Tulsa's new Gathering Place Park to ban guns

[Elm Creek Smith]

The City of Tulsa had to change the signs they used to have posted at their parks, specifically River Parks, because they conflicted with Oklahoma law. The Gathering Place, if indeed a city-owned park, won't be able to ban handguns carried under the provisions of the Oklahoma Self Defense Act.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk

 

[Buzzgun]

From http://www.riverparks.org/parks-information/park-rules-and-faqs/


WHAT IS RIVER PARKS AUTHORITY?
River Parks Authority is a public trust authority created to develop and maintain the public park lands along the Arkansas River in Tulsa County. In Tulsa, there are three separate public park agencies: River Parks Authority, the City of Tulsa Parks Department, and the Tulsa County Park Department.



ISN'T GATHERING PLACE A RIVER PARK?
Yes, technically it is. While Gathering Place is legally a River Park, it is managed by the George Kaiser Family Foundation. Gathering Place will transform nearly 100 acres of Tulsa’s waterfront along the Arkansas River into a dynamic and active space. Gathering Place will blend nature with an urban setting providing Tulsans and visitors more space to play, relax and gather together along the river. The park, centrally located, will include features such as a lodge, boathouse, nature walks, two land bridges connecting the two sides of river parks, sporting areas and a pond.

For more info, please call 918.779.1000 or visit www.gatheringplace.com.


WHAT RULES GOVERN PUBLIC USE IN RIVER PARKS?
Park land controlled by the Authority is governed by Title 26, the City of Tulsa’s Parks Ordinance. If needed, the Authority may also approve and post additional rules to govern activity in certain areas of the park, such as the 41st Street Plaza, Turkey Mountain, and River West Festival Park. Most of River Parks falls under the enforcement jurisdiction of the Tulsa Police Department, except some portions of the M.K.&T. (Katy) Tulsa – Sand Springs Trail
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If it is legally a public park, wouldn't it fall under the provisions of the Oklahoma Self Defense Act?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oklahoma Statutes Citationized
[Broken External Image]Title 21. Crimes and Punishments
[Broken External Image]Chapter 53 - Manufacture, Sale, and Wearing of Weapons
[Broken External Image]Section 1277 - Unlawful Carry in Certain Places
Cite as: 21 1277, __ __

Multiple Amendments Enacted During the 2018 Legislative Session

Version 1 (as amended by Laws 2018, HB 3718, c. 304, § 8, emerg. eff. May 10, 2018)

UNLAWFUL CARRY IN CERTAIN PLACES

A. It shall be unlawful for any person in possession of a valid handgun license issued pursuant to the provisions of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act to carry any concealed or unconcealed handgun into any of the following places:

1. Any structure, building, or office space which is owned or leased by a city, town, county, state or federal governmental authority for the purpose of conducting business with the public;

2. Any courthouse, courtroom, prison, jail, detention facility or any facility used to process, hold or house arrested persons, prisoners or persons alleged delinquent or adjudicated delinquent, except as provided in Section 21 of Title 57 of the Oklahoma Statutes;

3. Any public or private elementary or public or private secondary school, except as provided in subsections C and D of this section;

4. Any publicly owned or operated sports arena or venue during a professional sporting event, unless allowed by the event holder;

5. Any place where gambling is authorized by law, unless allowed by the property owner; and

6. Any other place specifically prohibited by law.

B. For purposes of subsection A of this section, the prohibited place does not include and specifically excludes the following property:

1. Any property set aside for the use or parking of any vehicle, whether attended or unattended, by a city, town, county, state or federal governmental authority;

2. Any property set aside for the use or parking of any vehicle, whether attended or unattended, which is open to the public, or by any entity engaged in gambling authorized by law;

3. Any property adjacent to a structure, building or office space in which concealed or unconcealed weapons are prohibited by the provisions of this section;

4. Any property designated by a city, town, county or state governmental authority as a park, recreational area, or fairgrounds; provided, nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to authorize any entry by a person in possession of a concealed or unconcealed handgun into any structure, building or office space which is specifically prohibited by the provisions of subsection A of this section; and

5. Any property set aside by a public or private elementary or secondary school for the use or parking of any vehicle, whether attended or unattended; provided, however, said handgun shall be stored and hidden from view in a locked motor vehicle when the motor vehicle is left unattended on school property.

