Worriedman

Search the Web till your fingers bleed. Further chasing the facts, there are no "Bars" in TN. If the establishment fails to derive 50% of their revenue from food sales, they are fined or closed. Ergo,there can be no "Guns in Bars" Bill in TN.

I found this very interesting article: http://www.comptroller1.state.tn.us/repository/SA/pa97092.pdf"The notice contains the commission’s interpretation of Section 57-4-101: The principal business of an establishment deriving 50 percent or more of its gross revenues from serving meals will be considered a full-service restaurant. However, if an establishment receives less than 50 percent of its gross revenues from food sales, the commission will consider the following factors in determining the establishment’s principal business: 1. The percentage of gross sales obtained from food. 2. Any history of operation as a restaurant without the serving of alcohol. 3. The presence of income-producing activities other than the service of food, the percentage of income derived from such activities, and the priority given to such activities in advertising, etc. 4. The percentage of space allotted to the serving of food as opposed to that allotted to serving alcohol or other activities. 5. The number and percentage of personnel employed in the preparation and serving of food. 7 6. The diversity of food offered and the times offered. 7. The ratio of investment in equipment and fixtures required in the preparation and serving of food versus the investment in equipment and fixtures for serving alcohol or other incomeproducing activities. 8. Any other factors indicating an intent to operate as a restaurant and to have as the principal business the serving of meals." The "Food Audits" conducted, and letters of reprimand, and fines issued for those having less than 50% sales volume of food bears looking into.

I seem to remember reading somewhere, but can not find it now, of a 51% food to 49% alcohol sales requirement to keep the "Restaurant" specification for insurance purposes in TN. Anyone have access to this information, or am I misremembering again?

Item #5, the Jackson DA does not think this is too big a deal, he declined to prosecute a Deputy Sheriff who let a child shoot a hole in the roof of a retail store in Jackson with her duty weapon that was unsecured in her purse. And whose fault is it if a "Homicidal drunk" is loose upon the public in a restaurant, surley the manangement itself would be liable for that? Item #8, sounds like Dread is used to violating the law himself, as he continues to say he is a gun owner and hunter, guess the girls he goes out with are a bunch of law breaking idiots. All this talk of how dangerous the gun is when associated with alcohol, it seems to me that they are making the case that it is the jerk behind the trigger who needs to be watched out for, and that the quality of individual who is so stupid as to drink and hold a weapon is more along the line of caliber of people that are bringing the suit, not the average HCP Holder who is smarter than that!

Clearly, there is intent on the part of the Legislature for Owners of restaurants to at least have the potential to be responsible for safety of their patrons, else why would they give the right in statute form for the Owner to carry, or assign an employee to carry, where otherwise it is restricted? Notice also, there is no stated requirement for training of the Owner, or their employee, nor any mention of needing to undergo a background check, for the ability to go armed in a venue that serves alcohol. TCA 39-17-1305. Possession of firearm where alcoholic beverages are served. (a) It is an offense for a person to possess a firearm within the confines of a building 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 on premises consumption. ( A violation of this section is a Class A misdemeanor. © The provisions of subsection (a) shall not apply to a person who is: (1) In the actual discharge of official duties as a law enforcement officer, or is employed in the army, air force, navy, coast guard or marine service of the United States or any member of the Tennessee national guard in the line of duty and pursuant to military regulations, or is in the actual discharge of duties as a correctional officer employed by a penal institution; or (2) On the person's own premises or premises under the person's control or who is the employee or agent of the owner of the premises with responsibility for protecting persons or property.

Correct information. Different airlines have different rules, some want the red card in the case, some read the regs and want it outside the locked case. The head master at Memphis has never read the regs I think, she made me strip the ammo out of the magazine for my 1911, even though it was fully enclosed in a Velcro mag holder, and place it outside the locked case. Easiest I have found to fly out of with weapons is Phoenix, hardest Detroit.

I owe him an apology, if he met his brohter in Texas and it was legal. I read the post on my Blackberry, did not see the bottom line, that was my mistake. I got bit on something like that a couple of weeks ago, the Main Stream Media will copy the first part and put it on the news. But, if I was wrong in my response, by not reading it all, and the meet was in a legal venue. Again, my apologies.

And what kind of example did you set for your niece? Did you have a chat with her about how it is alright to violate the law when it suits you? The Anti's can rest a little easier tonight, you are doing their work for them.

Had there been any empirical data to offer lending support to their assertions, don't you suppose that Naifeh or Hardaway would have spewed it during the House floor debates, or Kyle in the Senate? It does not exist.

