"Concealed means concealed"

[Cruel Hand Luke]

So it is NOT immoral to limit good people's ability to defend themselves from those who would do harm to the innocent?

So it is NOT immoral to create areas of victim disarmament and then refuse to be responsible for the safety of those that you have disarmed?

So I guess Va Tech holds absolutely ZERO responsibility for what happened. Even though there was AT LEAST one VA Handgun Permit holder there who was of course disarmed?

If you choose to go about disarmed that is your business and your choice.

If you are not allowed to go about disarmed, but then something happens and you get raped, killed, whatever then the party that limited you to sheepish victim hood should be sued out of existence and or boycotted out of existence be it a restaurant , an individual who doesn't "like" guns, or a government.

After all the government is an extension of the people. If enough people would get their head out of the clouds and DEMAND these laws be changed and quit reelecting that fool Jimmy Naifeh and his friends in Nashville who keep sabotaging every pro carry piece of legislation proposed in Tennessee, then we'd be able to better deal with the freaks and hoodlums in society who would try to harm us our families or loved ones.

Do you have your own personal cop following around you 24/7? No. I don't either. And besides odds are I'm better trained than he would be. So if the state will LIMIT your ability to defend yourself, but NOT provide real protection in return, THAT is immoral by my definition.

And remember before you start rendering everything unto Ceaser, Jesus committed Aggravated Assault in the temple.Was that a sin? Was it against the law? Think about that before you sheepishly buy into the INCORRECT doctrine of Christian pacifism that didn't come into vogue until AFTER he had been gone for 50 years or more.

[Marswolf]

The way I see it, you shouldn't have to give up rights in order to do something that sustains life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

You don't give up free speech or gun rights in order to breath or eat, but telling a business they have to allow any given amount of free free speech or gun carry or other right in order to be in business seems an infringement on the rights of the individuals who own the business. This is one reason I oppose smoking restrictions forced on private businesses. The businesses and customers can decide if they want to be around the smoke. It's none of the government's, or busybody citizens', legitimate area to dictate such a rule.

That's how I see the guns in restaurants matter. The government may not legitimately ban guns in a restaurant, but the restaurants have a legitimate right to ban them as a condition of serving you. I won't eat there if they do, but I'll defend their right to do it. And I will respect their wishes by dining where I can protect myself and my family.

[molonlabetn]

We have a right to eat at restaurants?

Did Rosa Parks have a right to ride in the bus?

[Marswolf]

Did Rosa Parks have a right to ride in the bus?

Not if the bus was privately owned.

[molonlabetn]

The way I see it, you shouldn't have to give up rights in order to do something that sustains life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

You don't give up free speech or gun rights in order to breath or eat, but telling a business they have to allow any given amount of free free speech or gun carry or other right in order to be in business seems an infringement on the rights of the individuals who own the business. This is one reason I oppose smoking restrictions forced on private businesses. The businesses and customers can decide if they want to be around the smoke. It's none of the government's, or busybody citizens', legitimate area to dictate such a rule.

That's how I see the guns in restaurants matter. The government may not legitimately ban guns in a restaurant, but the restaurants have a legitimate right to ban them as a condition of serving you. I won't eat there if they do, but I'll defend their right to do it. And I will respect their wishes by dining where I can protect myself and my family.

That's actually how I see it as different, compared to smoking...

The act of smoking indoors is continually and detrimentally affecting the health of everyone around them (this does not mean I support the restriction, mind you). But, noone has the 'right' to smoke in such a way that it affects other peoples' health.

Bearing arms is a right, one which is protected by the Constitutions of the US and TN. As long as I'm not infringing on the right of those around me to life, etc... they hold no sway over me.

[molonlabetn]

Not if the bus was privately owned.

Exactly! She had no more right to be there than any other paying customer... but she had no LESS right to be there either.

The measure for eliminating discrimination even in this cases of choosing to sit in a particular place in a particular bus were evenually won!

And, I don't think anyone can refute that she was right to stand up (or, sit-down, as it were) for herself.

[TGO David]

If you are not allowed to go about disarmed, but then something happens and you get raped, killed, whatever then the party that limited you to sheepish victim hood should be sued out of existence and or boycotted out of existence be it a restaurant , an individual who doesn't "like" guns, or a government.

Does anyone here know if a lawsuit has successfully been brought against a business or organization that prohibited concealed carry permit holders to go armed on their property and where one of said permit holders was harmed on that property as a result?

That would really make things interesting.

[Marswolf]

You know, I've always been a supporter of the civil rights movement, but I'm not a supporter of a lot of civil rights laws.

