Worriedman

Should be an individual thing.

Jamaican Drug War Rages It is illegal for anyone other than police and military personel to possess a firearm, or even ammunition in Jamaica. Jamaican Gun Laws How is all this possible, they have laws against guns there?

Excellent site, thanks for the link. I am however confused by a statement by Haslam: Did Knoxville not decide to keep an old law on their books which made it illegal to carry in parks?

The suit would have nothing to do with the carry issue portion of the law, simply the signage part. It would be focused on other venues not enjoying the same benefit as the current legislation, and by so doing, possibly force a restructuring of the entire signage structure. This particular Bill would not be challenged, simply the signage requirements being so dissimilar across the spectrum. Most suits do not go all the way to fruition, it is the "nuisance value" that is important here.

If they need to pick up a certain number of DUI's, why not set up on the streets next to the establishments that serve alcohol? Could TWRA charge them for hunting over a baited field if they did?

There is a multiplicity of "sign" criteria in the TCA Code Annotated. It would seem prudent to streamline and unify the criteria for all instances, including "No Trespassing", "No Hunting without Written Permission" etc. I mean, if we are to consider that "average" individual can understand that a circle and slash (cigarettes, guns) through whatever is sufficient for State Buildings, restaurants et al, why is there such a financial burden placed on rural land and business owners to follow an antiquated system imposed on them? Shouldn't the Citizens of Tennessee who live outside the confines a "City Limit" share in the intended reduced cost of signage now enjoyed by the State government and it's protected class of urban business owner's?

No problem there, I jumped a little too far, I have written to the paper to admit the error. I did a Project in NC, and had permission from the Owner to carry in his restaurant, it does not mean HCP holders can as a general rule do so though. I had my number right though, it is 42 states, (I just messed up on stating ALL the contiguous States). What I find interesting is that California and New York State allow CCW carry in Restaurants, if you can get the permit!

No they have not, They do preclude Concealed carry where alcohol is and served for on site consumption. In my search parameters, I did make a mistake on including North Carolina, as I read the State Law precluding consumption incorrectly: It fell into the parameters I was searching for permission by owner or lessee. Clearly it does not meet muster. I regret the error.

It would not surprise me to see a suit similar to what occurred last year, only aimed a different direction. There is sufficient disparity in signage requirements across the spectrum of applications to be confusing at the least. If you are going to eat the whole beef, easier to take in one bite at the time.

From earlier in the week "Letter to the Editor" printed in the Jackson Sun by a Jeffrey P Boyd: Bredesen right to veto 'guns in bars' bill | jacksonsun.com | The Jackson Sun Tennesseans should be proud. We have a Democratic governor who displays more common sense than Republican Senate Speaker, Ron Ramsey. Our governor learned in a firearms safety course that "guns and alcohol don't mix." I can't imagine why this issue was up for vote in the Tennessee Legislature in the first place. When I first heard about this, I was aghast that such a bill would be considered in Tennessee. It gives the impression that Tennessee is a backward place where issues are settled with firearms. We need to show that Tennessee is a safe, civilized and forward-thinking place instead of a laughing stock where we take our guns into bars. This was illegal even in the wild west. The people who fear that Democrats are going to take their guns away are mistaken. Democrats support the right to bear arms. This right was put into place by the founding fathers so people could protect their own home, hearth and loved ones. It was certainly not intended as Ron Ramsey seems to think. We already don't trust intoxicated people to drive, so why would we start arming them? It only takes one drink, and a few cross words, for something tragic to happen. I'm disappointed the legislature had to waste time passing and re-passing this bill. But I'm proud of Gov. Phil Bredesen for having the common sense to exercise his veto power. Jeffrey P. Boyd Jackson My rebuttal in today's paper: Letter writer Boyd not dealing with facts | jacksonsun.com | The Jackson Sun Letter writer Boyd not dealing with facts May 23, 2010 Jeffrey Boyd's letter praising Gov. Bredesen's recent veto of SB 3012, which allows handgun carry permit holders the ability to be armed in establishments that serve alcohol, is full of misconceptions. Some facts are warranted. First, only those who have made the effort to obtain an HCP are legally allowed to carry a weapon inside an establishment that serves alcohol. Those individuals have passed an FBI and local background check, taken a class that includes the points of law relative to the use of a weapon and are taught the restrictions placed upon them by the state, which includes the statute that at no time can the permit holder consume or be under the influence of alcohol and be in possession of a weapon. Penalties for violation include a $2,500 fine, 11 months, 29 days in jail and the loss of the permit. The HCP holder can, by state law, drink and drive; they cannot drink and carry a handgun. SB 3012 adds an additional $500 fine for consuming in an establishment that serves alcohol. Ask Bredesen about the document he signed four years ago promising to affix his signature to such a bill if it crossed his desk, as he took the $2,500 campaign donation from the NRA for his last race for Governor. Boyd's statement about arming "intoxicated people" is disingenuous at best, and possibly intentionally offered to conceal the truth, hoping to substitute "feeling" for facts, as the bill specifically precludes possession while consuming or being under the influence of alcohol. Forty two other States in the U.S. allow their permit holders to possess their weapons in establishments that serve alcohol, if the holder is not consuming. Every contiguous state to Tennessee allows it. This bill simply brings Tennessee in line with the majority of our sister states.