As members of “We the People” we have a right, and I feel an obligation to voice our thoughts, it is our only opportunity to affect the outcome. The Legislators, who fought for our issues this session, need to see that we are still resolute, and that we will hold them accountable. Public Opinion might modify the outcome, but will only do so if we are heard. If the Judge is activist against our cause, he will order an injunction. We simply must reconvene in the next session of Congress and write a bill with better language that will preclude the same scenario occurring again. If we are mute now, we have gained no ground. The Senators and Representatives who did this good work for us will be less likely to stand for our interest in the future

Wish they could have streamed that, would have liked to hear the exchange. Keep pushing!

The Age Restriction is solely related to tobacco use, has nothing to do with alcohol. I am aware of several restaurants that have instituted the Age Restriction with a view to not driving a way patrons who smoke. I think what we need is a declarative difference between Restaurant, and Bar or Nightclub. I am sure that the Restaurant Association is not in favor of that, as the liability insurance for a "Bar" will be substantially more expensive than for a Restaurant. A restaurant intends to feed you, a bar functions to get you liqueured up. To add my thoughts to those of TCO David, I have recently been the recipient of a Phil Williams of Chanel 5 News bushwhacking. Taking a statement that I made on a public forum, he used quite a bit of "license" with it, (changed it up totally), and used it out of context to our detriment. They can do that, and I had no recourse to challenge the action, as I had posted on a "Public Forum". They are under no responsibility to be honest or fair, making the gun owner look bad is their ultimate goal. Be aware, the other side is mining Gun Rights Forums, anything you say here, can and will be used against us if the opportunity arises.

I concur 100% with TGO David and Fallguy. We should, as HCP holders, epitomize adherence to the law. We for sure should do everything possibly within our reach to support our Constitutional Rights and defeat this usurpation of the intent of the Legislature, but if the legal system hands us an injunction, it would be counter productive to the grand scheme that we hope to achieve to violate the law. Becoming criminals to show our displeasure at this point would only prove the other side's points. It would simply play into the opposition's hands to fail to continue to be law abiding, regardless of our distaste for the tactics being used to limit our rights.

George Washington said, "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good" That from one of our founders. “The Second Amendment is not about duck hunting, and I know I’m not going to make very many friends saying this, but it’s about our right, all of our right to be able to protect ourselves from all of you guys up there.†Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp, appearing before Representative Charles Schumer’s committee hearings on the assault weapons ban. This from a woman who watched her Father die at the hand of a man who had never threatened him, and subsequently killed her Mother, who was cradling her dying husbands head in her lap, in a Luby's Restaurant. The Texas Luby's Massacre is the best example I know of for the need for the average citizen to be able to protect themselves. There was no alcohol involved, there was no political motive for the 26 deaths and over 20 woundings that day, all which took place in less than fifteen minutes when Evil drove a pickup through the front of the restaurant and began indiscriminately shooting patrons at their mid day meals. We are all under threat, every day.

Next time is the Frankie Lax Show on June the 30th. Kind of doing double duty, set to prompt for the Tea Party on the 4th, (I am doing the Section on 2nd Amendment) as well as do an update on Legislation and Q&A.

Seeing as to how Alexander was the ONLY Republican Senator to vote against the Coburn Amendment, and just this week voted with eight other RINO's to end the filibuster against Koh, I can only expect him to do whatever is most harmful to us.

Excellent point. I have been seeking to get guest spots on local talk radio. Have been successful with The Frankie Lax Show on WTJS 105.3 and Dan Reaves on 101.5. Both are willing to help get the truth of the laws out, and allowing the listeners to hear the facts.

Sent this e-mail, faxed and in the mailbox this morning. Senator Lamar Alexander June 26, 2009 SD-455 <ST1:p<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:City w:st="on">Washington</st1:City>, <st1:State w:st="on">DC</st1:State> <st1:PostalCode w:st="on">20510</st1:PostalCode></ST1:p <O:p></O:p> <O:p></O:p> It is with a great deal of regret, that I must inform you that I will no longer be able to support you as a candidate for any office that represents me. The conformation vote for Harold Hongju Koh is the final straw. <O:p></O:p> Your desertion of the filibuster effort to preclude this gun grabber from achieving the intended position proposed is a major departure from the values that I hold sacred, and you should have as well. Between him, Holder and Emanuel, the 2nd Amendment is now on life support, if in fact there is any heartbeat left in it at all. <O:p></O:p> I had been willing to forgive your move toward adoption of a liberal agenda till now, but this flagrant knife in the back of your constituents is so heinous as to be repugnant. It is not like you could by any stretch, believe that the majority of voters in the State of <st1:State w:st="on"><ST1:pTennessee </ST1:p</st1:State>would approve of this move. Did you for one moment stop and ask yourself what your constituents would want you to do in this instance? <O:p></O:p> If there is a venue of approach for recalling you from service, I will begin the paperwork Monday morning first thing.

