Jump to content

Restaurant Carry Law ruled Void!


Recommended Posts

Probably others have said this, I know I did back in the summer. The solution to the ruled "confusion" is simple. Post on all entrance doors one of two signs, either "THIS IS A LICENSED BAR" or "THIS IS A LICENSED RESTAURANT".

The rub comes when one looks at the license of an establishment and their qualifying requirements. There are many bars that are operating under the licnese of a restaurant and they do not meet the requrements necessary to be categorized as restaurant. The owners do not want to go through the expense to become a legal restaurant and probably some of these illegal restaurants are in locations where zoning does not allow a "bar". Its all about money not public safety.

Peanuts and microwaved hot wings do not a restaurant make.

I cannot yet see how the carry law infringes on anyone's constitutional rights. If "vague" is the problem...PUT UP A SIGN.

Doc44

Edited by Doc44
Link to post
  • Replies 303
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Its all about money not public safety.

BINGO!!! Give this man a cigar. :P

I wanted to :dirty: when I read that lying POS attorney Smith say he was doing this "to support the 2nd Amendment" and to keep HCP holders from mistakingly enter a prohibited location.

Link to post
BINGO!!! Give this man a cigar. :P

I wanted to :dirty: when I read that lying POS attorney Smith say he was doing this "to support the 2nd Amendment" and to keep HCP holders from mistakingly enter a prohibited location.

Me too and I probably need to apoligize to his mother 'cause I spoke badly about her.

Doc44

Link to post
  • Administrator
He emailed me yesterday and said he'd be filing legislation on Monday (23rd) that will include a very clear and concise defining a restaurant. I'm anxious to see the wording.

Did you run your idea of boycotting all restaurants that serve alcohol past him? I'm surprised he didn't rush to turn that into legislation also.

Link to post
What... it's a great idea. :screwy:

Funny, I was thinking this morning about suggesting that it be made that restaurants can't post, and let the business owners decide if they're a bar or not. No guns in bars, but they'd be treated as bars and not restaurants. Nobody under 21 should probably be in a bar. Certainly not children.

Solves all the problems. State doesn't have to decide what they are, the business owner just pays for either a restaurant license or a bar license. Then they can be classified as a bar and have to post a sign stating they are a bar. Won't need a "no guns" sign to scare the tourists. And eliminates any "vagueness" as to what they are.

Link to post
Funny, I was thinking this morning about suggesting that it be made that restaurants can't post, and let the business owners decide if they're a bar or not. No guns in bars, but they'd be treated as bars and not restaurants. Nobody under 21 should probably be in a bar. Certainly not children.

Solves all the problems. State doesn't have to decide what they are, the business owner just pays for either a restaurant license or a bar license. Then they can be classified as a bar and have to post a sign stating they are a bar. Won't need a "no guns" sign to scare the tourists. And eliminates any "vagueness" as to what they are.

No, the best idea would to remove carry restrictions on where alcohol is served period! Plus, not allow them to post either. There are tons of places that are not "bars", but are not restaurants either...like any banquet hall! The issue is, if a permit holder is going to break the law and drink while carrying, they can do it just as well at a restaurant as a bar. So is the restriction really going to help since it's on the honor system anyway????

Matthew

Link to post
  • Administrator
Funny, I was thinking this morning about suggesting that it be made that restaurants can't post, and let the business owners decide if they're a bar or not. No guns in bars, but they'd be treated as bars and not restaurants. Nobody under 21 should probably be in a bar. Certainly not children.

Solves all the problems. State doesn't have to decide what they are, the business owner just pays for either a restaurant license or a bar license. Then they can be classified as a bar and have to post a sign stating they are a bar. Won't need a "no guns" sign to scare the tourists. And eliminates any "vagueness" as to what they are.

This system has worked quite well in Kentucky for the past 16 or so years.

