Senate strips curfew from guns in bars legislation

[Guest johnnyo]

The Tennessee Senate passed a bill Thursday that would allow handgun-carry permit holders to take guns into establishments serving alcohol.

Senators voted 26-7 to strip an amendment, approved by the state House, from the bill that would not allow guns in those establishments from 11 p.m. until 5 a.m.

State Sen. Doug Overbey, R-Maryville, voted for the revised bill.

"I thought a bill with no restrictions was an improvement in that the folks who have a concealed weapons permit are the ones who have had a background check, who have gone through the safety courses and have show themselves to be responsible citizens," Overbey said. "It's really the folks without a permit you have to worry about. They are probably disregarding whatever the laws are. but the folks with a concealed permit have shown themselves to be responsible."

The vote sets the stage for a conference committee showdown with members of the state House.

"Their bill, some people call this a bar-carry," said State Rep. Joe McCord, R-Maryville. "What our bill was intended to do was be a more traditional restaurant-carry. The House version had a provision that if (the facility) required proof-of-age that you were not permitted to carry into those facilities and you were not allowed to carry between hours of 11 p.m. and 5 am."

The intent of the curfew was to prohibit the carrying of firearms into restaurants during times when they were primarily just serving alcohol, McCord said.

"They become more what people would consider bars rather than restaurants," he said. "It's not the intent of the House that you be able to carry handguns into those places."

Senators also voted to remove a requirement that the restaurant not be an age-restricted venue. McCord disagrees with the decision.

"I very strongly feel that should be in place," he said.

The conflicting versions of the bill will now have to be reconciled.

"We will get the bill back to us in the House on Monday," McCord said. "We will form a conference committee. We'll have probably three members from the House and three from the Senate. I will be one of those members. We'll try to come to an agreement between the two bills and then send them back to the bodies for a vote of agreement or not."

It's currently a Class A misdemeanor for anyone to possess a firearm within the confines of a building open to the public where alcoholic beverages are served.

The bill allows carrying a firearm where alcoholic beverages are served for any person who meets the following conditions:

The person has a handgun carry permit;

The person is not consuming any alcoholic beverage; and

The person is in an establishment that is open to the public, serves alcoholic beverages, wine or beer ...

Source: Senate strips curfew from guns in bars legislation

[Guest canynracer]

We need to remind our House reps of the 2nd and 3rd shift workers. They deserve the same protection as day shifters.

I will be sending my emails to see this pass without restrictions. We are already covered by the "No alcohol" law.

[Guest HexHead]

I get the "over 21" restriction, the logic being it's probably a bar or nightclub. And what about restaurants that chose to go the "over 21" route so they didn't have to ban smoking? Do you give up your right to self defense just because you smoke now?

But can someone explain to me to "over 18" restriction? They're not old enough to drink in the first place.

Edited April 17, 2009 by HexHead

[Oh Shoot]

I get the "over 21" restriction, the logic being it's probably a bar or nightclub. And what about restaurants that chose to go the "over 21" route so they didn't have to ban smoking? Do you give up your right to self defense just because you smoke now?

But can someone explain to me to "over 18" restriction? They're not old enough to drink in the first place.

Or get a HCP.

- OS

[Guest SomeGuy]

Hex,

Short version is that Curry Todd, a retired cop, thinks you should have some freedom, but not too much.

[Paletiger13]

Somebody shoot Doug Overbey an email or phone call and tell him he is doing a great job and thanks for keeping that much more free.

[Fallguy]

I get the "over 21" restriction, the logic being it's probably a bar or nightclub. And what about restaurants that chose to go the "over 21" route so they didn't have to ban smoking? Do you give up your right to self defense just because you smoke now?

But can someone explain to me to "over 18" restriction? They're not old enough to drink in the first place.

For whatever reason, some places choose the cut off age at 18 others 21. By using "age restricted" it covers both places or any place that may even come up with an odd age to by pass the restriction. Say like if I owned a bar and restricted admittance to those 22 and up.

[Guest Linoge]

You know, I am willing to give them the age restriction legislation, simply because Tennessee has never gotten around to legally defining an actual "bar". Eventually, we can work on that getting changed, but I would consider getting rid of the curfew to be a "must do".

[Guest nraforlife]

You know, I am willing to give them the age restriction legislation, simply because Tennessee has never gotten around to legally defining an actual "bar". Eventually, we can work on that getting changed, but I would consider getting rid of the curfew to be a "must do".

