link doesn't work. I just voted again: 43% no, 57% yes. |
|||||||||
|
Tex4OC Regular Member
|
Stayed on it from 43% til we hit 51% but I REALLY need to go to work now, can someone take over for a bit? Exit story, clear your cookies, then go back and hit it again. |
|||||||||
|
dfox Regular Member 
|
No = 51 Yes = 49 Last edited on Fri Jun 19th, 2009 03:46 pm by dfox |
|||||||||
|
Neo Sharkey Regular Member
|
I just voted, it's running 50/50. |
|||||||||
|
DrMark Lone Star Veteran 
|
49/51 |
|||||||||
|
carracer Regular Member
|
53% No 47% yes |
|||||||||
|
Tex4OC Regular Member
|
I've been hitting this all day, and we're up to 56% but it seems like I'm the only one working it. |
|||||||||
|
DrMark Lone Star Veteran
|
We're at 59%. |
|||||||||
|
Task Force 16 Campaign Veteran
|
I was able to pul the page up, but I wasn't able to vote.  |
|||||||||
|
Barnett3006 Regular Member 
|
just voted, 41% yes and 59% no  |
|||||||||
|
Tex4OC Regular Member
|
ok, got us over the hump to 60%, that ought to be enough to make our point! |
|||||||||
|
KS_to_CA Regular Member
|
Voted. 60% NO. 40% YES. |
|||||||||
|
Flocker Regular Member 
|
60 no - 40 yes |
|||||||||
|
sudden valley gunner Regular Member 
|
Mike wrote: Do any of you TN residents know the details about Beale Street? Damn makes me wish I was in Tennessee I would be up for this. This is a blatant affront to our liberties. |
|||||||||
|
WCrawford Regular Member 
|
Mike wrote: I'm thinking some open carriers might need to try to visit Beale st. and be barred entry to ensure they have standing to sue. I just found this editorial about an ongoing lawsuit between the some of the controlling intrests of Beale Street. It clearly states the City of Memphis is the owner of the street. http://www.memphisdailynews.com/editorial/Article.aspx?id=42768 So would state preemption laws prevent the city of Memphis from banning guns here? Definately need someone more skilled in the law than I am. |
|||||||||
|
Task Force 16 Campaign Veteran
|
WCrawford wrote: Mike wrote:I'm thinking some open carriers might need to try to visit Beale st. and be barred entry to ensure they have standing to sue. Doesn't Tn Statutes allow municipalities to regulate firearms on such owned properties? Although, I'm not sure how that would play out since the City of Memphis leases the buildings to private entities for business purposes. |
|||||||||
|
NightOwl Regular Member
|
The most a lawsuit would manage is to put the security guards at the businesses instead of at the ends of the street. Still a win, and resulting in a higher per-business cost to maintain the no-firearms policy for every business on the street, but a pretty similar end result. The security guards can do a metal detector pass (or require full nudity with clown noses, for that matter) at the businesses themselves, as it's the individual's choice to agree and enter, or disagree and not enter. Still, I hope it goes well. |
|||||||||
|
autosurgeon Regular Member 
|
NightOwl wrote: The most a lawsuit would manage is to put the security guards at the businesses instead of at the ends of the street. Still a win, and resulting in a higher per-business cost to maintain the no-firearms policy for every business on the street, but a pretty similar end result. The security guards can do a metal detector pass (or require full nudity with clown noses, for that matter) at the businesses themselves, as it's the individual's choice to agree and enter, or disagree and not enter. In my humble opinion the higher cost would either make some businesses change their tune or at least cost them more... not only would they be losing the business of firearms carriers but they would have to employ 1 or 2 guards per facility during the entire time they are open... I say it would serve them right!!!! |
|||||||||
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
NightOwl wrote: The most a lawsuit would manage is to put the security guards at the businesses instead of at the ends of the street. Still a win, and resulting in a higher per-business cost to maintain the no-firearms policy for every business on the street, but a pretty similar end result. The security guards can do a metal detector pass (or require full nudity with clown noses, for that matter) at the businesses themselves, as it's the individual's choice to agree and enter, or disagree and not enter. I don;lt think so - the city owns the whole palce and it is run by an agent of them - [preemption should apply. |
|||||||||
|
UTOC-45-44 Regular Member 
|
Yes. 35% No. 65% |
|||||||||
|
NightOwl Regular Member
|
Mike wrote: NightOwl wrote:The most a lawsuit would manage is to put the security guards at the businesses instead of at the ends of the street. Still a win, and resulting in a higher per-business cost to maintain the no-firearms policy for every business on the street, but a pretty similar end result. The security guards can do a metal detector pass (or require full nudity with clown noses, for that matter) at the businesses themselves, as it's the individual's choice to agree and enter, or disagree and not enter. I don't believe that is correct, though I most certainly could be wrong. According to this link it is a mix of public and private property (National Register of Historic Places application .pdf, it's a bit of a slow load): http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NHLS/Text/66000731.pdf I'm understanding that as the street itself being public, with the businesses/buildings (some/most?) being private. I couldn't find an exact listing of who owns each individual property or what was owned by the city and what was private business not owned by them, for which I apologize. I do want to clairify though that I support the effort. In no way should a public street be allowed an exemption to the law. I believe it should be up to each individual business to determine their own policy, but that policy ends at the property line. |
|||||||||
|
Sonora Rebel Regular Member 
|
35 YES 65 NO Last edited on Tue Jun 23rd, 2009 03:47 pm by Sonora Rebel |
|||||||||
|
MSC 45ACP Regular Member 
|
Sonora Rebel wrote: 35 NO Dyslexic much? Its the other way around... |
