Smyrna Municipal Park

[JonathanG]

The Town of Smyrna is now following Title 22, Section 111(a), in regards to the Smyrna Municipal Park. It took about ten days and multiple emails and phone calls, before the Mayor and the Chief of Police finally did the correct thing and had the weapons and firearms prohibition removed from the rules signs at the park. Rule #6 is now blank. CCDW license holders can now carry there without worry. For any OC'ers, without a CCDW, the area would still be off limits due to the fact that the park lies directly across the street from North Smyrna Elementary School.

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Adrenolin]

Was this something you did yourself? If so great job and nice to see. I visit a couple small parks in Middletown and while they have posted rules I've never read them.

[oldgraygeek]

When we were in Miami Beach last fall, there was a sign at every beach entrance:

NOT PERMITTED
(24 HOURS/DAY)
...
...
...
Firearms
EXCEPT AS PERMITTED PURSUANT TO
§§ 790.06 & 790.25, FLA. STAT.
...
...

So... no concealed carry, right?
Wrong. The Florida statutes named on the sign are the ones that govern carry permits.

The sign is a sneaky attempt to prevent legal concealed carry.
How many people are going to see that sign, do the research on the spot, and realize that this prohibition does not apply to them? Not many.
I just happened to have my concealed carry notebook in the car, and double-check it on my smartphone. Then, we went ahead and carried on the beach. F*** 'em.

[JonathanG]

Was this something you did yourself?

Yes, it was. I have three year old son, and given that I am 47, I like to take him to parks to let him run off some of his boundless toddler energy. When I saw the sign, we left, and I took him to Big Oak Park instead. When we returned home, I started looking into to the prohibition, and fairly quickly it became apparent that Smyrna didn't have the statutory authority to enforce the ban. The mayor passed my inquiry off to the police chief, and they made several attempts to find other statutory authority, which would override Title 22, Section 111(a).  For instance, Title 11, Section 1457. However, none of the statutes they were offering gave them any legal authority, whatsoever, to regulate possession of firearms.

Eventually, I tired of the back and forth shuffle and requested a meeting with the Chief of Police, the Mayor, and the town attorney, so we could go over the statutes, as I was certain that they lacked the statutory authority to regulate possession of firearms, anywhere in the town, including the Municipal Park. The mayor agreed to set a meeting up, but two days later, I received an e-mail from the Chief of Police, with an attached photograph of the modified signs. The e-mail basically stated that while they did not agree with all my assertions, the signs were modified, and as this was what I was requesting initially, would I consider the matter closed?

I should note, that fairly early on, the Chief of Police agreed that anyone having a CCDW would be legal in the park and provided written confirmation of such, in an email to me, but, he still insisted that the signs would remain posted. I disagreed for several reasons, not the least of which, was that it was not legal. I tried to explain that by having the prohibition posted, persons that were legal to carry, were being actively discouraged and inconvenienced in exercising their rights. Additionally, I explained that given the posted rules, were my firearm to print, or inadvertently become momentarily exposed, all the "moms demand action" types would justifiably think that I was carrying illegally within the park. I tried to convey how serious an issue it would be, were an officer responding to a MWAG call, to handcuff me, separate me from my three year old son, and potentially illegally arrest me.
 
I'm guessing that once the Mayor and Police Chief actually bothered to bring the matter up with the town attorney, that it quickly became apparent to them that there was no point continuing the attempts to keep the signs posted. I'm just happy that it could be resolved relatively quickly, and without requiring expending resources on an attorney. While the Mayor and the Chief of Police were obstinate in insisting that the prohibition would remain posted, they were friendly, responded quickly to all communications, and overall, tried to be reasonable in their assertions of what they thought they had the authority to do. Now, the town manager and my particular town councilperson were another story entirely. Let's just say I know who I won't be voting for when my councilperson's next election comes up.

[Adrenolin]

I applaud your persistence and ultimate win! Many great examples of a possible bad outcome due to an illegally posted sign.

I'm 45 with a 5 year old son who also has endless energy. Don't ya wish we could bottle and sell it! We're always out doing something to run it out of him. Started kindergarten a few weeks ago though and between getting up at 6:30am and being in school from 8:30 to 3:45 everyday it's finally wearing him out. Often comes home and actually asks for a nap, gets up for dinner, plays outside for a bit then in to bed for 8 or so now! 

[Five.Slow]

The Town of Smyrna is now following Title 22, Section 111(a), in regards to the Smyrna Municipal Park. It took about ten days and multiple emails and phone calls, before the Mayor and the Chief of Police finally did the correct thing and had the weapons and firearms prohibition removed from the rules signs at the park. Rule #6 is now blank. CCDW license holders can now carry there without worry. For any OC'ers, without a CCDW, the area would still be off limits due to the fact that the park lies directly across the street from North Smyrna Elementary School.

That's a question I have as well.  My daughter plays softball at a complex directly adjacent to school property in bear.  In fact, you have to drive through the school property to get into the complex.  I always leave my gun home because I don't know if I would be breaking the law or not.  Would I be legal to carry here? I apologize for jacking your thread but you seem very knowledgeable .

[Lumspond]

I know this has been discussed here before, but I don't believe that title 11, section 1457 (carrying in a school zone) applies to those with a CCDW permit. It claims "no concealed carry" and refers back to section 1442 (concealed carry), which specifically exempts folks with permits.

http://delcode.delaware.gov/title11/c005/sc07/index.shtml

What do you say OldGrayGeek?

[oldgraygeek]

I know this has been discussed here before, but I don't believe that title 11, section 1457 (carrying in a school zone) applies to those with a CCDW permit. It claims "no concealed carry" and refers back to section 1442 (concealed carry), which specifically exempts folks with permits.

http://delcode.delaware.gov/title11/c005/sc07/index.shtml

What do you say OldGrayGeek?