I can live with that for the time being. 2nd and 3rd shift workers, overnight travelers etc ALL need the right to be armed as they see fit. Just no guns at the old strip club

[Guest 44M]

the only restriction I would agree with would be that the person who carry a gun can not consume alcohol...

Db

[Guest SomeGuy]

You guys are aware we do not need to live with the age restriction, right?

44M has it right. As long as you don't drink, who cares where you go?

[Fallguy]

the only restriction I would agree with would be that the person who carry a gun can not consume alcohol...

Db

You know...some states even allow that.......

Personally I think the only place we should be restricted from carry of our handguns is any place that a BG has never commited or will commit a crime.

Now...that being said, I know TN and most states will never let a armed citizen carry anywhere and everywhere. So "foot in the door" laws are at least a good start.

Edited April 20, 2009 by Fallguy

[Guest SomeGuy]

Fallguy,

I do not know if I would say NEVER allow to carry everywhere.

Given a decade, I can see it as very possible we could remove every restriction on where to carry, for those with HCPs.

[G27]

For whatever reason, some places choose the cut off age at 18 others 21.

I'm pretty sure the 21 year age limit allows you to allow smoking, while the 18 and up does NOT allow smoking.

[Fallguy]

Fallguy,

I do not know if I would say NEVER allow to carry everywhere.

Given a decade, I can see it as very possible we could remove every restriction on where to carry, for those with HCPs.

There is always hope.

I'm pretty sure the 21 year age limit allows you to allow smoking, while the 18 and up does NOT allow smoking.

True. Admittance has to be restricted to 21 and up to allow smoking, even though 18-20 year old can legally smoke. However there are other reasons than smoking to restrict admittance to a certain age.

Funny thing is before smoking was an issue, some of the clubs around here restricted admittance to those 18 and up even those only 21 and up could drink. Haven't been to any those in a while so not sure what they are doing now.

A lot of this goes back to whether you are legally and adult at 21 or 18, but is debate for another thread.

My point was/is that there are different starting points for age-restricted places and a law that uses the term "age-restricted" instead of "21 and up" covers them all. It also prevents someone from trying to bypass a "21 and up" law by restricting admittance to those 22 or 25 or whatever and up.

But hopefully this all moot when it comes to carry in restaurants and the HB0962

Edited April 20, 2009 by Fallguy

[GLOCKMEISTER]

guys were loseing support in the house with the age restriction being lifted... they should have left that alone in the senate.

[Guest bkelm18]

guys were loseing support in the house with the age restriction being lifted... they should have left that alone in the senate.

That was to be expected. All we need is a majority. When's the vote?

Edit: Nevermind, looked it up. It's tomorrow.

[lowbud]

I believe I should be able to carry my gun anywhere. Including when going out to eat which may or may not include a few drinks with my meal.

I don't go out simply to drink. If I did, I would probably leave my gun at home along with my car keys.

[G27]

guys were loseing support in the house with the age restriction being lifted... they should have left that alone in the senate.

Ugh. I hope we don't lose this one...

[GLOCKMEISTER]

I would be very suprised if the house votes this bill in the way it is. This is a classic example of trying to get more then you can... this very move could kill the legislation all together.

If he doesnt have the votes to pass it for sure I hope they send it to a conference commitee with the Senate and and add the ID requirement.

[Mike.357]

I am curious if the senator who removed the time limit thing is rated as a supporter of gun rights. Or was this a left handed move to undermine this legislation?

[Guest bkelm18]

I am curious if the senator who removed the time limit thing is rated as a supporter of gun rights. Or was this a left handed move to undermine this legislation?

The thought occurred to me as well. This could just be an attempt by the left to scuttle the bill.

[Guest SomeGuy]

It was not an attempt to scuttle the bill.

I have spoken with multiple state Reps since the Senate version was passed, and they are saying it is expected to pass. I question the motives of those who say it suddenly has lost support.

If you want the bill to pass, don't nay-say on internet forums, get out there and call/write and get them to pass it. Anyone who fails to write, call or in some form communicate their desire for this bill to pass to their elected officials is showing where they really stand on this issue.

[Guest bkelm18]

I question the motives of those who say it suddenly has lost support.

Ah you caught us. By saying it lost support we are secretly hoping it will fail. Damn you!!

[Guest Linoge]

You guys are aware we do not need to live with the age restriction, right?

Which is why we can give it up to them - it is a meaningless compromise, but it makes the politicians who supported it look like THEY DID SOMETHING!

And, after all, that is really all politicians care about...