A good thing from the Restaurant carry lawsuit?

Clearly, there is intent on the part of the Legislature for Owners of restaurants to at least have the potential to be responsible for safety of their patrons, else why would they give the right in statute form for the Owner to carry, or assign an employee to carry, where otherwise it is restricted?

Notice also, there is no stated requirement for training of the Owner, or their employee, nor any mention of needing to undergo a background check, for the ability to go armed in a venue that serves alcohol.


TCA 39-17-1305. Possession of firearm where alcoholic beverages are served.

(a) It is an offense for a person to possess a firearm within the confines of a building open to the public where liquor, wine or other alcoholic beverages, as defined in § 57-3-101(a)(1)(A), or beer, as defined in § 57-6-102(1), are served for on premises consumption.
(b) A violation of this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(c) The provisions of subsection (a) shall not apply to a person who is:
(1) In the actual discharge of official duties as a law enforcement officer, or is employed in the army, air force, navy, coast guard or marine service of the United States or any member of the Tennessee national guard in the line of duty and pursuant to military regulations, or is in the actual discharge of duties as a correctional officer employed by a penal institution; or
(2) On the person's own premises or premises under the person's control or who is the employee or agent of the owner of the premises with responsibility for protecting persons or property.

Originally Posted by Fallguy

No, I don't think it will stop the lawsuit....and that's not what I am really talking about with all of this.

I just think this situation could help change the law on liability, which would be a good thing overall I believe.

....and why are you against a law that would relieve a property owner (not just restaurants) of liability because you shot at a bad guy and maybe hit an innocent bystander? Is it really the property owner's fault the innocent got hit just because the allowed you to carry in there?

Granted I don't think they property owner is liable as it is now, but that doesn't stop them from being in the lawsuit...and as it stands now, they have no specific protection under any statute.

However as I said, the flip side is, if it is clear the property owner has no liability for your actions and he still chooses to post, then yes, I think he should be liable if something happens to you and you may have otherwise been able to prevent it had he not caused you to disarm.

Perhaps I wasn't being clear? I don't think if liability is taken off the table it will change anything. It's a straw man argument and if it goes away, they'll just move on to some other perceived fear to object over. Liability is just the flavor of the day.

I also don't think they should be relieved from liability because a) I'm vengeful about them acting like asshats and b) If I have to defend myself in a bar, it's probably because they let (or encouraged) the other guy to get that drunk that he became a problem. They should be totally liable for that and deserve to get their asses sued off, just like they do when they allow people to get that intoxicated and then get behind the wheel of a car. They should be held accountable for being free and easy with the booze just to make a buck. They've been getting a free pass on that for far to long.

Originally Posted by HexHead

Perhaps I wasn't being clear? I don't think if liability is taken off the table it will change anything. It's a straw man argument and if it goes away, they'll just move on to some other perceived fear to object over. Liability is just the flavor of the day.

I also don't think they should be relieved from liability because a) I'm vengeful about them acting like asshats and b) If I have to defend myself in a bar, it's probably because they let (or encouraged) the other guy to get that drunk that he became a problem. They should be totally liable for that and deserve to get their asses sued off, just like they do when they allow people to get that intoxicated and then get behind the wheel of a car. They should be held accountable for being free and easy with the booze just to make a buck. They've been getting a free pass on that for far to long.

Maybe I am not clear...I am not talking about just restaurants and bars.

Why are so hung up on bars and restaurants?

I am talking about grocery stores, hardware stores, banks or any other private property open to the public.

Yes, some property owners may come up with another argument. But I do think there are some that post just because of the perceived liability on their part of allowing armed individuals on their property. If the liability was clearly removed, I think some property owners would not post.

Originally Posted by Fallguy

Maybe I am not clear...I am not talking about just restaurants and bars.

Why are so hung up on bars and restaurants?

I am talking about grocery stores, hardware stores, banks or any other private property open to the public.

Yes, some property owners may come up with another argument. But I do think there are some that post just because of the perceived liability on their part of allowing armed individuals on their property. If the liability was clearly removed, I think some property owners would not post.

Because THEY'RE the ones causing all the trouble! What grocery stores, banks etc are posted? I very rarely see a posted sign, other than a couple of malls that have had gang problems.

I don't think that the liability is an issue. There are just some people that don't like guns and think only the police should have them. It's really just that simple.