Falcon1

IANAL, so take this for what it is. I just looked up AG Opinions, and I fear The Tennessean may be correct, or at least have precedent to back up what they are saying. The only place I saw anything about forty days in an AG opinion was in a footnote to AG 08-167, which did deal with a situation where a law was approved by the governor after the date listed in the legislation. So, the AG said, the law took effect forty days after the governor signed it according to Sections 18 and 20 of Article II of the Tennessee Constitution. I looked at those sections and also at Article III, Section 18, dealing with vetoes and overrides, and I found no exception to the forty-day provision for overrides. Again, IANAL, but we may be waiting forty days, ladies and gentlemen. :-\ I've posted this over at TFAOnline, and the executive director there is a constitutional lawyer. I'll update here when I hear something more definitive.

No, I think the governor has that shtick pretty much locked up....

Assuming you're speaking about the House, I think we're okay. He slammed the door pretty hard on the "filibustering" tactics of the bill's opponents when the question was put. He allowed Mr. Naifeh and another gentleman from Memphis to have their say, then said, "Look, we all know what is in this bill, and no one is going to change another's mind. We're voting on it, now" or words to that effect.

Good point!

I think both Speakers must sign it first, but that shouldn't take too long.

Yes, it picked up three votes over the vote for the Senate version of the conference report (which was 66-27, IIRC). I'll be curious to see who the three "extra" votes were. Of course, others could have switched their votes back and forth too, but we did pick up three in total. I think some may have been miffed that Bredesen didn't let Rep. Todd know he was going to veto the bill before he did so; I understand that has been common courtesy in the past. Is this the first time a governor did not do so? I find that hard to believe, but wouldn't it be interesting if it were the first time.... Some others may have been annoyed at what could have been conceived as "grandstanding"--vetoing when he knew there were more than enough votes to override (essentially an "up yours" to the legislature), and especially when he had been elected under a pledge to the NRA (and thus garnering their endorsement) that he would support exactly this legislation if it were presented to him. Either way, the Governor had better hope that appointment in the Obama administration comes through...I think he may have burned a few too many bridges with this veto here in this state. Tennesseans tend to like for their politicians to "walk the talk." Perhaps someone originally from New Jersey wouldn't know that?

Uhhh...Seecamp?

With apologies to Mrs. Robinson.... I just went back in my mind to something which was voiced in our esteemed former Speaker's speech before the vote. "The restaurant association doesn't want to choose between two sets of customers...." That is a large part of it, in a nutshell. For years, restaurateurs have had legal cover to say to HCP holders, "Hey, folks, not my fault...it is against the law." Now, they will have to put their money where their mouths are, so to speak. They can post, but that will lose business for them, and they know it. I suspect many will not post (we'll see); then, when nothing dangerous happens in those places and their business prospers, those who did post will see how much business they are losing and come around. Not posting is really the best way to preserve business, and may even bring more business in. I've eaten mostly at Shoney's and Cracker Barrel for years, since they don't serve alcohol.

Since most criminals take great pains not to commit crimes right in front of a law enforcement officer, Chief Serpas must be spending one heckuvalot time in bars.

Jackson is talking about the House override now. It will be on the Senate calendar tomorrow if he gets his way. It sounds like he got his way. It should be in the Senate tomorrow.

The Senate is still in session. Can they do this today?

69-27 overridden.

Perhaps making certain the Senate cannot get it today? Have they already adjourned?

Mr. Naifeh is saying, "Listen to the special-interest contributors, not the people." ETA: Of course the special interests do not have to make the choice...they want to keep their money, and Mr. Naifeh wants to keep his campaign contributions. Canard now, the carriers will drink.

Interesting. Mr. Naifeh is on the conference committee for judges' carry....

Yes, I think he may be annoyed that this is taking so long. I'd be curious to know if all of the people who are "passionately discussing" all of the other bills voted against HB0962 to begin with, and are going sooooo slooooooow on purpose.

I definitely understand what you are saying. But now, there may be three-day restaurants serving liquor which weren't allowed before under TCA, and we cannot carry there under the terms of HB0962. I know we can check the hours of operation on the front of each restaurant, but it is now another (perhaps minor) annoyance. I'll take what we get (I hope we get it), but it's still a bit of a pain.

That is my concern. Now, cover has just been given to three-day restaurants (which if I understand the debate were not allowed before under TCA) to operate, which means there are now potentially difficult-to-recognize places which will not be legal to carry under the provisions of HB0962.

My Firefox is fine with it--when did you last update?

How would HB0147 Amendment 2 affect five days in HB0962? So know, there may be places which won't be open five days a week (three instead), but serve alcohol? How do we know which is which?

All I can hope is that this order is the way Representative Todd lined up support to override--"You let us discuss my bill first, and I'll support your override." Interesting that the number of amendments to discuss on this bill keep growing, and growing, and growing, and....

My guess would be, "Not much." But of course that is just one opinion, worth what you paid for it.

If anyone wants to look, this thread is running at TFA Online, titled "What Is a Lobbyist": Tennessee Firearms Assoc. Inc. • View topic - What is a lobbyist? If John Harris is correct (IANAL, but he is), his activities for TFA do not fall under the requirement to register as a lobbyist in Tennessee. I am both an NRA member and a TFA member. By all means, join one or the other, or both, or neither (but if neither, then please join SAF, GOA, JPFO, or whichever other one fits your needs).