There is a plan man!

I posted this on their site, not sure it will make it to press though.

Requirement for a Restaurant in Tennessee: Tennessee Alcoholic Beverage Commission BASIC RESTAURANT REQUIREMENTS (T.C.A. 57-4-102(19)(A)) 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. Open at least three (3) days a week with the exception of holidays, vacations, or periods of redecorating. 7. Serving of meals shall be the principal business conducted, each day the restaurant is open.

Notice in the complaint form posted on the web, there is no category for suspected violation of percentage of sales. http://www.state.tn.us/abc/complaint%20against%20licensee%20form%20AB-0095%20update%20031609.pdf Would appear that the ABC does not Consider that a reportable offense?

I will check it out by running the ABC monthly meeting records, see what they did as a result, and as they were auditing, were they doing "food audit" or checking some other violation? Were there fines levied, or collected? Notice they were at 1-2.4% of sales of food, when the Law calls for 50% +, maybe they were turned in more than once. I will try to dig out the real info. The ABC did so poorly, they have had the rug pulled out from underneath them. Check out the 2009 Audit of the ABC: http://www.comptroller1.state.tn.us/repository/SA/pa09009.pdf

So, if you are waiting in line, and prior to coming to the door, if you thumb the rounds out of you magazine and drop them in your pocket in plain view of the cat at the desk, is carrying loose ammo on your person legal per the posting at the door? Reckon he would attempt to take that ammo?

I can not get past his taking the NRA campaign contribution, promising to sigh a "Restaurant Bill" and they vetoing it twice. Guess the Liqueur Lobby dollars were bigger. Goes to credibility.

Uh, Lord Dave, forgive me for now bowing to your omnipotence, but your opinion of how I sounded is just that, your opinion. Did not sound ridiculous to me. No, given the opportunity, I would have turned my Grandma loose on the gutless little pricks with a Peach switch, and she would have run their butts back to the curb. I would have had her back of course, but I doubt that she would have needed any help. DaveTN said: Maybe he has enough sense to watch the news, and can retain facts for more than a few moments, and saw that group of wonderfully brave SEIU guys beat that black guy selling Gadsden Flags to the ground in St. Louis last spring. If I was a kid, and saw and heard that mob starting up on my porch, I would have been scared myself. Of course, in my situation, I would have loaded the A5 full of buck and carried that with me to the top of the stairs and watched the front door. No, I would not have stepped outside at 10-12, but would not have quailed in the bath room. I would bet however, that the aforementioned kid had never touched a gun, or seen one other than on TV, so all he could do was be scared, and that is OK with you. If you can not understand that, you have less cognitive reasoning skills than I think you do....but I suspect it is just your adherence to a lifestyle that endorses Power by the Mob, in one form or another, because that is how YOU grew up. I am also sure that now you will opine how my supposed reaction in a hypothetical situation makes me sound stupid, and should be proof that I have no right, oh wait, privilege, to ever touch hand to a firearm, as you know best.

