Packing in a hotel that has a bar?

[Marswolf]

Tennessee code says that:

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.

Does this mean you may not pack, with a permit, in a hotel if it has a bar under the same roof? Seems to me this is within the confines of the same building.

How about a mall that has a restaurant that serves alcohol?

[molonlabetn]

My hotel room isn't 'open to the public' after I've paid for it. As to the lobby... That sounds like a grey area, I would guess that it may depend somewhat on whether the hotel itself has the liquor license, or the restaurant which uses a dedicated portion of their space... Since, you aren't supposed to leave the licensed premises carrying an open container. You can't walk out of a liquor-serving restaurant into the adjoining mall carrying a drink either. So, I would presume that they are looked upon as separate entities.

IANAL.. perhaps there is one who can clarify?

[dralarms]

Just don't go into the "bar" area and you are fine. I carry mine all the time, was in a hotel in Nashville 2 weeks ago and went right past the bar with mine on and printing (3 hrs in the car at 5 am and I forgot to "straighten" after getting out). no one even looked twice at me. Maybe it's because I look like I am supposed to be carrying (big person walk with authority). Not sure but had no problems.

[Cruel Hand Luke]

Concealed means concealed.

If they don't see it they don't complain. Most folks wouldn't notice if you walked in with a shotgun down your pants leg or an UZI under your shirt. Most folks are simply oblivious to their surroundings.

[Guest Phantom6]

Concealed means concealed.

If they don't see it they don't complain. Most folks wouldn't notice if you walked in with a shotgun down your pants leg or an UZI under your shirt. Most folks are simply oblivious to their surroundings.

Boy howdy, ain't that the truth?!

[Marswolf]

Seems to me this is a poorly written piece of legislation. I think the idea was to keep packers from drinking but this is already inherent in another part of the code:

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.

In all, maybe this gives us an opening to get the law changed since it is unclear if you can pack in a hotel or mall that has a drinking area. I don't think most hotels and malls will want to chase off all the gun carriers.

All that really needs to be done is to repeal 39-17-1305. 39-17-1321 prevents you from legally packing and drinking.

The problem is not having a gun around alcoholic beverages. The problem is having a gun while you have alcohol in you.

[saintsfanbrian]

I will second that sentiment, Mars. I know plenty of people that are quite capable of carrying a loaded firearm through the Kroger and not purchasing (and consuming) any beer, wine coolers, Zima or what have you. Then again, I know plenty of people that I wouldn't want within 10 feet of a firearm.

I think the "No Guns where Alcohol is served" is a bit extreme especially since there is a law that says - No guns while under the influence. They could go so far as to put that at .001 BAC.

[Marswolf]

Some states allow you to drink while packing up to the legal driving limit. So far, they don't have blood in the bars from the massive numbers of gunfights as far as I know. But that's another matter. Probably wouldn't fly in Bible Belt Tennessee.

[molonlabetn]

Laws don't prevent crime... they define crime.

Enforcement doesn't prevent crime... it punishes crime.

Fostering and empowering personal responsibility among good people prevents crime... but even then, there will always be evil people.

That's why I carry a gun.

[wrenchhead97]

Laws don't prevent crime... they define crime.

Enforcement doesn't prevent crime... it punishes crime.

Fostering and empowering personal responsibility among good people prevents crime... but even then, there will always be evil people.

That's why I carry a gun.

CAN I GET AN AMEN BROTHERS AND SISTERS????

[Marswolf]

CAN I GET AN AMEN BROTHERS AND SISTERS????

How about a hallelujah?

[Schadenfreude]

This one really gets me upset especially when the media & the restaraunt associations claim the restaraunts will be the wild west, same tired argument.

I also find it interesting that as I understand it places where alcohol is consumed but not sold - a BYOB location is ok as long as you are not consuming.

[Marswolf]

I think the restaurants and their associations think there is less liability and bad karma if no one is allowed to pack there. If their customers get shot and have no protection, that's just too bad. If they have to make a choice of posting or not, customers will get mad either way. It's just easier for the state to make the decision and for the association to make campaign contributions to those politicians who care more about their power than the welfare of the state's inhabitants.

Only way the restaurants will support carry is if it is costing them money. Anyone want to boycott places where you can't carry and let them know they are losing business?

[saintsfanbrian]

Sounds like a plan, Mars. Shall we make up little cards to send to the restaurant association/proprietor to let them know that until they are on board with us being allowed to legally carry in their establishments, we won't be frequenting them?

[Marswolf]

I think that's a good idea as well as printing up some post cards to send any time we would have eaten there but didn't because of our inability to legally carry in their establishment.

[DaveTN]

I don’t support that idea. You are targeting the wrong group. I don’t think restaurant owners are against you carrying. It’s a guns and liquor issue with your legislators.

Causing any other group to be “the enemy” does not make good sense.

[molonlabetn]

I don't think the objective is to become the enemy of the restaurant industry... it's to educate them on a portion of the market whose interests are affected by their stance on the subject.

You are indeed correct, at present, the majority of our efforts should be towards legislation.

[Guest Len]

Agreed.

