GKar

Just noticed this...if it has been asked here previously and answered, I apologize. So, the proposed language: 39-17-1321. Possession of handgun while under influence -- Penalty. (a) Notwithstanding whether a person has a permit issued pursuant to § 39-17-1315 or § 39-17-1351, it is an offense for a person to possess a handgun while under the influence of alcohol or any controlled substance. ( It is an offense for a person to possess a firearm if the person is both: (1) Within the confines of an establishment open to the public where liquor, wine or other alcoholic beverages, as defined in § 57-3-101(a)(1)(A), or beer, as defined in § 57-6-102(1), are served for consumption on the premises; and (2) Consuming any alcoholic beverage listed in subdivision (1) of this subsection (. © (1) A violation of this section is a Class A misdemeanor (2) In addition to the punishment authorized by subdivision (1), if the violation of subsection (a), occurs in an establishment described in subdivision ((1), and the person has a handgun permit issued pursuant to § 39-17-1351, such permit shall be suspended in accordance with § 39-17-1352 for a period of three (3) years. Here's my question: reading ©(2) carefully, it seems to be saying that only a violation of subsection (a) that occurs in the location described in ((1) results in the 3 year suspension...in other words, possessing a handgun while being under the influence (alcohol or controlled substance) in a public establishment that serves alcohol triggers the addn'l suspension, but simply consuming while possessing a handgun in that same location does not? Both would be Class A misdemeanors, clearly.

(Un)fortunately, legislation, and the art of getting it passed, takes a very different view. Rameses, tell me not what I should care about...and don't stand under that rope without an umbrella...

My objection to grandfathering comes from painful experience: in other forms of legislation, grandfather clauses have turned out to be less-than-desirable as the age gap grows between their initiation and the current time. My own experience with some federal grandfathering clauses has seen the eventual erosion of a multi-million dollar endeavor, and has been a never-ending source of constant enforcement activity. Lemme try to paraphrase something I recently lived through into an applicable scenario: a government building has an embedded sign in the columns at each of its entrances. Said language is not compliant with a requirement for exact language in a newly enacted statute, but is "grandfathered". Next year, one of the signs is damaged. That one could be repaired to its original state relatively cheaply; however, since in being fixed it's being "modified" and is no longer considered grandfathered (a very typical enforcement approach with grandfather clauses - they only apply to the actual state of the item at the time of enactment of the statute)...so now, the building is faced with a very expensive project to renovate all the signs, since they now fall under the exact wording requirements. Yes, this is most certainly a hypothetical occurrence, and is an extreme case. Perhaps a different construct of grandfathering language might avoid such an occurrence - but it does illustrate the temporal nature (often not recognized at the time the clause is inserted) of some of the possible difficulties.

Grandfather provisions rarely work well, in that they are typically very difficult to word sufficiently for legislative purposes. Plus, such an approach immeidately opens the barn door to cries of "unfair to business" while cow-towing to municipalities.

If by "existing sign" you mean the prescribed language in the current code, few would misinterpret. But that isn't the question, now, is it? And as for the problem with reverting to the prescribed language only, see above...

The other thing missing in the last page of discourse is the impact of the fiscal notes that would be forthcoming should some version of exact wording requirements be retained. Those fiscal notes would delay the legislation to a point that it would die in this session. Once that reality was realized, a strategy that avoided the fiscal note problem yet addressed the vagueness caused by the undefined term "substantially similar" was necessary. By defining the essential elements of that term, vagueness should no longer be an issue. And no, those elements were never present in earlier or present legislation.

For those who would ignore the intent and prefer to gamble over the technicality of the signage, it is not better. For those who would acknowledge and respect the intent regardless of the manner in which its expressed, it makes no diffference.

See djack's earlier post. To only do so would allow the next wave of challenge based upon the signage requirements. Seems the current effort is trying to head-off as many of the known/expected challenges as possible, instead of dealing with one at a time.

And, in the current legislative climate, such a bill would fail.

Be very careful with this advice. There is an AG opinion on record (09-158, response to question #6) that indicates that even if a park property is not properly posted (or posted at all), an HCP holder can still be charged under the statute if a proper resolution has been passed by the municipality. Another AG opinion regarding the illegality of proper signage is highly regarded for its credibility, so one would assume this opinion carries similar weight.