And nobody in this thread suggested the Castle Doctrine gives any person the right to commit murder, you are the one that made the jump to light speed on that issue. From my post that raised the issue of the Castle Law or Doctrine: Now you tell me where murder was mentioned? My second post give a clear concise rendition of what the Castle Doctrine means, again no mention of murder. Where are you coming up with that? It take a pretty low individual (or group) to intimidate a kid for his father's company's business policies. I for one am glad that the decisions on that are left to folks who can search my history via the background check and look at my record, and not be left to an individual whose political thoughts that have no basis in fact regarding the matter, and do not mesh with the social norms of the area. If 14 bus loads of Tea Party folks showed up at a Mosque and started screaming through bullhorns and scaring children, how long do you think it would be before the SWAT Team showed up. But as long as it suits the SEIU form of force, violence and intimidation it is OK with you evidently. It does seem that you are alone in this opinion.

Bredesen is hoping to push it out long enough that a quorum might be hard to assemble. Legislators have graduations to attend, vacations bought and paid for.... Taking his last shot at sprucing up that resume.

You murder a protester on your lawn they will put you exactly where you belong… in prison; I don’t care where you live. If you think Castle law has anything to do with killing an innocent person in your front yard; you are totally clueless as to what the Castle Doctrine is. You assume to understand the gist of my post would be some random act of violence. I can promise my actions, faced with such a situation, would be anything but pursued without thought. I understand the principals of the Castle Doctrine quite well. If you are chased to your domicile (or personal vehicle for that matter) and fear for your life, your actions are called self defense. Murder connotes the taking of another’s life without just cause, and if I have not already committed such an act responding to previous stimulus, I would not do so under these circumstances. Shots would not have to be fired, the cattle would be herded off the grass though. For starters, in Tennessee, any person that is on another's property, is asked to leave, and does not, is trespassing. That bunch of asses might stand and bray in the street, on the Public right-of-way, but they would not have done so on my land. Their mere presence after being told to leave private property makes them criminals. 14 buses with what, 30 people each, would lend itself to creating a situation where one might construe intent to do harm on the part of the assembly. We do not take kindly to such odds in Dixie; rather we prefer a more even contest. I have dealt with this type of scum before, and know that the mob mentality does not lend itself to inclusion of much intestinal fortitude individually. Cowards do not need much instigation to get them to run from perceived trouble. May just be the small town in me, but I was not raised to include the family of an antagonist in our differences, and to do so is base. People who live where they can not provide for their own defense may have to acquiesce to such intimidation, but where men are still free to command the space around them, there is no need to accept such treatment.

It will take effect the day it is signed by the Speakers (both), the original Bill was slated for July 1, 2010, but the Amendment states "as soon as it becomes Law".

I do not even know where to start to reply to that tripe. To speak in support a mob of paid thugs to trespass on personal property for a political issue, to validate intimidation is so anti-American that it is hard for me to fathom how anyone could condone such an action. A bus load of union thugs shows up on my front porch, at my personal home, with my child in the house alone, is going to find a much different response. That crap may fly in Yankee land, it will not in Tennessee. Best not instigate a situation like this in a State that has a Castle Law.

He will win too, if we do not expend some shoe leather and individual effort to see to it that he does not. Just ask him what he thinks of Lamar Alexander, or better, how much time and money he has spent working on Alexander's campaigns over the years. Remember that Alexander was the only Republican to vote against permitted handgun carry in Federal Parks, and he voted for cloture on Harold Koh. Ramsey is the only choice, might not be perfect, but he is our best, and only hope.

Give the fact that the Tennessean backs Rayburn and Adam Dread at every chance, giving them free publicity, is there any doubt that they might publish half truths and outright misinformation? I suggest they will print anything to back their liberal agenda, the facts be damned!