Fallguy

The amendmeant has been withdrawn!! Here is an e-mail I got from Sen Jackson. Hi Steve, I am opposed to Senator Berke's amendment and he has agreed to withdraw it. The bill will be presented on the senate floor tomorrow and I do believe we have the votes for passage as filed. Thanks for writing. Let's stay in touch. Doug Jackson

The amendmeant has been withdrawn. Below is an e-mail I got form Sen Jackson. Hi Steve, I am opposed to Senator Berke's amendment and he has agreed to withdraw it. The bill will be presented on the senate floor tomorrow and I do believe we have the votes for passage as filed. Thanks for writing. Let's stay in touch. Doug Jackson

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/T/TN_XGR_ARMED_SERGEANTS_AT_ARMS_TNOL-?SITE=TNJAC&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) -- Sergeants-at-arms in the Tennessee General Assembly would be allowed to carry guns under legislation being proposed by a Senate Republican. Raymond Finney of Maryville says the legislation is necessary to protect visitors and members of the General Assembly. Under the legislation, "special" sergeants-at-arms would be appointed by speakers of the House and Senate and vested with police powers while on official duty. They would be required to have a handgun permit and undergo training if necessary. Finney says the legislation is needed because of recent shootings in schools and other public places. Both the Capitol and Legislative Plaza already have metal detectors and armed police who guard entrances and patrol the grounds. ----------------------- Here is the bill I found SB2696

I agree 100% with you on that!

Yes there is, have you read it. Amendmeant 1 to SB0023 AMEND Senate Bill No. 23* House Bill No. 702 SA0830 By deleting the amendatory language of SECTION 1 and substituting instead the following: (3) (A) Entering an establishment that derives at least fifty percent (50%) of its annual income from the sale of food; ( Authorized to carry a firearm under § 39-17-1351; © Is not consuming liquor, wine, beer or other alcoholic beverages, as defined in this section; and (D) Is not otherwise prohibited by the posting provisions of § 39-17-1359.

We agree, but for different reasons. I still say blocked off or not, it is outside...so 39-17-1305 does not apply But because it is blocked off then 39-17-1311 may apply. However I bet it is because of the alcohol that officers prevent an armed person form entering the area even though by the letter of the law they would be wrong, however 39-17-1311 gives them a good back up.

I still think if this amendmenat is necessary I would rather it say less than 50% from alcohol rather than greater than 50% from food. What about the bowling alley that servers beer? The amendmeant as written would still prevent us from carrying in there because less than 50% of the alley's revenue is from food, (at least I figure it is).

Me too...It finally came to me last night a place I was thinking of. A bowling alley that serves beer. The amendmeant as written would still prevent you from carrying in there because I doubt greater than 50% of the alley's revenue is from food, but I am just as sure that less than 50% of the revenue is from alcohol sales. Although I read somewhere that it has a good chance of passing in the Senate without the amendmeant. The tough fight will be in the House the person said. Also I recived an e-mail saying the Tennessean (www.tennessean.com) will be running an editorial Wednesday, January 16 2008, against Senator Jackson's bill. It suggest writing a calmly written but well stated) lettter(e-mail) detailing why it is necessary and reasonable to allow permit holders to carry in such restaurants.

He started it...lol To me it seems on a "normal" day it would be legal, but when blocked off for an event, probably not. ...and that is what I just posted in the other forum.

True...if it is because of alcohol, then it is ok because not in a building. But if when it is blocked off it becomes recreational property, then 39-17-1311 may very well apply.

Below is thread on another board about Beale St in Memphis. Did I (finally) tell the guy right? http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum50/7414.html

Yep. My sarcasm wasn't as clear....lol

Not a bad idea. Another thing I would like to see, and maybe easier to get passed, would be posted signs not having the weight of law. In many states a "No-Gun" sign simply means if you are spoted you will be asked to leave and if you do there are no charges. In TN if the property owner has a properly posted sign under T.C.A. 39-17-1359 and you enter the property armed you can be charged by simply being on the premises without being asked to leave.

While I still think someone should be allowed to carry in a "bar" if they aren't drinking (why are you there if you're not though..lol), I do understand the reasoning behind it. I'm just saying I would rather see it say places less than 50% from alcohol for onsite consumption rather than more than 50% from food. Here is the e-mail I sent to Senator that propossed the amendmeant. Senator Berke, Sir I would like to address a concern about this amendment. I assume the purpose of this is to prevent a person with a permit issued under 39-17-1351 from carrying his firearm into a "bar". While I personally think as long as the permit holder is not consuming alcohol that he should be allowed to carry, I can understand the reasoning of not allowing him to. However I think wording to the effect of "Entering an establishment that derives less than fifty percent (50%) of it's annual income from the sale of alcohol for onsite consumption;" would be better than"Entering an establishment that derives at least fifty percent (50%) of its annual income from the sale of food;" The reason is there are places that serve alcohol for onsite consumption that are not "bars or taverns" but are not restaurants either and therefore doubtfully have greater than 50% of their annual income from food. Respectfully, Steve Fall But even as worded now, if it helps it pass...I would take it.

Possiably if the are owned but a goverment entity, but not just because they are a sports arena. But still there may be other places, that is just the first place that came to mind.

It has been amended (or proposed, can't tell for sure) to add the "an establishment that derives at least fifty percent (50%) of its annual income from the sale of food;" provision. To me, the only problem with that as opposed to less than 50% from alcohol are places (besides bars) that serve alcohol on site consumption but do not primarly serve food. One place I am thinking of is the sports arenas and the such. I'm sure that alcohol is less than 50% of their annual income, but I doubt that food is at least 50% of the income.

My pleasure.

Here is one possibility.. http://www.advancedpistolsafes.com/Mattress_Pistol_Holster.html

That's negative....lol However I would help campaign for and/or donate money to anyone that ran against Nafieh.

NP Mars.. Seems like I remember that too. I seem to recall the sponosor of the bill trying to get Naifeh to allow a vote on it and Naifeh going on an on about a bunch of stuff. I think his (Naifeh) main thing was, "How would servers know who was armed and who wasn't?" I guess so they wouldn't serve alcohol to those that were armed. I don't think it is up to the servers to have to worry about it. Goes back to showing a little trust in those of use that have taken the time to got a HCP and don't want to take the risk of losing it. At least that is what I told my Rep....

Thanks...

I am a interested in this...I am going to concert at the Sommet Center which is the new name for the GEC (I think). Haven't been there in years so I don't know if they sell beer, if there is a search before entering or anything like that. As far as a website on Carry laws....there is no one good site except looking up TN code yourself. You can do that here. Laws about carry permits and places off limits are in Title 39, Chapter 17, Part 13.

See this page for the process in TN. Here is graphic flow chart of the process. You can follow the process of this bill at this page. The next action for it is scheduled for Monday the 14th.

It's been a learning process for me over the last few years. I don't have a problem with bills being sent to committee for their opinion and recomedation, but I don't like the fact that 95% of the whole senate or house could approve a bill, but a small group of 5 could kill it in any committee.

Well...I've never really been in that or similar situation so I can't say. I'm not sure what your next destination was or the order of depature there, but I guess could have left it in the glovebox until you go where you were going. But personally I'm not worried about being discrete, even less so around friends. I mean I don't go around announcing it to the world, but don't really care who knows.