Restaurant Carry bill question

[Guest Alpha Dog]

OK, the way I understand it...the House passed the bill with restrictions, the Senate then passed the bill without the restrictions (curfew, etc.)...

So, the Senate bill goes back to the House since it replaced the earlier House bill?

What happens if the House does not pass the Senate bill?

Is the issue (and bill) then dead?

[dralarms]

No, what happens now, the way I understand it, is the SB goes to the house and the house votes on keeping the amendments or not. If they agree (majority rule) with the changes it goes on to the guvnrs desk. If they do not agree the it will go to a conference committee and they will try and work out a compromise, if they can then the process starts all over again with the house and senate voting on the new stuff, if they can't then the bill is dead.

[Guest nraforlife]

If push comes to shove, that is no bill at all, leave the time restrictions in. We can try to get them out next session but at least get the ball rolling.

[Guest Alpha Dog]

OK, so it COULD end up dying in committee...

While I agree, NO restrictions would be ideal...I personally think that a bill with a curfew would beat a dead bill anyday!

I hope they can work something out. This may be the best year to EVER get it passed, IMHO.

[Wrangler]

OK, so it COULD end up dying in committee...

While I agree, NO restrictions would be ideal...I personally think that a bill with a curfew would beat a dead bill anyday!

I hope they can work something out. This may be the best year to EVER get it passed, IMHO.

I completely agree. Lets hope they work it out fast.

[Guest benchpresspower]

I've heard both that Bredesen won't veto it and that he will veto it. I hope I'm wrong on the latter.

[Guest JavaGuy]

No, what happens now, the way I understand it, is the SB goes to the house and the house votes on keeping the amendments or not. If they agree (majority rule) with the changes it goes on to the guvnrs desk. If they do not agree the it will go to a conference committee and they will try and work out a compromise, if they can then the process starts all over again with the house and senate voting on the new stuff, if they can't then the bill is dead.

Close enough for jazz. Technically speaking, because the House passed their version (HB0962) of the legislation first, when the Senate's version (SB1127 I think..) came to the floor for a hearing, the House bill was on the clerk's desk. The Senate sponsor then moved to substitute and conform to the House bill. That means that they accept the House's version as the active bill.. we go from two competing versions to one version that both chambers will work with.

The Senate then amended the House bill to strip out the restrictions placed in it by the amendment adopted on the House floor.

Now, the House bill, HB0962, will go back to the House with the Senate's language.

The House can accept it.. in that case, it goes to the Governor. He can sign it, veto it or let it become law without his signature.

The House can reject the changes.. in that case, it goes back to the Senate to see if they wish to reconsider their actions.

If the House and Senate agree to disagree, then it does go to conference committee. That will be a committee, equals parts Senator and Representatives, chosen by the two speakers.

The conference committee will attempt to hammer out a deal. Their majority opinion will become a conference committee report, in essence, a super-duper amendment that will supercede any previous amendments.

The conference committee will present their solution to the respective chambers for a vote. It is very possible that the two chambers will still not agree on the language. In that event, the bill will almost certainly be dead as a door-knob.

That's the process... back and forth...

Yeah, and I expect a conference committee on this.... The House seemed pretty set on putting those restrictions into the bill.

[Guest SigVol]

What exactly will the bill mean to licensed carriers?

[Guest bkelm18]

What exactly will the bill mean to licensed carriers?

It means you can carry in an establishment that serves alcohol. There may be a couple stipulations like the curfew and the age thing, but that depends on how it is passed.

[dralarms]

What exactly will the bill mean to licensed carriers?

It mean you would be able to go to outbacks, have a steak and coke, and not have to disarm to do it.

[Guest crotalus01]

But not a bowling alley that servers beer. Or a movie theater that sells wine. Still, its a hell of a lot more than what we currently have...

[Magiccarpetrides]

So how long til we find out?

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

Ladies and Gentlemen. At this point the best thing we can all do is call and/or email our representatives and let them know in a courteous way how much we support this bill getting passed. My feedback from Senators and Reps has been very positive so far.

crotalus01 - I am not sure what you mean by the bowling alley that serves beer and theater that sells wine. Are those current restrictions? If so - do you know where in the laws that is spelled out?