I think you are correct. Illegal carry in a school zone incurs extra penalties, but legal carry in a school zone is still legal.

[Cbmarine]

We have discussed this before ( http://deccw.com/index.php?topic=3546.0 ) and so far no one has rebutted the logic expressed by @OGG. Federal law in 18 USC 922q2Bii defers to the State
----------
(2)(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—
(i) on private property not part of school grounds;
(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law en- forcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is quali- fied under law to receive the license;
-----------

[CorBon]

When we were in Miami Beach last fall, there was a sign at every beach entrance:

NOT PERMITTED
(24 HOURS/DAY)
...
...
...
Firearms
EXCEPT AS PERMITTED PURSUANT TO
§§ 790.06 & 790.25, FLA. STAT.
...
...

So... no concealed carry, right?
Wrong. The Florida statutes named on the sign are the ones that govern carry permits.

The sign is a sneaky attempt to prevent legal concealed carry.
How many people are going to see that sign, do the research on the spot, and realize that this prohibition does not apply to them? Not many.
I just happened to have my concealed carry notebook in the car, and double-check it on my smartphone. Then, we went ahead and carried on the beach. F*** 'em.

I don't think that it's as sneaky as it is definitive.  It's difficult to say "except those lawfully permitted" without defining who is lawfully permitted.  Citing a statute provides a definitive statement about who is permitted to carry.  I'm not a fan of Florida as much as I am a fan of how well they've handled firearm laws down there and how well they've weathered the storms of protests concerning their laws.

Do I want to see those signs around here?  Nope.  However, those signs are coming with a carve-out that would exempt us from the prohibition, so -- if I had to choose the lesser of two evils...

[rikwick]

"I think you are correct. Illegal carry in a school zone incurs extra penalties, but legal carry in a school zone is still legal."

This is how I understand it to be too.   

I have a somewhat different idea about the sign in Smyrna.  As I am now carrying, a whole new world has opened up to me, especially regarding the laws of this state and other states as well.  So I do understand that knowing the law is just as important as gun safety, gun use, etc.  It's just the way it should be right?  Anyway, I knew that sign held no weight, and wasn't binding on someone who posesses a license to carry, precisely because I am aware of the law.  So in reality, that sign would only affect someone who is NOT familiar with the law, see where I'm going?    So if it affects only those who don't know the law and choose not to carry there, I say no harm no foul!     The next point, is that now that Smyrna had to remove the illegal part of the sign, will that cause them to seek a legal way to forbid carrying there? Like in the form of a new law?    Perhaps just something to think about!?

[JonathanG]

So in reality, that sign would only affect someone who is NOT familiar with the law, see where I'm going?    So if it affects only those who don't know the law and choose not to carry there, I say no harm no foul!     The next point, is that now that Smyrna had to remove the illegal part of the sign, will that cause them to seek a legal way to forbid carrying there? Like in the form of a new law?    Perhaps just something to think about!?

It is a harm and it is a foul. As citizens, we are expected to follow the law. It is equally important for the government to follow the law. When the government is free to enforce the law on citizens, yet they are emboldened to ignore the laws they enforce upon citizens, we no longer remain citizens, but subjects. Am I to understand that you are advocating allowing the government to break the law, rather than call attention to their illegality, because we should fear what punishment the government will impose as retribution? Because, if this is your opinion, you have already lost your freedom.

[rikwick]

"Am I to understand that you are advocating allowing the government to break the law, rather than call attention to their illegality, because we should fear what punishment the government will impose as retribution?"

What punishment?   That sign does not have the force of law.  The example is what oldgraygeek did, and in my opinion what most of us here do, know the law or research to find out.  Just my opinion, doesn't mean anything, and your reasons are valid.  I just pick my battles differently, thats all.

[groundgrid]

IMO the sign must be removed lest it be considered a "long-standing" restriction that a court may uphold simply because of its term of existence.

This argument has already been successfully used in NJ by a court who's opinion upheld the state's overly restrictive carry laws simply by saying that they were long-standing & having never been previously challenged, they must therefore be valid.

In all cases, the government cannot be allowed to exempt itself from the law and it is a citizen's responsibility to remind them when they do.
Along those lines, has anyone investigated what happens when a City of Wilmington vehicle gets caught by one of their red light cameras?

[rikwick]

You must be refering to Drake vs Filko where having to demonstrate a "justifiable need" to carry for self defense was challenged, because NJ does not recognize self defense alone as a "justifiable need". A process that was put into affect in 1924 and was upheld as "presumptively lawful" and "longstanding".   What can I say? its NJ. Speaking of NJ, maybe I can make my point this way:  In the last year there have been two separate cases (3 if you count the guard, though slightly different) where 2 people, a man and a woman, who legally could carry in their home state, and volunteered to police they were in possession of a handgun in NJ.  To be honest with you, I really didn't have much sympathy for them, I mean who carrys a gun and does not know that NJ runs their state like the East Berlin of old?  Gun laws are easily obtained nowadays, so ignorance is not bliss, and ignorance on the part of gun owners becomes cannon fodder for the anti-gunners.  Feel my pain?  So, who in DE does NOT know that the sign in Smyrna is NOT legally binding? An ignorant gun owner! 

Perhaps you guys are right, I'm willing to let it go and concede that it is a just cause for sure, and I certainly respect it! I just can't stand negligent gun owners who hurt gun owners who are law abiding decent citizens who have a hard enough time keeping up with different laws of every state, ambiguous laws, not to mention the media who jump on every chance they get to slander us.   Well that's my rant, and btw I'm glad the 2 people in NJ received a pardon, but what a way to learn the hard way that NJ is not 2nd Ammendment friendly.