While I have no use for bigots, I can't see that it is a right of society to make their bigoted actions illegal in regard to their privately owned property. If I own a restaurant and only want to serve minimum six foot height male Hispanic cigarette smoking gnomes to the exclusion of everyone else, I should be able to do so.

The pertinent question for me is whether it is private or publicly owned, or operated, property. If private, I think the owner has a right to set any standards and requirements he wishes, no matter how irrational or foolish.

[saintsfanbrian]

I would like to see the next time an armed robbery happens in an establishment that serves alcohol where a parton or employee is merely "scared" go to a lawsuit by a permit holder that was left "defenseless" thanks to the stupid laws.

I really wish more of us would open carry so the average Joe on the street could see who he is actually "affraid" of having a gun. The criminals will never do it, but the law abiding citizens should give it a try some time. I frequently open carry on the way to work. Have gone in to Chik-Fil-A, Mapco and several other places with it on. No one said a word. Ran in to 0Down at Mapco, he was the only one that commented.

I will second Mars sentiment that business owners have the right to refuse service to ANYONE as long as it is a "private" business not owned or operated by the government. If I choose not to let Mars in, that is my choice. If I choose not to let in women, that is my choice. Will I be crucified for it and have every Tom, Dick and Hippy picketing outside? Probably, but that too is my choice.

I have the right to make bad choices as long as I Man up and take the consequences.

Good day.

[Marswolf]

I think this is a major reason the Tennessee Restaurant Association (TRA) opposed a change in the law. This way they have less liability whether you pack and shoot someone or get shot by someone in a restaurant. The matter is out of their control. The decision is that of the legislature.

If they have an option, they incur significant additional liability whichever way they go in permitting or forbidding carry. Of course the legislature could relieve them of that civil liability if they chose to do so.

[TGO David]

I think this is a major reason the Tennessee Restaurant Association (TRA) opposed a change in the law. This way they have less liability whether you pack and shoot someone or get shot by someone in a restaurant. The matter is out of their control. The decision is that of the legislature.

If they have an option, they incur significant additional liability whichever way they go in permitting or forbidding carry. Of course the legislature could relieve them of that civil liability if they chose to do so.

Right. So I guess what I meant to ask in my previous post was whether a state government has been sued yet for prohibiting a citizen's right to defend him or herself in an establishment that the government had declared to be a "gun-free zone".

[Marswolf]

Well, I don't know of any cases, but Tennessee does have the right to bear arms in its Constitution as well as that Federal 2A thingy. A case certainly could be brought based on that. All things considered, I'd think it was a waste of time and money though.

[DaveTN]

Man you guys don’t know how good you have it. I’m from Illinois where you can’t carry a firearm or have one in your car period. Yet you are prepared to put carry permits in jeopardy by pushing this liquor thing… you will never get the nod to carry in a bar.... in my opinion.

I want to bring this up one more time….

Tennessee does not recognize the 2nd amendment as an individual right; like most states they see it as a protection for the state. You can argue that all you want but that is fact.

You do not have a right to carry a firearm anywhere. You have the privilege of getting a permit that allows you to carry in certain places. Not a single person of this forum has a requirement to carry a firearm into an establishment that serves liquor. If you choose to do so you put the carry permits of everyone in jeopardy.

And… what am I missing here? A carry permit does not require that the firearm be concealed; that has been specifically addressed by the state attorney general. It may be stupid; but it’s not illegal.

[DaveTN]

Well, I don't know of any cases, but Tennessee does have the right to bear arms in its Constitution as well as that Federal 2A thingy. A case certainly could be brought based on that. All things considered, I'd think it was a waste of time and money though.

Sec. 26. That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defense; but the legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.

That is hardly a “Right to bear arms”

[Guest GT_Rat]

We know quite well how good we have it compared to other states. That does not mean we don't have the right to gripe about not having it as good as the founding fathers intended it.

[Guest Kingfish]

...but Tennessee does have the right to bear arms in its Constitution...

But not without restriction...

"1870 Tennessee: That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime." -- Source

Of course the "view" here is what it is all about.

Since the US constitution is a contract between the states and the feds then I believe the state has the right to set these laws. Now the Federal laws prohibiting carry are very much in the wrong.

[DaveTN]

We know quite well how good we have it compared to other states. That does not mean we don't have the right to gripe about not having it as good as the founding fathers intended it.

If you believe the 2nd amendment was intended to give you the right to strap on a firearm and go wherever you like; then you need to push for a SCOTUS ruling.