But what to do with the evil people? Do you think there will ever be a time when this is not the case? Will we ever get so good at "rehabilitating" people or finding and correcting the "evil gene" that this will no longer be an issue?

Let's say the answer to those questions is "yes." In that case, where does that leave the need for guns? I think there is still a great argument to be made to keep them. A bunch of good people working together can still do evil things. (Look at "government." I bet 99% of the people who work for the federal government are "good people," but our govt still manages to do bad things.)

Man, I think I strayed a little far afield in this thread. Sorry all! Just doing some out-loud philosophizing. Feel free to roll eyes and move on...

Laws don't prevent crime... they define crime.

Enforcement doesn't prevent crime... it punishes crime.

Fostering and empowering personal responsibility among good people prevents crime... but even then, there will always be evil people.

That's why I carry a gun.

[molonlabetn]

Agreed.

But what to do with the evil people? Do you think there will ever be a time when this is not the case? Will we ever get so good at "rehabilitating" people or finding and correcting the "evil gene" that this will no longer be an issue?

Let's say the answer to those questions is "yes." In that case, where does that leave the need for guns? I think there is still a great argument to be made to keep them. A bunch of good people working together can still do evil things. (Look at "government." I bet 99% of the people who work for the federal government are "good people," but our govt still manages to do bad things.)

Man, I think I strayed a little far afield in this thread. Sorry all! Just doing some out-loud philosophizing. Feel free to roll eyes and move on...

Guns are tools, with many uses... Even if earth became devoid of evil people, there would still be hunters, and folks who enjoy firearms for sport. I count myself among the latter.

Honestly, I really wish that there was no need for me to contemplate and prepare for the possiblity of taking another human life in defense of my own...

[Guest Len]

I agree.

Also, I think there is room for compromise on this issue. Some states (perhaps KY is one of them, not 100% sure) prohibit carry inside the bar AREA of the restaurant, but allow it in the restaurant portion. If we are obeying the no alcohol while armed rule (and I think it is reasonable to do so), then we would have no need to go in the bar area. Problem solved. Permit holder happy since they can eat, restaurants happy because they dont have to turn some customers away, law-makers happy since guns are not where the booze is.

This would also solve the hotel issue and the mall issue. Carry in the mall/hotel, but don't go in the bar.

My main off-limits gripe is govt. property. I spend much of my typical day on various parcels of city, county, state, or federal property. My life would be so much easier if these rules were eased. Govt property is by definition PUBLIC property (the people own it) and should be the "free-est" property out there. A copy of the constitution is on display in my county courthouse, its ironic that some of the words of that document do not apply within the bounds of that parcel of land.

I don't think the objective is to become the enemy of the restaurant industry... it's to educate them on a portion of the market whose interests are affected by their stance on the subject.

You are indeed correct, at present, the majority of our efforts should be towards legislation.

[DaveTN]

I don't think the objective is to become the enemy of the restaurant industry...

Let’s hope not; they are not your enemy.

it's to educate them on a portion of the market whose interests are affected by their stance on the subject.

That isn’t education. You are suggesting an attack (Boycott) on restaurant owners that don’t have jack to say about whether or not you carry in their establishments. It’s a knee jerk reaction against an innocent party because you are pizzed that someone wants to limit your carry privileges. Problem is you have not properly identified your target.

You are indeed correct, at present, the majority of our efforts should be towards legislation.

Find legislators that own restaurants and boycott those specific restaurants.

[molonlabetn]

...That isn’t education. You are suggesting an attack (Boycott) on restaurant owners that don’t have jack to say about whether or not you carry in their establishments. It’s a knee jerk reaction against an innocent party because you are pizzed that someone wants to limit your carry privileges. Problem is you have not properly identified your target.

Find legislators that own restaurants and boycott those specific restaurants.

It's not a boycott if I'm not allowed inside, by law. Handing them a card which describes why I cannot come inside, and asking for their support in changing that law is not an 'attack'... Finding a few restaurants owned by legislators (or their families) and focusing on them would be a great idea.

The object is not to be aggressively confrontational, it is to be vocal and informative regarding an issue which hurts their business as a result of unreasonable law.

We don't have to be hateful to get our message across... in fact, the opposite is true (which I believe was your point).

We want restaurant owners informed, so that they can be on our side. Uninformed, they cannot make that choice.

[Marswolf]

The Tennessee Restaurant Association is the enemy.

http://www.thetra.com/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=16

Carrying Firearms where Alcoholic Beverages are sold for consumption on the premises

Senator Jackson and Representative West are sponsoring several bills, which would authorize persons who have permits to carry those weapons where alcoholic beverages are sold for consumption on the premises. The TRA has opposed such bills and favors the continuance of the prohibition against firearms where alcoholic beverages are sold for consumption on the premises.

[molonlabetn]

As I understand it, the president of the TRA was the problem, not so much the individual members themselves.

How or why I do not know... but that was the jist of the problem, as I understood it, per John Harris - TFA.

[Marswolf]

I didn't see the individual restaurants saying they disagreed or threatening to quit the TRA because of him.