Link to post
I don't know if anyone's mentioned this yet but if the law was vauge and there's no clear distinction from a restaurant and a bar, seems to me no one under 21 should be allowed in ANY establishment that serves alcohol. I have never been to Chucky Cheese but I've heard they sell beer to adults. They should enforce the 21 year old age limit to include any place that serves any alcohol including restaurants, pizza joints, bowling alleys etc.

Absolutely, I agree!

Link to post

I have read a lot on this forum but haven't posted much, so far. However, this topic has me really angry so this is a long one.

First, we have to pay for a permit to excercise a right. I could see having training requirements for public safety reasons, maybe. I could see requiring a permit to carry concealed as the argument could be made that there is no express right to concealed arms. Open carry, however, should be 100% legal with no permit in any location that doesn't post otherwise. There should certainly be no requirement for a permit to have a loaded firearm in one's vehicle. The fact that a permit is required to carry in any manner, even in one's own, personal vehicle, tells me that TN is not nearly as 2A friendly as we would like to believe. Fact is, I suspect that we have been invaded by too many anti-gunner hippie wannabes from other states to retain what many native Southerners think is the attitude of this state toward self defense (such as our governor who is a product of New Jersey and New York - surely we can find a Tennesseean who can run the danged state without outsourcing from Liberalville, USA.)

Secondly, after we pay for the permit so as to be legal, law-abiding citizens, we get this list of places we still aren't allowed to carry. Being concerned enough about obeying the law to get a permit in the first place isn't good enough. Background and criminal record checks by law enforcement agencies (including the state's top LEA, the TBI) aren't good enough - we are still treated like criminals-in-waiting and loose cannons who can't be 'trusted' to carry in a whole, laundry list of places. One starts to wonder why one even bothered getting the permit instead of just carrying without one in the first place and carrying wherever in the heck one pleases (as long as there are not metal detectors, etc.) I am not advocating that opinion, simply saying that there is a certain amount of validity to it.

Finally, we work within the system in the legal manner, vote for legislators we believe will support our rights, contact our legislators in support of specific laws and, eventually, see those laws passed. Then one, lone, pissant Chancellor comes along as says, "Nope. I'm not going to allow you to excercise your rights no matter how much you tried to do things the right way." I mean, the friggin' Governor didn't have the authority to single-handedly stop this law (he tried) but one Chancellor for one, small part of the state has that authority? It sounds like that is a law that needs to be re-written.

As for boycotting all restaurants that serve alchohol, I am concerned that would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. After all, there are many small, mom and pop restaurants (some Chinese, some Mexican, some serving other 'ethnic' foods and some good, ol' American food places) that offer beer as a beverage choice on their menus. These places have no 'bar' area, do not serve mixed drinks or wine and don't even make that big a deal about having beer. These places also have zero clout to 'put pressure' on the bigger establishments that are making the real profits off of booze in TN. They are also the places where I feel the law prohibiting carry is the most ridiculous and, to be truthful, the reason the prohibition even concerns me as there are so few places that don't at least serve beer. I could go from now on without ever setting foot in TGI O'Applechili's again. Their food sucks, anyhow, and reminds me of an over-priced TV dinner. However, I cannot limit my dining out to fast food, Shoney's and Cracker Barrel (let's be honest - most of their food isn't even as good as the 'casual dining' joints.) There are a few, family owned places around that have good food and don't serve alchohol. Problem is that my work schedule often means that they are closed by the time I am ready to eat dinner. I also cannot justify punishing the little guy for the sins of the larger, more powerful establishments over which the little guy can have no influence in the first place. These mom and pop places are the ones that would be more likely to be impacted - perhaps even forced out of business - by a boycott. I believe that getting rid of the restaurants that actually have good food would just be cutting off our own noses to spite our faces - and would have the unintended consequence of taking out some of the competition for the establishments that actually are to blame for this situation.

Honestly, I would like to see a law that would allow HCP holders to carry everywhere, period. Every restriction on where we can carry simply makes the permit a bit more 'useless', anyhow. However, living in the world in which we live, I would be happy to see a law that would allow us to carry in restaurants that only serve beer. Then I could still legally carry while patronizing many restaurants that actually have good food while not eating at those that serve stronger spirits - which are the places more likely to blame for this fiasco, anyhow (yes, there are some mom and pops that serve mixed drinks but they aren't the majority).