I could not put it better myself. On this we have definite concurrence. We should all strive to remind, cajole and pressure them to stem that tide of erosion. A united and concerted effort can work wonders. Remember all the folks who contacted their congress critters regarding the Immigration Bill? Stopped it dead in it's tracks. The same outpouring of effort can yield benefits if we will get united and let them hear from us. We have more power than it appears. An informed and motivated electorate can wield great power when it gets its dander up! The coming State elections are ripe for us to gain influence. We must take a page from the successful play book of the last one, grass roots efforts can bring about results, if we are willing to work for them.

No mention of it as a right in the Constitution either. That is your response to my post, the one I was replying to. Correct, they are given, by the Constitution the power to restrict that right, with a view to preventing crime. If we let them overstep those bounds, shame on us. I agree, as there is no mention of a right to drive in the Constitution, it is in fact a privilege. Was in response to: You intimated you knew what I would say in that scenario, I was interested to hear what your thoughts were? Turn about seems fair play to me, just interested, as you brought the subject up. I agree on the tin foil hats and revolution talk, all that is immaterial, and makes us look like rednecks. No need to worry about that, I have had harsher discourses before, and will again, over matters that are of much more import, in face to face situations. This keyboard jousting ain't that big of a deal. I like a good debate, and am pretty sure we are on the same side of the big picture here. We just may disagree on some semantics.

If you want to peaceably assemble, and protest a certain issue in front of the Capital Building, you may be required to purchase a permit to gather there. Does that change your Right to Free Speech to a privilege? They will tell you that there is need for security, and that the permit fee helps defray that cost for them, for you to be there and exercise your right. Our Governments will tax our last breath if we will stand for it. Part of the restriction relative to the HCP is the background check, it validates that you have not committed any of the offenses that preclude satisfying the criteria, the fee you pay is to defray that cost. Every Bill that is acted upon has a fiscal note, there are cost to the Government for all it's actions.

You get an "Amen" from me on that statement. Kind of my point on the whole discussion, both the TN Constitution, and the 2nd Amendment call it a "Right". Allowing the Government, be it State or Federal to erode that into a "privilege" standing is not good. It was important enough to our Founders and framers to name it a "Right", we should honor their wishes and continue to demand that it remains such. That the Legislature has the "power" granted by the Constitution to restrict it can not be denied, it is printed there for all to see, but, it must remain viewed as a right, and we should continually remind those who we pay to exercise that "power" that it is.

The permit is simply a document that proves to LE that you have a defense against the restriction against going armed. Passing the background check is to verify the fact that you have not failed any of the parameters, it is the result of the "power" given the Legislature to restrict the right. No matter how you slice or dice it, it is still a right. Says so, right there in the Constitution. Where do you read privilege? Even in the Federal 2nd amendment, it is called a right, it was so important to the framers that they intended to to be a right, was not then, nor is it now named a privilege.

Being one of "We The People" I own a part of the street, as much as anybody else. (As long as I pay my taxes, and stay outside the confines of the cross bar motel for failure to do so) When it comes time to repair it, or build a new one, I get a portion of the bill. My elected Representatives either set the speed limits, or appoint who does, and they should be responsive to the will of their constituents. The constituents are the final arbiters. If in fact, the representatives fail to provide good and accepted rules, they are changed, or well should be. In essence all public officials, departments and employees work for the People. I think that is the problem anymore, it seems that they think they are the bosses. The ones who write the checks should be in charge!

Privilege-is a special entitlement or immunity granted by a government or other authority to a restricted group. Rights are permissions, usually of a legal or moral nature, granted by government to individuals. Our Carry Permit is an expressly formulated criteria, enumerated by the Legislature in it's purvey of restrictions on bearing arms in State of Tennessee with a view to preventing crime. It authorizes individuals who do not fail the established norms to carry a concealed weapon, all who satisfy the stated criteria shall be issued that permit if they apply for it. The stated rules are all exceptions; felonies, failure to pay child support, receipt of an order of protection etc., which restrict the individual's right to carry if they have any of these marks against them. At least that is how I read the dictionary. I am sure there are other opinions.