Fallguy

This thread closed....

AFAIK it has always been shall not have been convicted of 2 or more DUIs in the last 10 years and that none of them have been in the last 5.

I have to agree.....a bill allowing carry in places that serve liquor by the drink is pretty much the same as the one that was ruled vauge. I mean other than the days of the week they had to be open the definition of a restaurant in 39-17-1305 was the same as what it is to get a restaurant liquor by the drink license. Except the void law would allow carry in places that served beer only if they still met the definition. Why is it ok to carry around liquor, but not beer? As much as the firearms laws are screwed up in TN, the alcohol laws aren't much better...

Points Of Interest when come to GPS.

Sounds good

Best Wishes....

Just because you have medical training and/or a license from the state doesn't mean you have a duty to act in every case. The EMT Spot What Is The Duty To Act?

The short answer is no...other than the morally part is up to you.

It is looking like Sen Jackson would not even introduce a simple exemption bill, so then that brings up the question...would anyone else be willing to introduce such a bill? If so would Jackson still introduce his? If two bills are introduced I feel the clean bill may not get much traction, because in comparison it would be considered more radical and Jackson may have better contacts. So I think if we can't convince Sen Jackson to introduce a simple exemption bill, it may be over before it begins. Has anyone talked with Rep Todd about any of this?

The final bill was less restrictive than what was introduced. The first bill had a curfew and age limit...at least the house version did. Also some of the votes on the whether to send it to conference and to override the veto were more political than how they truly felt about the bill. The final vote alone doesn't tell you who would support a 100% clean bill or not, but it does give you those that were in favor of the old bill and one could contact them to see if they would support a clean bill. I'm not sure Sen Jackson would individual contact each person and most likely for sure not members of the House. I just thought this could be a starting point.

Well written, look forward to his response...

See here.. Bill Votes Bill Votes

One problem though is not every place that serves beer only is a tavern or honky tonk. I know this is a bit selfish, but considering the county I live in doesn't have liquor by the drink and only about one county within an hours drive of me does, I would rather see all or nothing. Because carrying in liquor only places is not going to help me as much. Also I know people can look on on the web to see has a liquor license, but by just looking from the outside, how is a person supposed to know if a place serves liquor or not any more if they knew if the met the definition of a restaurant or not. I under Sen Jackson's reasoning, but I think a liquor only bill would be more of a problem than before.

If this is correct it would appear they have been prohibited. Bristol Exercised Its Right On Gun Ban | TriCities

True enough, but wasn't that basically because their argument about the "dangers of guns alcohol" seemed to be so week they didn't even present it?

I tend to agree.... The law was not challenged (legally) because of the "dangers" of guns and alcohol being in the same place. They (petitioners and judge) said it was too vague. Simply argue that a general exception removes any vagueness and each property owner can still choose whether to post or not. In fact one could say unlike smoking and other things where a property owner has no choice, the state would be giving the power back to the property owner to choose.

Have carried on and off for 16 years and day-to-day for the last 8 or so....nothing exciting to tell.

I think he means that if you are squatted down, it is going to be hard to draw a mag out of your front pocket.

Some use a knife/multi-tool pouch. Easily accessible and doesn't look out of the ordinary.

I agree that 39-17-1314 limits many actions by local government, not just posting, however prior to adding the clause about parks, the general line of thought was that 39-17-1314 didn't prevent local government from posting or prohibiting carry on their property. But now it looks likes it allows them to prohibit carry in parks (and the other recreational properties) only. Since those are the only places listed.

The talk of posting signs got me to thinking about some of the bills passed this last year. As most of us know 39-17-1359 allows property owners (including governments) to post their property. With that in mind part of had wondered why an "opt out" provision was needed in the park carry bill since apparently local governments where already allowed to post their property. I mean even though the now void restaurant carry law made and exception for HCP holders to be able to carry a restaurant could still post. Just like you would have assumed even though the parks carry bill made and exception for HCP holders the owners of the park (city/county) could still have posted. But apparently that wasn't the case or wasn't perceived to be anyway, so along with the park carry bill they amended 39-17-1314 (preemption law) to specifically allow local governments to prohibit carry in parks (and other "recreational properties" listed). BUT....after reading it a bit closer, it appears one could almost make the argument that those are the only places a local government can post. See below. My point being that now it seems that 39-17-1314 is saying that those places listed are the only places that a local government can prohibit the carry of firearms. If not then why give specific permission to be able to prohibit carry in those places? Now I admit I doubt any court would rule that way, but.....

While I feel any place shouldn't be able to post....why/how single out restaurants as the only property owners that can't post?

Thread locked and post will be reviewed for any possiable CoC violations.

I understand it was your wife....not you... But overall asking someone at a place if it is ok to carry there is like asking them if it is ok to call them an a$$hole. Even though it is legal, they would tell you it's not ok to do it. The big difference is, once they have directlly communicated to you they do not want you to carry there, then you legally can't, even if they don't have a sign. If you are unsure whether a place is off-limits by law or now, check another source other than someone at that place, or just don't carry there....but asking them is usually not a good idea.