Edited by JAB
Link to post
Guest H0TSH0T

I agree with many of the points made here, I don't think that guns are the problem, simply put i feel that stupid people are the problem, we continue to make laws and follow laws made by stupid people, or laws that were originally designed to protect stupid people and in a few rare cases laws to prevent stupid people from hurting random innocent people. I will give some examples, drunk driving laws: we have made many laws regarding how when and where you can buy, drink, and transport alcohol, we have made laws to try to keep drunks from getting into a vehicle and killing or hurting random people while they are not completely of competent state to operate said vehicle, we have made laws to to generate wealth for the sole enforcement of laws, like speeding, or driving to slow, to subsidize loss of revenue through taxes. we have made laws to try to control morality, or lack of. we have made laws and rules that are basically made out of hate to hurt other people at times. I could right a book but i am going to make my point.

the law doesn't protect anyone, no matter what law you make, and no matter how well intended the motives are, someone at sometime somewhere somehow will break it, not follow it, or simply ignore it. Now we all know this.... but I think a lot of people have not searched for the true source of the problem and try to come to some well thought of fair reasonable and responsible solution to ether correct it or prevent it or both or if no solution is available to ignore it, or tolerate it until there is a solution.

so how do you prevent stupidity, education? testing? evaluating? legislating?

how do you prevent the perception of ugliness? Isn't that the true reason behind why a person i a raciest?

How do you inspire people to do the right thing over the wrong thing?

How do you instill faith in a person?

There is no simple answer, and if their were on i am sure that someone would be stupid enough to make a law against that to.

But with all of our knowledge, and understanding, why do we continue to do the wrong thing by not understanding what it is the root of the problem, and squander our resources and time in the guise of enlightenment via rule of mankind. I think we still have a lot to learn from nature and the natural world, we need to be honest with our selves and realize every step away from our natural rights is another step towards slavery of sorts. (a means of defense from predators is a natural right as well as the defense of your kind is a natural right. Thus a right to bare arms.)

A law made to render a person defenseless and unprotected should only be practiced those who made it in the first place and should never be practiced by those intended to be controlled out of fear of the uneducated , unenlightened or stupid people to do so would be crazy and would only guarantee the demise of the human species at the same rate with nothing significant to pass on genetically or intellectually, our existence depends on resistance.

Link to post

The state would be smart by making those with permits an exempt group, just like they did with off duty LEO's as far as carrying in establishments that serve alcohol. A good clean exemption would be great. It should not matter whether I am in a 'bar' or 'restaurant' and I should not have to know the difference if i am not intoxicated (well in TN not drinking at all). What does it matter where I carry my gun after spending the time and money to get the permit? Some states require less and let those with licenses/permits carry pretty much anywhere.

Link to post
The state would be smart by making those with permits an exempt group, just like they did with off duty LEO's as far as carrying in establishments that serve alcohol. A good clean exemption would be great. It should not matter whether I am in a 'bar' or 'restaurant' and I should not have to know the difference if i am not intoxicated (well in TN not drinking at all). What does it matter where I carry my gun after spending the time and money to get the permit? Some states require less and let those with licenses/permits carry pretty much anywhere.

I'll go a step further and say that the law should be written so that it treats restaurants that serve alchohol, bars, etc. in exactly the same manner as all other businesses in TN. Why should there be a 'special class' of businesses? For the most part, the owners/managers of every other business in this state (including restaurants that don't serve alchohol) must decide whether or not to post a sign prohibiting legal carry on their premises, so why treat these few businesses any differently? Also, it is already illegal to carry a firearm in public without a permit - whether you are in Walmart or Applebee's - so why do we need a seperate law for a few businesses when it is not any more 'illegal' to carry there without a permit than anywhere else? My solution - do away with the parts of the law which deal specifically with businesses that serve alchohol and simply have a blanket law that covers all businesses equally and allows business owners (whether they own a bar or a flourist shop) to post if they so choose.

