JayC

I'm sorry but the lawsuit/insurance line of thinking is a red herring... Businesses already have insurance that covers these types of lawsuits, and unless there is a rash of HCP carriers shooting people (which we all agree is very unlikely if not impossible) insurance companies won't be able to raise rates over this issue (trust me I see insurance guys coming into our business monthly begging us to switch to their carrier - none of them have an anti-firearm customer clause in them). <input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

Here here.... Completely agree.

That maybe true, but in a corporate setting they may not be allowed to ask you to leave per company policy. Violate company policy in this economy and it's likely you won't have a job the next day.

Completely agree... I'm involved in the restaurant business and I can tell you right now, for a family owned business what our regular customers want is top on our mind when making changes that would chase customers off.

My guess for what it's worth... Generally speaking, D's don't loose votes when voting for, or allowing a pro-gun bill to pass. But they generally do loose votes passing anti-gun or vetoing pro-gun laws. For this reason my guess is he takes the "safe" route and allows the bill to go through without his signature.

In the TWRA's mind it's to prevent poaching... because being able to charge you foir having a deer out of season doesn't catch enough criminals The current parks bill will if passed will make ti legal to carry in National Forrest as well as State Parks as currently written. WMAs on the other hand will still be off limits (supposedly going to be addressed in future bills). Not sure what that means for Cherokee NF, my guess is it's a NF and by law you will be able to carry there if the parks bill passes.

If you're sitting outside your vehicle while drunk with the keys you can be charged with a DWI as an operator. It would seem that is sound way to look at it.

Hopefully that will get removed from the bill before becoming law.

The story is true, but it was a single Captain who over stepped his authority, and the order was revoked by his chain of command. This is the case of a single officer over stepping his authority, and it was worked out in short order.

Last year most restaurants took a pretty big hit from the no smoking laws. That chased a lot of business away, I seriously doubt you'll see a large number of restaurants legally posting, no reason to chase off more business. The fact is that the anti-smoking law chased off the smokers to smoking only establishments, but didn't really increase the number of non-smoking customers. Frankly, from a business stand point for most true sit down family restaurants, banning guns is a no win situation. Non-HCPs really don't make a choice on where they're going to eat based on if they allow carry or not. But, HCP holders do choose largely where to spend their money based off of where they can and can't carry. It's safe to say that I pick dinner locations based almost purely off of where I can carry legally, and refuse to spend money at places where I can't. As a business person, trying to make a living in hard times, the last thing I'm going to want to do is get myself posted on a website, or in an email to a large number of possible customers saying don't do business with me. You might see some no open carry policies similar to what I've heard mentioned about WalMart just so the sheeple don't get too upset, but I seriously doubt you'll see very many sit down style restaurants make any effort to properly post. For the record, both my family and my wife's family are in the restaurant business, and I work for my wife's family on the management team.

The federal law only covers interstate commerce. Transporting within the borders of TN is not covered. Unless the city/county/state has a law that he was violating.

Guys, just an FYI to clear up a myth about the passed hb0962, if they serve liquor they are a restaurant not a bar. Under the passed language, any establishment that has a restaurant liquor license we can carry in once the law goes into effect if not posted. There are not "bar" liquor licenses in TN, and if the state of TN grants a restaurant liquor license, they have verified for you that you can carry in the establishment. (With one minor exception that the liquor license only requires them to serve meals 4 days a week, not 5, but I seriously doubt many places being effected by that). There are no "bars" in TN as far as the TN ABC is concerned. Places that only sell beer could still be an issue, depending on how the hotel is licensed, it could be an issue, other places the government owns, or 501c run community buildings could also be an issue. Everything else with a liquor license is safe to carry in, including places that we'd call "bars". Sorry to keep harping on this issue, but I just want to clear up any misconceptions people have about where we can or can't carry.