|||||||||
|
DrMark Lone Star Veteran
|
33 Yes / 67 No |
|||||||||
|
deepdiver Activist Member 
|
Nice. The wife and I were talking about a trip down to Memphis and Beale St in the near future following the law change. That's off now as far as I am concerned. TN is one of the highest crime rate states and Memphis is consistently in the top 15 most dangerous cities. Even if Beale itself is safe (and it generally is) one has to get from point A to Beale and back. With this new rule that means leaving my firearm in the car (dangerous in such a city) or traveling to Beale unarmed (dangerous in such a city). The solution seems to be to continue to not spend my free time or money in Memphis. PS Yes I voted. |
|||||||||
|
Sonora Rebel Regular Member
|
Still 33 YES 67 NO |
|||||||||
|
TFred Regular Member
|
It looks like Tennessee needs some major help in "voting with dollars". We need some pro 2A restaurant owners to start speaking up, and to start offering to take the business away from all these brainwashed anti-gunners. Gun bills backfiring It looks like the legislature's Republican majority has created a fine little mess for itself by enacting all those gun laws. All across Tennessee, bar and restaurant owners are slapping up signs to ban guns. Starting this summer, visitors to Beale Street will have to go through some kind of screening process to make sure they're unarmed. The Tennessee Hospitality Association says more than 80 percent of its members are banning guns. "We still haven't been able to figure out the problem that existed that caused the need for this legislation," the association's Walt Baker says. But Pith always thought the guns-in-parks law was the one that would really backfire on Republicans. It's one thing to endanger the lives of drunks and barflies. It's another when families don't feel safe anymore at their city park because a few assclowns insist on striding around with guns on their hips. Local governments are rushing to opt out of that law, and everyone's wondering what exactly lawmakers were thinking when they passed it. In Murfreesboro, the Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association is threatening to hold Spring Fling somewhere else unless the council bans guns in parks. The weeklong high school sports tournaments bring more than $3 million in tourist dollars into the city. Also in Murfreesboro, they're worried about whether guns in parks might violate Little League baseball's safety policy. Says one former ump: "If [Murfreesboro Little League organization] Optimist has to cut its Little League affiliation because of this stupid law, every Murfreesboro council member and legislator in Tennessee should be required to line up and get whacked in the head by a 12-year-old with a Little League-approved bat. Those are the only weapons that should be allowed in a ball park." JEFF WOODS |
|||||||||
|
SomeKid Regular Member
|
TFred wrote:and everyone's wondering what exactly lawmakers were thinking when they passed it. By "everyone" they mean liberal anti-gunners in the media. |
|||||||||
|
turbodog Regular Member 
|
Remember guys, don't just hit the poll. Take time to give the news outlet your opinion of what Beale St is trying to do. Especially y'all from out of state. Loss of tourist dollars are taken seriously. |
|||||||||
|
Task Force 16 Campaign Veteran
|
Mike wrote: Do any of you TN residents know the details about Beale Street? An article I read about it sounded like the Beal Street Enterainment area is sort of like a City owned Entertainment "Mall". City owns the buldings on either side and are least to business entities. There seems to be some kind of dispute between the City of Memphis and the party that was contracted to manage the leasing. Anyway, the leasees have to agree to certain terms and such, like they would if they were leasing space in a shopping mall. The same "blanket" rule may apply in the Beal Street district as it would a major mall. Either you play by the City of Memphis Rules or get kicked out of the sandbox. |
|||||||||
|
Xeni Regular Member
|
Mike wrote: And keep hitting the poll fe "Beale Street Tactics"! Mike, it would seem to me that this would be a pretty easy slam dunk 4th amendment case. Recently, in DC the DC police tried 'crime prevention' checkpoints and that got killed by the appeals court. I hate to say this to my southern brethern but the ACLU would probably take this case in a heartbeat. http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200907/08-7127-1195636.pdf Here's a good snipit; We further conclude that appellants have sufficiently demonstrated irreparable injury, particularly in light of their strong likelihood of success on the merits. See CityFed Fin.Corp. , 58 F.3d at 747. The harm to the rights of appellants isapparent. It cannot be gainsaid that citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access. As our discussion of the likelihood of success has demonstrated, there is no such constitutionally sound bar in the NSZ checkpoint program. It is apparent that appellants’ constitutional rights are violated. It has long been established 14 that the loss of constitutional freedoms, “for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” Elrod v. Burns , 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976) (plurality opinion)(citing New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713(1971)). Granted, the District is not currently imposing an NSZ checkpoint, but it has done so more than once, and the police chief has expressed her intent to continue to use the program until a judge stops her. III. CONCLUSION In short, we conclude that appellants have established the requisites for the granting of a preliminary injunction. They have made a particularly strong showing of the substantial likelihood of success on the merits and that they would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted. The district court did not address the other two elements of the preliminary injunction test. Accordingly, we reverse the district court and remand for further proceedings. |
|||||||||
|
Neo Campaign Veteran 
|
Just found this thread and hit the poll No = 30% Yes = 70% |
|||||||||