Link to post

Gail Kerr in the sunday paper made a statement about the big sigh of releif across the state after the overturning of the "GUNS IN BARS" law.A ststement that she made that caught my attention was "nothing says family friendly vacation like a sign assuring Mom that no shots would be fired while Junior eats his chicken fingers".So I guess that there are no worries about armed robberies,random violence,and the stray gang banger looking for some real street cred. Humans are a violent life form,there is no way that one can prevent others from becoming violent and engaging in violent acts.All one can do is try and be prepared for when violence is directed towards them. The police in this country are not tasked with protecting anyone.The job is more like a reporter arriving after the action is over and taking reports. I guess her decision to be an ostrich with its head in the sand is the position that we should all adhere to. We all know that people intent on committing criminal acts will not be deterred by any law of any type.One should be willing,and able to defend ones self if a situation arises.So applaud the fact that law abiding citizens are now prevented from self protection in the event a violent act were to occur. Most people rely on information from biased sources,such as the Tenneessean and local television reports.The motto of most TV news stations is "IF IT BLEEDS IT LEADS" Please dont even think that they would exagerrate the trivial to make the headline more lurid.Perhaps they should devote as much coverage to a case of the average citizen defending oneself from an armed attack as they do one crazed person wanting to right wahtever imaginary wrongs they feel were done to them. I would really like to see week long coverage of an armed citizen that defened themselves against a multi -convicted violent felon out on parole.

  • Location: here

Link to post

Signs should have no legal meaning in this state....After paying the money for a permit, why should I risk being fined over a stupid sign (I do know no one seems to have had problems with this...but out of principal it is wrong). The sign should only apply to those WITHOUT a permit.

The same thing goes for places that serve alcohol and schools.......punish those without permits......not those with a permit. If that part of the law was cleaned up....schools, signs, and places that serve alcohol (whether it be a sports stadium, restaurant/bar, or special event), Tennessee would be pretty good for those with permits. Also allow bow hunters to carry a handgun if you have the permit.

You should not be subject to fines/jail when you HAVE the stupid permit! Alabama, New Hampshire, and Oregon have it right.

Link to post

You should not be subject to fines/jail when you HAVE the stupid permit! Alabama, New Hampshire, and Oregon have it right.

Okay, I can understand Alabama getting it right, but when liberal paradises like NH and OR can get it right and we can't something's really wrong.

Link to post

After all these posts, I still don't understand where this judge came up with this ruling, saying some wording is unconstitutionally vague. Just about every gun law on the books is "unconstitutionally vague", since they are almost all breaking the letter of what the 2nd Amendment says. I thought the right to keep(own) and bear(carry) arms was to keep tyranny and criminal activity in check. Open or concealed carry shouldn't matter, either. I also thought it was the criminals who were the problem, not me. The whole idea of allowing me to carry only in one place and not in another is absurd, with the exception of a courtroom. I don't really understand why I can't carry my weapon in some police dept. , if I'm not a criminal. If I drink alcohol I'm not going to have a gun on me, with the exception of being at home. Stupid people end up being criminals by their behaviour in public. Being personally accountable for my actions is part of justice. Not being a lawyer, I don't know the legal definition of mental incapacity, but until I reach it, shouldn't I be able to carry my weapon just about anywhere for my own defense or possibly others?

Link to post
After all these posts, I still don't understand where this judge came up with this ruling, saying some wording is unconstitutionally vague.

Let me 'Splain this to ya. The best characterization I've seen of Bonneyman is that "she leans so far to the left, she needs to carry two horseshoes in her right pocket to walk straight."

She's a liberal activist "judge" and the plaintiffs got exactly who they wanted on the bench. She signaled her intentions in the first hearing by declaring the constitutional issue "had merit" and she wanted to hear it. Of course she used as much ambiguity as possible in her decision, since it's indefensible. Her use of the term "vague' is ironic, since her reasoning in the verdict was equally vague.