Nothing contained in any provision of this subsection or subsection C of this section shall be construed to authorize or allow any person in control of any place described in subsection A of this section to establish any policy or rule that has the effect of prohibiting any person in lawful possession of a handgun license from possession of a handgun allowable under such license in places described in this subsection.

 

[tRidiot]

I'm afraid if there is a big stink about it, they'll just get the legislature to pass an amendment to state law to make it a prohibited place, like they did the fairgrounds, right? "It's for the children," right? Kaiser spent a half billion dollars on this thing, then endowed another $100 million for upkeep - you think there isn't enough influence to pressure our legislature to make this park a prohibited place?

The more I think about it, the more I see the likelihood, given how anti-gun rabid liberals can be. And when they have billions to throw around... I'm afraid I don't trust our legislature in Oklahoma enough to stand on principle, especially when they've already caved to special interests in exactly this way once before.

 

[cktad]

Kaiser spent a half billion dollars on this thing, then endowed another $100 million for upkeep - you think there isn't enough influence to pressure our legislature to make this park a prohibited place?

Just to be clear he did not fund the entire park, many others donated to build the park and for upkeep.

 

[tRidiot]

Just to be clear he did not fund the entire park, many others donated to build the park and for upkeep.

I agree, but I was thinking that was the amounts HE contributed, could be wrong. Either way, the point is, there is BIG money and BIG influence in this park project and I think we need to keep an eye on our legislature to make certain they don't try to pull a fast one to serve a rich liberal special interest. Just my $0.02.

 

[Defcon Shooter]

Who cares?

 

[Billybob]

Just to be clear he did not fund the entire park, many others donated to build the park and for upkeep.

And to be more clear the City put in $65Mil. in tax payers funds to make the park possible...
https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/gat...cle_ff226ee3-5916-50ba-981f-6ffb9452af6f.html

The Gathering Place LLC which has leased the park also wants free water/sewer services from the city at taxpayer's expense...
"The foundation has also requested that TMUA provide free non-irrigation water and sanitary and storm-water services for the park in perpetuity."
https://www.tulsaworld.com/newshome...cle_f3ad9f3a-8ceb-5bce-ae1e-fbcb9782a321.html

And if the deal is the same as the one made for the pedestrian bridge while Gathering Place takes care of routine maintenance will the city still pays for any capital improvements, would that also include repairs?
https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/loc...cle_116c8908-de12-5e2e-801a-a64c8b99730a.html

It's wonderful to think theses people donated money for this but lets remember they'll take tax deductions for it which means less tax money for other stuff, this brings to mind something said in the original article in the other thread...“private citizens getting to decide which ‘common good’ ideas get funded is a worrisome trend.” Remember the idea behind this is to benefit unity and the poor kids in North Tulsa so why didn't they invest their generosity there where those kids are? Maybe because it's questionable as to whether you can run an entertainment venue there which is a lot of what this is going to be with concerts, rentals, a restaurant and other food vendors etc.

Kind of looks like it's costing the taxpayer's a lot to put a private corp. in control of a "public space" and allowing them to curtail the public's legal right to carry.

Another interesting question, since it belongs to River Parks but is leased out who is responsible for liabilities where booze will be sold to people who might get into the rented boats or climb on stuff that looks like it might not be allowed in public parks or school playgrounds for safety/injury reasons?

 

[HiredHand]

I have been told it is a private park that is open to the public.

 

[Buzzgun]

How can it be a private park when part of it was built on public land and it was partially funded with tax dollars?? I guess if the city/county/river parks authority leased the park to a private entity, that entity could "ban guns".....even if they can legally post the signs, they are basically meaningless since the park would not legally be a prohibited place.

After the newness wears off, I plan to visit it one time just to see it.......and I bet I won't be the only one carrying.

 

[chuter]

Even if it's private, how is that different from any other private business with a no-gun sign?
It's not a problem unless you're asked to leave, you don't, and the police arrive.

Am I missing something?