No, because the section continues on to define the 3 essential elements that constitute "substantially similar". THAT is what has been missing all these years. And this method of definition is pretty commonplace in a variety of regulatory environments, and as such will be familiar to the court and unlikely to be found objectionable. Unlikely that many out-of-state visitors would have been previously conditioned to ignore any type of prohibitory signage, a practice that is always fraught with risk. Most folks, upon seeing a prohibition, don't stop to ask "Gee, I wonder if that means its really a criminal act, or just there for decoration?". There is no more target-rich environment for a vagueness challenge than an attempt to "grandfather" in something like this. How would you propose that language be presented? Would you list the various places individually? Could you develop a definitive description that would meet your proposed conditions in a court of law? Most every attempt I've seen at grandfathering something as broad-based and ill-defined as this ends in a regulatory quagmire.

Thanks for the summary. Very little of what you've said is actually new to this thread, but its been scattered here and yon, and having it together in one place in a cogent narrative helps keep things in focus amongst the generalities and platitudes. Much appreciated.

I would hope you are right...but I don't think it will happen to an extent that makes possible the sweeping changes some here want. It will take a substantial change occurs in the voting patterns of the major population centers of the state - until that time, changes in the TCA will continue to happen incrementally within the confines of a somewhat divided politicolegal system. Within that environment, an all-or-nothing approach usually yields nothing, and rarely promulgates future cooperation.

What court has determined that this practice is legal? If the claim is based upon the AGs opinion only, then one would be led to assume that there has been no case law developed on the matter. Perhaps as a result of no one ever actually being charged with the offense. I say this to make a single illustration - many of these observations can fall into the same categorization of "generalities and platitudes" as was used to characterize the opposition's arguments today. We need to be careful how we develop and present some of our positions, lest we begin to take on too many characteristics of those we'd like to defeat...

Exactly - and that is the root problem.

Tryin to look at this from a different angle, staying within the current legislative realities (yeah, it would be nice to up and clean house and install all 2A super-friendly folks, but in the larger population centers of the state west of here, that ain't gonna happen anytime real soon)... Currently the idea seems to be you can ignore an allegedly non-binding sign, even though the intent of the person posting it is to clearly disallow carry. If some/most of those signs suddenly become binding, does it not then call for what really was the solution to the problem all along - educating the poster, whose intent we've known for (in some cases) years? After all, if no sign of any kind is posted, there is no problem, right? Seems the great angst about proper posting is serving to highlight an even greater unmet need...

Now Henry gets on his podium about "you don't go to a bar except to drink, and someone's gonna get shot...restaurant liablilty..." yadda yadda mumbled yadda. Jackson closes his argument for the bill with a jab at Henry, and makes several very good points supporting key absences in the opposing arguments - characterizes them as "generalities and platitudes, with no real substance". Notes Memphis has recently been found to have two of the 10 most dangerous neighborhoods in the US. Very nice closing argument, actually. Bill passes as amended (all 3) 23-9.

Berke's motion is tabled by voice vote.

All 3 senate amendments adopted by the floor on voice vote. No discussions of any specifics of any of the amendments. Kyle suggests there be a time frame for implementation of the signs - Jackson counters that the bill actually makes most existing signs compliant, and refuses. Berke tries to move it back to Finance for a fiscal note - Jackson says the impact has already been included in an existing fiscal note, and the latest amendment is administrative only w/ no fiscal impact. Berke isn't gonna give this up easily.

Tennessee General Assembly::Streaming Video Click "View Event"

.

HB 3125 gets sent to the House floor for vote Wednesday next week. Todd's only comment - "It is what it is." No amendment added in Calendar (a miracle??). Other Calendar happenings: HB 3064 taken off notice by sponsor (dealt with closing HCP database, IIRC), HB 2694 rolled one week (why??)

SB3012 comes up on the Senate floor this morning (item 5 on the first regular calendar). If passes as amended, it does not contain any of the "50% food revenues" features of the amended House bill. It acknowledges both the circle/slash and "sustantially similar" signage without further definition of similar, and maintains the other features ($500 fine, training requirement in HCP class, etc) of the previous versions. Session begins at 9am CST...will likely take them a little while to get to the regular calendars. H3125 comes up before the House Calendar cmte this morning at 8am CST.

Check here: Tac2 Haven't been there, but seems several folks who shoot IDPA at Kettlefoot (Bristol, VA) also shoot in Greeneville.

Is Greeneville any closer? Monthly IDPA there, I believe.