Maybe... If they have a restaurant liquor license then yes (which most of the above should), if they only serve beer, then it's a maybe if they meet the requirements of hb0962 as passed. The bill is a huge step forward... Most businesses that serve will be covered, but there are still some "maybe" areas... but as a general rule, if it's a free standing building and they serve liquor (and aren't on the "other" list) then it should be safe to carry in them as long as they're not posted.

Yeah, no grey area... I know the wording can be concerning, but I just happen to be involved in a family ran business (my wifes side) which includes a bar/pool hall... So I know all about the pesky "Serving of meals shall be the principal business conducted" requirement. The good news is virtually all free standing buildings serving liquor will be open to carry unless properly posted.

They have been issued a TN state 'restaurant liquor license'... The state requirements for that license are: 1. A public place kept, used, maintained, advertised and held out to the public as a place where meals are served and where meals are actually and regularly served. 2. Without sleeping accommodations. 3. Supplied with adequate and sanitary kitchen and dining room equipment. 4. Seating capacity of at least seventy-five (75) at tables. 5. Employing a sufficient number and kind of employees to prepare, cook and serve suitable food. 6. Serve at least one (1) meal a day at least four (4) days a week. 7. Serving of meals shall be the principal business conducted Tennessee Alcoholic Beverage Commission The state has verified that all businesses which have a state restaurant liquor license meet those requirements as part of issuing the license, so therefore the state has themselves verified you can carry in them (with the 1 exception of 4 meals a week vs 5 meals a week but I doubt seriously many businesses will be impacted by that).

The definition in the Senate amendment is from the restaurant liquor license definition. With exceptions of liquor licenses issued to hotels (and only to the hotels), and the other class (mostly government and non-profit owned location) Tennessee Alcoholic Beverage Commission all other businesses which sell liquor in the state of TN have a restaurant liquor license. As such they meet all the requirements of the HB0962 as passed with 1 minor exception (the restaurant liquor license only requires meals to be served 4 days a week, not 5) but I suspect the number of establishments impacted by this difference to be very small. In short, it's legal to carry in any location (once the bill becomes law) with a restaurant liquor license unless it's posted, and it should be safe because the state has verified they meet all the requirements under HB0962 as passed for you.

It appears as if the vote is veto proof.

I'm pretty sure the 24 hour period was only for the conference report going from the committee to the floor... Most likely they're waiting on the House to vote, so they can keep their options open. For example if the House defeats the conference report, the Senate would have time to vote on the House version so something gets passed.

I've watched 2 or 3 of these sessions over the last month or so, it seems they normally do the message calendar last.

I stand corrected, the current language of the House Adm #1 would block if they card 18+, not 21+. The language from the Senate version if re-introduced in conference would be 21+.

I'd guess if they are using wristbands that means they're allowing 18-20 year olds into the building as well (Only time I've seen wrist bands used were to tell the difference between 21+ and others)... If that is the case it's not an age restricted venue under the law. They must card and only allow 21+ into the building.

The restaurant is breaking the law, but currently the local health inspectors aren't enforcing this. It's not different than saying a sign with a handgun and a circle/line through it isn't a properly posted building and therefore you can still carry. Technically you're not breaking the law, but there is a slight risk you might have to get a lawyer to prove it. I suspect that we'll see some LEOs who don't fully understand the law at first and it will take some run-ins before things settle down. But, age restricted venue is clearing defined in the law as a place that requires everybody entering to show ID (and be restricted to 21+). If they don't do that, they're not an age restricted venue under the law.

It's only age restricted if they card at the door, not if they post a sign.

We'll be able to carry in pretty much establishment which has a 'restaurant liquor license' which is well over 90% of the places that serve liquor, hotels are a maybe, most of the 'other' licenses will be a no. Keep in mind this is assuming they don't card at the door (21+) or are properly posted.

I wasn't sure whether to post that information about liquor licenses before the bill was passed, I don't want word getting out just how open the bill is for fear that some repcritters would change their votes. Best we all keep this little bit of good news under our belts until after it become law.