[Fallguy]

Ladies and Gentlemen. At this point the best thing we can all do is call and/or email our representatives and let them know in a courteous way how much we support this bill getting passed. My feedback from Senators and Reps has been very positive so far.

crotalus01 - I am not sure what you mean by the bowling alley that serves beer and theater that sells wine. Are those current restrictions? If so - do you know where in the laws that is spelled out?

Current law says you can not carry within the confines of a building that serves alcohol for onsite consumption. It does not distinguish between different types of business. It doesn't matter if it is a bar, restaurant, bowling alley, theater or hot dog stand you can not carry inside if they serve alcohol.

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.

The bill will add a new exemption under © for those that have a HCP, but only in restaurants as defined in the bill. Which is...

....means any public place kept, used, maintained, advertised and held out to the public as a place where meals are served and where meals are actually and regularly served, such place being provided with adequate and sanitary kitchen and dining room equipment, having employed therein a sufficient number and kind of employees to prepare, cook and serve suitable food for its guests. At least one (1) meal per day shall be served at least five (5) days a week, with the exception of holidays, vacations and periods of redecorating, and the serving of such meals shall be the

principal business conducted.

Edited April 20, 2009 by Fallguy

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

Interesting. I rarely go to bowling alleys and I have never been to a theater that serves wine ( that I know of ) so I hadn't thought about the fine details of that restriction. Thanks for bringing it my attention. I guess bowling alley food and Theater food doesn't really qualify as "suitable food" . It does seem like splitting hairs to have a law that basically says "its ok to have a gun at Chili's, but not at a bowling alley that serves beer" eh?

[Fallguy]

To me, it seems the restaurant definition is comparable to other states "51% rule", without causing restaurants here to actually have to keep up with and report food sales. Something that restaurant group has uses as a reason to be opposed to this legislation.

But rather than saying revenues of at least "51% from food" or "restaurant as defined in the code" I thing it would be better to say "< 50% from alcohol sales" or greater that "51% from non-alcoholic sales"

Don't get me wrong I think this bill is good and I hope to see it pass. I also believe that 100% clean bill would have have passed. These are just things that might be kept in mind for future sessions of the legislature....

[J Smith]

I would rather it not be there but the curfew does not bother me.I am not going to be in a restaurant after 11.00 pm unless I am drinking and if I am doing that I shouldn't be carrying any way.

[Guest db99wj]

Regarding Bowling Allies and Theaters

What about Hotels? We have discussed this and it is ok. What about malls that have a restaurant that serves? We all know that none of us would set foot in a mall and not carry (unless legally posted in accordance to TN State Law) They are under one roof, they are part of the "mall" "hotel". Where is the distinction? My guess would be under the alcohol license. That if the bowling ally is under Bubba's Bowling Ally and the alcohol license is under Snuffies Tavern, then you could carry into a bowling ally... due to be seperate entities. I know you can take a "beer" from the bar and go into the bowling ally, you can't do that in a mall, but you can do that in a hotel.

So what can you do..at this point? Hopefully this won't be an issue come summer, but it is right now.

[Guest bkelm18]

Regarding Bowling Allies and Theaters

What about Hotels? We have discussed this and it is ok. What about malls that have a restaurant that serves? We all know that none of us would set foot in a mall and not carry (unless legally posted in accordance to TN State Law) They are under one roof, they are part of the "mall" "hotel". Where is the distinction? My guess would be under the alcohol license. That if the bowling ally is under Bubba's Bowling Ally and the alcohol license is under Snuffies Tavern, then you could carry into a bowling ally... due to be seperate entities. I know you can take a "beer" from the bar and go into the bowling ally, you can't do that in a mall, but you can do that in a hotel.

So what can you do..at this point? Hopefully this won't be an issue come summer, but it is right now.

As far as the establishment in a mall, answer this question: If you order a drink at the establishment, can you walk around the mall with it while drinking it? Nope. It only applies to the confines of the restaurant.

