Challenge "Guns-in-bars" Law: Nashville attorneys David Randolph Smith & Adam Dread

Originally Posted by thorn

Didn't see this posted yet

Nashville - Nashville Scene - Bites - Egerton Joins Rayburn in Taking Up Arms Against Guns in Bars; Hearing Re-scheduled for July 13

What dog does this idiot have in the fight?

Maybe a bunch of us should show up for the hearing wearing empty holsters so we're not confused with Rayburn supporters?

Originally Posted by Doc44

Hearing rescheduled for the 13th of July... if the judge takes it under advisment and renders judgement at a later date, will the law go into effect on the 14th?

ITS ALL ABOUT MONEY.

Doc44

It would appear so, unless she issues a temporary injunction pending a decision.

And I've been saying that all along.

They are going to try to legislate it out from the bench. A page right out of the liberal handbook. If it works watch how quickly other buisness line up to file against all HCP holders.

It still amazes me how liberal judges can legislate from the bench and effectively undo what House/Senate committees and constituents have asked for. I mean, by this logic, why couldn't someone sue to eliminate the HCP, taxes, speed limits, hunting laws or any other law? Maybe we should sue to eliminate their ability to post a location...


However, I do not want to judge this judge prematurely. She may in fact uphold the law and dismiss this frivolous attempt to circumvent the system. I agree that an injunction is very possible, but I hope she will see through their stupidly. I think she is a smart lady that will side with us and the legislature.

Originally Posted by thorn

Didn't see this posted yet

Nashville - Nashville Scene - Bites - Egerton Joins Rayburn in Taking Up Arms Against Guns in Bars; Hearing Re-scheduled for July 13

As you no doubt know, the Tennessee General Assembly recently passed a law allowing individuals with gun permits (about 225,000 state residents) to eat (but not drink) while armed in any public restaurant or bar unless the establishment owner prominently posts a sign barring guns. The responsibility for monitoring who can legally enter and who cannot, who is armed and who is not, who can be served alcohol and who cannot, who needs police protection and who does not, rests entirely on the shoulders of the restaurant/bar owner.

Again, what some restaurant owners are concern about is their liability for allowing or not allowing HCP holders in the very rare shooting event from an HCP holder or the more likely event of a non-HCP holder shooting.

If wording were added to the law to remove the restaurant owners’ liability from allowing or disallowing firearms at their establishment, this email would be irrelevant.

Originally Posted by threeshot

Again, what some restaurant owners are concern about is their liability for allowing or not allowing HCP holders in the very rare shooting event from an HCP holder or the more likely event of a non-HCP holder shooting.

If wording were added to the law to remove the restaurant owners’ liability from allowing or disallowing firearms at their establishment, this email would be irrelevant.

The other side of the coin would be that it would that much easier to post as the restaurant is removed of any responsibility for security.

I don't get it why the restaurant would be liable for allowing a state law to be in effect on their property. The state allows it by law should be their defense if needed.


Seems like if they were so concerned about liabilty they would be cutting everyone's food into tiny little bits and demanding everyone chews each bite 50 times. The liability issue seems like a made-up excuse to me. Why not ban all cars from the parking lot - after all, they can't ensure that all drivers are prperly licensed and tags are current. Or, no cell phones in the parking lot - someone might text while driving!

Bunch of loons, they are.

Originally Posted by Batman

I don't get it why the restaurant would be liable for allowing a state law to be in effect on their property. The state allows it by law should be their defense if needed.
....

Follow the money. The fear is lawsuit(s) and higher insurance premiums if the restaurant owners start filing claims with their insurance company to defend them from the lawsuits.

The some restaurant owners believe they are damned if they post due to they will be sued if someone was unable to protect themselves from a deadly encounter. They also feel damned if they do not post and the very rare, if nonexistent HCP shooting occurs or sued by patrons if a non-HCP shooting injures someone because the restaurant "allowed" guns. Even if the lawsuit get’s thrown-out, it still cost somebody money to defend the restaurant from the lawsuit.

Originally Posted by threeshot

Follow the money. The fear is lawsuit(s) and higher insurance premiums if the restaurant owners start filing claims with their insurance company to defend them from the lawsuits.

The some restaurant owners believe they are damned if they post due to they will be sued if someone was unable to protect themselves from a deadly encounter. They also feel damned if they do not post and the very rare, if nonexistent HCP shooting occurs or sued by patrons if a non-HCP shooting injures someone because the restaurant "allowed" guns. Even if the lawsuit get’s thrown-out, it still cost somebody money to defend the restaurant from the lawsuit.

That's true, and I see your point. I just think that a restaurant has many more, actual liabilty issues lurking around every corner. Choking, falls, alcohol abuse, drinking alcohol while on prescription meds, parking lot issues, etc...

If this suit is successful, and the law is crushed before it ever gets started, will these plaintiffs be liable? Say on July 15, someone gets robbed/shot at the whatever restaurant that would have allowed carry. Would the plaintiffs of this lawsuit be liable for preventing a law that was overwhelmigly passed by the legislature from taking effect? Seems like at some point there are just inherent risks that must be tolerated, otherwise the liability is endless.

Originally Posted by Batman

I don't get it why the restaurant would be liable for allowing a state law to be in effect on their property. The state allows it by law should be their defense if needed.


Seems like if they were so concerned about liabilty they would be cutting everyone's food into tiny little bits and demanding everyone chews each bite 50 times. The liability issue seems like a made-up excuse to me. Why not ban all cars from the parking lot - after all, they can't ensure that all drivers are prperly licensed and tags are current. Or, no cell phones in the parking lot - someone might text while driving!

Bunch of loons, they are.

The liability issue is a straw man argument.