The AG is showing his anti-gun colors by his failure to even file an appeal.

Somebody should have kissed us first, 'cause we been f*cked, guys.

Link to post

Had a brief but interesting conversation with a TN legislator today. He believes there is quite enough support to fix this in the next session - that shouldn't be a problem. Under current consideration appears to be a blanket carry allowance for HCP holders in all eating establishments whether they serve alcohol or not, with no provision for a posting to disallow. This solves a myriad of issues brought up in the lawsuit:

Vagueness - there is no longer a need to know whether it is a bar or a restaurant (addressing the specific objection in the judges opinion), and it heads off another point of "vagueness" that could be ripe for challenge: knowing whether an establishment serves alcohol or not, which is not always immediately discernable from the exterior.

Posting-related hostility - since restaurant owners do not want to be held accountable for their own decision whether to allow carry or not, and would prefer to pass the buck/blame the law for the current state of affairs, this change accomplishes exactly that.

Liability - if a legal review of the proposed legislation and applicable case law suggests liability concerns are still a valid concern, there would be legislative support for inclusion of specific liability exclusion language.

So, as many have suggested, this development may indeed turn out to be a good thing. But it is important to communicate with our legislators, letting them know that their electorate supports their efforts to remedy this. Boycotts et al will accomplish very little...continuing to work with and support the first TN 2A-friendlier legislative body in decades will accomplish much more.

Link to post
Had a brief but interesting conversation with a TN legislator today. He believes there is quite enough support to fix this in the next session - that shouldn't be a problem. Under current consideration appears to be a blanket carry allowance for HCP holders in all eating establishments whether they serve alcohol or not, with no provision for a posting to disallow. This solves a myriad of issues brought up in the lawsuit:

Vagueness - there is no longer a need to know whether it is a bar or a restaurant (addressing the specific objection in the judges opinion), and it heads off another point of "vagueness" that could be ripe for challenge: knowing whether an establishment serves alcohol or not, which is not always immediately discernable from the exterior.

Posting-related hostility - since restaurant owners do not want to be held accountable for their own decision whether to allow carry or not, and would prefer to pass the buck/blame the law for the current state of affairs, this change accomplishes exactly that.

Liability - if a legal review of the proposed legislation and applicable case law suggests liability concerns are still a valid concern, there would be legislative support for inclusion of specific liability exclusion language.

While I undoubtedly think that would be close to a best case scenario, all I can say is that if you thought we saw opposition in the media et al to the last "guns in bars" bill, it will likely be nothing compared to the opposition we'll see to this. And there's NO DOUBT we'll have to go through the Governer's veto scenario again.

Remember, it took until like the last day of the legislature being in session to get HB 0962 passed. By using the time honored tactics of delay delay delay , this could easily miss the deadline and get pushed to the next legislature where it'll have to start over again. Remember, its likely going to have to do through committees in both houses, pass both votes, go to conference committee, back to both houses and pass the voting again, get vetoed, back to both houses again for another vote.

I'm worn out just thinking about it. And then the plaintiffs will be waiting to go see Bonneyman, to get it declared null and void again.

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

THE FINE PRINT

Tennessee Gun Owners (TNGunOwners.com) is the premier Community and Discussion Forum for gun owners, firearm enthusiasts, sportsmen and Second Amendment proponents in the state of Tennessee and surrounding region.

TNGunOwners.com (TGO) is a presentation of Enthusiast Productions. The TGO state flag logo and the TGO tri-hole "icon" logo are trademarks of Tennessee Gun Owners. The TGO logos and all content presented on this site may not be reproduced in any form without express written permission. The opinions expressed on TGO are those of their authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the site's owners or staff.

Before engaging in any transaction of goods or services on TGO, all parties involved must know and follow the local, state and Federal laws regarding those transactions. TGO makes no claims, guarantees or assurances regarding any such transactions.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to the following.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Guidelines
 
We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.