Well, here we go again, Round Two...

Guns in bars case to be heard Nov. 6, attorney says
Published on September 17, 2009 in LOCAL and STATE.

A Davidson County judge will start hearing the guns-in-bars lawsuit on Nov. 6 at 9 a.m., attorney Will Cheek writes on his blog. Cheek is one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs who are trying to overturn a new state law. The law allows handgun carry permit holders to take their firearms into restaurants and bars unless the owners ban them on their premises.

Who's this Will Cheek guy? For starters, he was one of the Obama "super delegates"...

Will Cheek – Obama delegate – A former state party chairman, the Nashville investor is from one of Nashville's oldest families – the ones who put the "Cheek" in Cheekwood, the Belle Meade estate that hosts the Swan Ball and is the home of a museum and botanical garden. What you may not have known is that Cheek's family also brewed a helluva a cup of coffee. Cheek's ancestor, Leon T. Cheek, was one of the two founders of the Nashville Coffee and Manufacturing Company, makers of Maxwell House coffee.

And some more about him...

Bone McAllester Norton PLLC - News - Bone McAllester Norton Recruits Liquor Licensing Attorney Will Cheek

Looks like it's not just that idiot Dread anymore, they're bringing in the "big gun"...

He primarily represents national alcoholic beverage specialists in Tennessee licensing work.

His clients include national brands such as Marriott, Hilton and the Brinker Group, parent company of Chili's restaurants. Local clients include F. Scott's and Mambu.

Let's hope the AG doesn't just send his lackey again this time.

Bone McAllister is also Al Gore and the TN Democrat Parties lawyers. They made a ton of money on the 2001 election, which coincidently is the same year their business took off. While very nice, down to earth guys (Charles Bone and Sam McAllister), I wish their law practice would go the way of the Dodo bird.

Originally Posted by Smith

Bone McAllister is also Al Gore and the TN Democrat Parties lawyers. They made a ton of money on the 2001 election, which coincidently is the same year their business took off. While very nice, down to earth guys (Charles Bone and Sam McAllister), I wish their law practice would go the way of the Dodo bird.

Sounds to me like this is a ploy to try an influence the Chancellor with some political pressure that Dread and Smith couldn't muster.

well wheres the NRA when ya need'em????????

Originally Posted by GLOCKMEISTER

well wheres the NRA when ya need'em????????

I'd love to know what our legislators have in mind should Bonneyman rule against the law? Do they still have the will to do it all over again?

Can someone explain the argument they are going to use to try and overturn the law? I don't get it as owners can choose to ban guns on their premises if they so choose...

Originally Posted by crotalus01

Can someone explain the argument they are going to use to try and overturn the law? I don't get it as owners can choose to ban guns on their premises if they so choose...

I'm not the smartest guy in the world but this is why I can't see this going anywhere.

Originally Posted by -boatman-

I'm not the smartest guy in the world but this is why I can't see this going anywhere.

You have to understand who Bonneyman is, in order to understand that she could very well overturn this law. She has been and is a very ardent liberal activist (that is not the same as an activist judge). Her husband is the guy who, in spite of the fact that TennCare is broke, keeps going to court to fight against any decrease in benefits or removal from any of the roles.
Unfortunately, the Bonneymans are good friends of my parents (my parents are what I refer to as limosine liberals- they support all the poor, downtrodden and disenfranchised, while trying to live as far away from them as possible). They do all kinds of left-wing rallys and events together. Guess what, sometimes family gatherings can get a little heated, to say the very least.
Anyway, back to my point. Bonneyman's core belief system will definitely lean her to side with the anti-gunners, if they can give her any reasonable arguement that won't get her overturned by the appelate courts. It's just her nature. That makes an overturn of the law a very real possibility. It was obvious to me, when I saw that this case was going before her, that the plaintiffs shopped court to get in the one that would give them their best shot.

They are going to use all the shootings by permit holders in restaurants and bars........oh wait.

Originally Posted by crotalus01

Can someone explain the argument they are going to use to try and overturn the law? I don't get it as owners can choose to ban guns on their premises if they so choose...

Their arguments is the law is to vauge to be understood and/or enforced.

They contend that the average HCP holder can not know if a place meets all the qualifications to be deemed a restaurant per the law. Such as if it is open 5 days a week, if it's primary purpose is serving meals, if they have enough sitting capaicty, a kitchen and so on.

My suggestion is to simply repeal 39-17-1305 or not limit carry to restaurants, but allow it in all places that serve alcohol, unless they post. That would take care of that.