Vague laws.......

As most of you may know, the argument that those that are trying to repeal the restaurant carry law are using is that the law is too vague. You can ask TGO David and Daniel, we were at the first hearing…the judge seemed very interested in that argument. I’m not too worried though, I feel that even if the judge rules the law void, the legislature will come back in January and correct it.

However….what I have been wondering is that is a law that specifically defines what a restaurant is can be considered too vague…..how can a law (39-17-1359) which uses the words “substantially similar” not be considered vague?

I mean in 39-17-1305 there is no doubt what a restaurant is, although you may or may not know from the outside if a place meets that definition, but how in the world can you know for sure if the wording of a sign is substantially similar enough to that in 39-17-1359?

Win or lose on the lawsuit on restaurant carry, I think there could be strong argument made to rework 39-17-1359 based on the “void for vagueness” argument.

Thoughts, ideas or comments……

I dont think this was a mistake. To me it looks like the language was intentionally made specifically vague so that a Judge could err on the side of the business, not the permit holder.

Originally Posted by Fallguy

As most of you may know, the argument that those that are trying to repeal the restaurant carry law are using is that the law is too vague. You can ask TGO David and Daniel, we were at the first hearing…the judge seemed very interested in that argument. I’m not too worried though, I feel that even if the judge rules the law void, the legislature will come back in January and correct it.

However….what I have been wondering is that is a law that specifically defines what a restaurant is can be considered too vague…..how can a law (39-17-1359) which uses the words “substantially similar” not be considered vague?

I mean in 39-17-1305 there is no doubt what a restaurant is, although you may or may not know from the outside if a place meets that definition, but how in the world can you know for sure if the wording of a sign is substantially similar enough to that in 39-17-1359?

Win or lose on the lawsuit on restaurant carry, I think there could be strong argument made to rework 39-17-1359 based on the “void for vagueness” argument.

Thoughts, ideas or comments……

Almost went to a local BBQ place today. But, they have began to serve beer and are only open four days a week, so I went elsewhere.

Originally Posted by bubbiesdad

Almost went to a local BBQ place today. But, they have began to serve beer and are only open four days a week, so I went elsewhere.

Still a restraunt and if not posted why go somewhere else?

Originally Posted by Smith

Still a restraunt and if not posted why go somewhere else?

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/106/Chapter/PC0339.pdf

STATE OF TENNESSEE
PUBLIC CHAPTER NO. 339
VETOED BY THE GOVERNOR
HOUSE BILL NO. 962
By Representatives Todd, McCord, Tindell, Evans, Fincher, Watson,
Faulkner, Eldridge, Rowland, McCormick, Bass, Hackworth, Curt Cobb,
Carr, Matheny, Mumpower, Floyd, Bell, Lollar, Casada, Rich, Lynn,
Harrison, Shipley, Dean, Curtis Johnson, Phillip Johnson, Niceley, Tidwell,
Shepard, Hill, Ramsey, Halford, Haynes, Swafford, Maggart, Hensley, West,
Montgomery, Dennis, Harry Brooks, Matlock, Dunn, Hawk, Lundberg,
Weaver, Roach, Ford, Moore, Fraley
Substituted for: Senate Bill No. 1127
By Senators Jackson, Norris, Gresham
AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39, Chapter 17, relative to firearms.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE:
SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 39-17-1305(c), is amended
by adding the following language as a new, appropriately designated subdivision:
(3)
(A) Authorized to carry a firearm under § 39-17-1351 who is not
consuming beer, wine or any alcoholic beverage, and is within the
confines of a restaurant that is open to the public and serves alcoholic
beverages, wine or beer.
(B) As used in this subdivision (c)(3), “restaurant” means any
public place kept, used, maintained, advertised and held out to the public
as a place where meals are served and where meals are actually and
regularly served, such place being provided with adequate and sanitary
kitchen and dining room equipment, having employed therein a sufficient
number and kind of employees to prepare, cook and serve suitable food
for its guests. At least one (1) meal per day shall be served at least five(5) days a week, with the exception of holidays, vacations and periods of redecorating, and the serving of such meals shall be the principal
business conducted.
SECTION 2. This act shall take effect on June 1, 2009, the public welfare
requiring it.
PASSED: May 14, 2009

This is one of the "vague" parts of the law.

The laws in this state are some of the most screwed up I've seen in all my years of policing. Its not just gun laws its across the board, guns, criminal, taxes, alcohol etc...

Since I moved here and began policing its been a struggle to at times comprehend some of the ridiculous ramblings and obvious twisting and torturing of the english language that has passed as law in this state.

Couple that with the overt and very brazenly incorrect application of these same laws day in and day out by local and state LE.

Such as the one instance I pointed out recently where a police department used the state Disorderly Conduct Law to arrest a HCP holder for simply being "spotted" by people who reacted hysterically and call 911 leading the dispatcher to believe someone was wandering around Wal mart with a belt fed bazooka or something...

This state has alot of problems in many areas but the gun laws are one of the worst. If I didn't know better I'd swear we were in Wisconsin, Michigan or some other hybrid liberal union...

Just look at the disaster of the parks carry bill and the opt out provision. The guns in bars bill is just as messed up.

Its a serious problem that needs to be addressed on so many levels not just gun laws, but laws in many categories.

I stand corrected. Missed the 4 day thing. However, they can't serve food only 4 days and alcohol can they? They would cease to be a restaurant and a become a bar.

This place is mainly food, been around for years selling great BBQ and just recently began serving beer. The 5 day thing is just one of silly parts of the TN law.

Wish they would "re-work" some of these laws and dump the opt-out's.

Originally Posted by Smith

I stand corrected. Missed the 4 day thing. However, they can't serve food only 4 days and alcohol can they? They would cease to be a restaurant and a become a bar.

To get a license from the state to serve liquor they only have to be open 4 days a week. To get a license form the city/county to sell beer there is no state level mandated amount of days to be open.

But I really wanted this thread to be about if 39-17-1305 is ruled vague or even the fact that is being considered to be vague...then isn't 39-17-1359 vague for sure.