Boy, I can't compete with that logic. You win.
Three people turned away from Gathering Place after bringing firearms
- Thread starter Billybob
- Start Date
You can do the right thing in an arrogant and/or stupid manner and make it totally appear to be NOT the right thing to average folks.
Perception is reality, in the mind of the perceptor.
Perception is reality, in the mind of the perceptor.
That's an excellent strawman argument you have going there. Let's stop taking ourselves so seriously here and read exactly what he said and not fill in the gaps. It was a stupid PR stunt and yes perception counts when you're trying to secure votes. Kudos to the guy for making sure his spare FN mags were color coordinated. Needs to upgrade to halfway decent holster though.
Regardless of legal technicalities on the River Parks website it states that "River Parks was established as a public-private partnership in 1974. Tulsa County and the City of Tulsa provide the majority of funds for day-to-day River Parks operations". So it's clear tax dollars are being used which was my point.
http://www.riverparks.org/about-us/
Just because maintenance and security are paid by Gathering place doesn't establish ownership which is still with River Parks. It also does not mean tax dollars are not also involved in other ways. The issue with the bridge is this, while River Parks and the gathering place have taken over the bridge and will cover routine maintenance the city(taxpayer) are still on the hook for capital improvements and repairs. No info has been given regarding who is responsible for those at the gathering place so again taxpayers may still be paying some cost just as they did to establish the park. "River Parks Authority will be responsible for routine and nonstructural maintenance of the bridge, with the city assuming financial responsibility for major capital improvements".
https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/loc...cle_116c8908-de12-5e2e-801a-a64c8b99730a.html
The question arises that if the agreement is the same for the park as the bridge will the taxpayers be looped into paying for the planned expansion of the park as a capital improvement since it's been clearly stated this is only the first phase of the park.
"Beyond that, city and park officials are remaining open-minded as to what can develop on the park’s south side".
https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/gat...cle_acd27f95-1e0b-5800-9dc1-a712bbfbfbe9.html
Since funds from a TPS bond issue will be spent on part of phase two is that an indicator that other taxpayer's funds will also be put into a privately controlled public entity?
"Also part of the facility will be five classrooms incorporated into Tulsa Public Schools’ STEM Center, a $4.5 million TPS bond project.The estimated cost of building the facility and exhibits is about $35 million".
https://www.tulsaworld.com/tulsawor...cle_697c96cb-f5bd-57bc-a440-c9c9aa74733e.html
The main point of this remains that public funds are being used where the voters in 2007 said they didn't want them spent to establish a place under the control of a private corp. that can prohibit a legal right.
But regardless of all the discussion it appears the whole thing is moot because the legislature has now made law saying rights can be prohibited in such circumstances.
http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2017-18 ENR/SB/SB288 ENR.PDF
Probably the same place it was the last time we discussed a similar issue: withering away in a file cabinet at Paul Abel’s house.
Again it's a public/private org. which tax dollars help support..."River Parks was established as a public-private partnership in 1974. Tulsa County and the City of Tulsa provide the majority of funds for day-to-day River Parks operations".
http://www.riverparks.org/about-us/
My only opinion is that a park which involves taxpayer's funds would fall under the same legal status as proscribed by state law, not "my terms".
As for me being pissed off or the 4th. amendment I'm not sure where either are indicated in any of this.
That took effect Nov of 2017; doesn't sound like anything related to this new park, just says we can ignore signs and if we don't leave when asked we can be fined $250.
Am I missing something?
River Parks is a public/private entity, my only point being that public funding is involved..."River Parks was established as a public-private partnership in 1974. Tulsa County and the City of Tulsa provide the majority of funds for day-to-day River Parks operations".
http://www.riverparks.org/about-us/
Another peculiarity is that the LLC is a subsidiary owned by River Parks..."Tulsa’s Gathering Place LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of the authority", not sure of all the technicalities but it raises the question of can public funds from River Parks be transferred to or used by the private corp.?
The SDA hasn't been tested at the GRDA because they have chosen to follow state law rather than promote an ideology or bias..."
"Persons properly licensed to carry concealed weapons may do so only in accordance with
the laws of the State of Oklahoma".
http://www.grda.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Ch-35-Lake-Rules-EFF-9-11-17.pdf
I didn't catch that one.... Section (D)(1):
The portion of a public property structure or building during an event authorized by the city, town, county, state or federal governmental authority owning or controlling such building or structure;
This could be construed as one of the pavilions in a park, no? Like you rent out an open air pavilion with benches and electricity for a family or church picnic, birthday party, charity event, etc.? It is considered a structure owned by the city or town, and authorized for use since you have to apply for some of that stuff.
I don't like how that could technically be read as a violation.
Similar threads