There are rumblings that a ruling may be coming. I do not believe that most here will like it when it comes.

[Guest Kingfish]

We know quite well how good we have it compared to other states. That does not mean we don't have the right to gripe about not having it as good as the founding fathers intended it.

I think it is exactly what the Fathers intended. The STATE has the right to set it's own laws. The reason Tennessee is the way it is is because all these people that keep voting democrat just because their granddad was a democrat even thought they are really conservatives. I have personal experience. My wife was always a democrat until one day I went down a list of conservative issues...Gun control, welfare, big government, abortion, etc. Well, now she understands that she is a conservative and was all along. Her mother on the other hand is the same way but will not change the way she votes.

[DaveTN]

Well, now she understands that she is a conservative and was all along.

She understands that she is a conservative democrat?

[Marswolf]

I think this will answer several of the questions posed in this thread.

http://www.attorneygeneral.state.tn.us/op/2004/OP/OP20.pdf

[molonlabetn]

Does anyone here know if a lawsuit has successfully been brought against a business or organization that prohibited concealed carry permit holders to go armed on their property and where one of said permit holders was harmed on that property as a result?

That would really make things interesting.

I'll have to go look it up, but this was the reason for Wal-Mart backing out of their restriction on carry in their stores. An elderly lady with a permit was forced to leave her weapon in her car, and she was robbed while leaving the store... she sued Wal-mart BIG time.

[Guest Kingfish]

She understands that she is a conservative democrat?

Well, seeing as there is no such thing as a conservative democrat anymore...She votes for the most conservative candidate.

[molonlabetn]

You know, I've always been a supporter of the civil rights movement, but I'm not a supporter of a lot of civil rights laws.

While I have no use for bigots, I can't see that it is a right of society to make their bigoted actions illegal in regard to their privately owned property. If I own a restaurant and only want to serve minimum six foot height male Hispanic cigarette smoking gnomes to the exclusion of everyone else, I should be able to do so.

The pertinent question for me is whether it is private or publicly owned, or operated, property. If private, I think the owner has a right to set any standards and requirements he wishes, no matter how irrational or foolish.

A business with restricted access is not 'open to the public', though... by defenition. It is essentially a 'club'. Business owners are certainly able to open a club, and restrict access however they so choose.

[Marswolf]

A business with restricted access is not 'open to the public',

It was before the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Hey, I;m old enough to actually remember these things.

From the above referenced AG decision, page 3:

Further, the State of Tennessee is immune from suits unless the General Assembly has

specifically waived the state’s sovereign immunity. See Tenn. Const. Art. 1, § 17, 1 Tenn. Code Ann.

§ 20-13-102(a). The General Assembly has waived the state’s sovereign immunity through the

Claims Commission in certain circumstances. Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307. If a claim against the

State does not fall under one of these categories enumerated in Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(1),2

then the State is not amenable to the claim. No category under Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(1)

appears to apply to an injury to a permit holder as a result of the holder’s being denied the ability to

carry a firearm. As a result, the Claims Commission would not have jurisdiction to hear such a

matter

[Cruel Hand Luke]

I have NO problem with individual businesses restricting whatever the choose to restrict.If they don't want to allow anyone in that does not meet a dress code I'm all for that. Their business, their rules. I don't HAVE to spend my $$$ with them and some other more open minded business would be happy to take my $$$.

I do have a problem when state legislators who don't deal with crime in any real capacity limit where I can carry, limits my ability to defend myself from predatory criminals, but at the same time do not provide any further security and the cops are not even compelled by law to help me if I am assaulted (Warren Vs. District of Columbia 1981).

If they will not (and CANNOT) defend me while I am at the mercy of criminals they cannot keep from committing crime, then why are they limiting my ability to do it myself?

Now, do I think we should be binge drinking and carrying guns? No. But in Pennsylvania (and a few others) you CAN carry a gun in a bar AND DRINK with a gun in a bar. Is there a rash of shootings in PA bars? Of course not because the people who go through all the hoops to get a permit are NOT the ones that need to be worried about!

To each his own. If you want to go about unarmed...fine. NOT MY PROBLEM. But some of us actually put our $$$ and time where our mouth is calling our representatives and telling them to vote for the "guns in parks" bill and voting for "guns in bars" getting out of committee. Of course there are enough folks in office that DO NOT TRUST YOU to be armed and they keep these from seeing the light of day. But we keep working. And we don't do it for thanks. We do it simply so we can defend ourselves, friends and family and innocent third parties WITHOUT being releagted to commit a crime to be able to defend ourselves.