[Guest db99wj]

As far as the establishment in a mall, answer this question: If you order a drink at the establishment, can you walk around the mall with it while drinking it? Nope. It only applies to the confines of the restaurant.

So with that line of thought you can not carry into a bowling ally, because you can drink at your lane. The movie theater, the one here, you can only drink in that area, you can't take it with you out of the "wine bar" area. So you should be able to carry while watching a movie (Popcorn and coke is dinner by the way, a good dinner too, not nutritious but good:D) Hotel, you can take it with you, you can carry in the other parts of the hotel. Is that because of the domicile rule or something?

[JayC]

To me, it seems the restaurant definition is comparable to other states "51% rule", without causing restaurants here to actually have to keep up with and report food sales. Something that restaurant group has uses as a reason to be opposed to this legislation.

But rather than saying revenues of at least "51% from food" or "restaurant as defined in the code" I thing it would be better to say "< 50% from alcohol sales" or greater that "51% from non-alcoholic sales"

Don't get me wrong I think this bill is good and I hope to see it pass. I also believe that 100% clean bill would have have passed. These are just things that might be kept in mind for future sessions of the legislature....

I have to disagree, the wording from the bill comes from the current legal definition of a restaurant liquor license. (With 1 minor exception that the liquor license only requires meals 4 days a week not 5)

The good news is the way the law is worded the state has verified that every establishment with a 'restaurant liquor license' meets the requirement for carry under this bill. (With the exception for the 4 days vs 5 days a week, carding persons over 21, and legal posting)

I wrote a fairly in dept post over at tfaonline that highlights the different types of liquor licenses, and how they impact this bill.

Tennessee Firearms Assoc. Inc. • View topic - SB1127 (HB0962) Restaurant bill approved by Sen. Jud.

The short answer is that virtually every free standing building which serves liquor has a "restaurant liquor license" and therefore unless they only serve meals 4 days a week, card at the door for persons 21+ years of age, or have a properly worded posting barring firearms, once this bill becomes law HCP holders will be able to carry in them.

Most of the places you're talking about bowling alleys, "bars", movie theaters (some exception here for 501c3 community theaters), and just about all the common establishments all have 'restaurant liquor licenses' and therefore the state have verified all of the required conditions for you (again with the noted exceptions above).

[Fallguy]

I haven't looked up, but I don't disagree that the wording for what a restaurant is came from the ABC's (or elsewhere) definition of what a restaurant is. My point was though that allow carry in only restaurants that serve alcohol may not cover all places that serve alcohol.

I would disagree about many of those places having any type license to sell liquor.

There are still many dry counties in TN. Even in some of the ones where liquor is sold it is is package stores and not is restaurants for onsite consumption.

So I don't thing any place that just sells beer with a beer license issued by the local beer board would have a state issued restaurant liquor license.

[JayC]

Your post was talking about % of sales... I was just pointing out that by the fact a restaurant has a liquor license, the state of TN has verified it meets virtually all of the requirements of this bill.

Which is going t include places like bowling alley's, bars, and movie theaters.

As for places that only sell beer, you're right those are only regulated by local beer boards... And those establishments in dry counties my well pose a problem under this bill, but the vast major of people going to restaurants in cities will be going to establishments with 'restaurant liquor licenses'.

My point again is that the current wording in cases where the establishment serves liquor takes all the worry off of us as HCP holders, because the state has already verified all the conditions to carry. While I'm sure there will be some places here and there that don't serve liquor but do serve beer, the fact remains it's very hard making a living running a bar that can't serve liquor. A large chunk of those places in a dry county will meet the bills requirements as well. (Because like a pizza place that sells beer, the vast majority of the sales are going to be for pizza not beer).

[Fallguy]

I have no doubt that a place that serves liquor is a restaurant by law and in this bill.

My point about %'s is a bill that would allow carry in a place that makes less than 50% of it's revenue for alcohol would allow carry in more places than a bill that allows carry in a place that makes 51% or greater of it's revenue from food sales...or a bill that allows carry in restaurants.

It's not that hard to make a living at place that only serves beer and not liquor if no other establishment for several miles around can sell liquor either.

It's not that I don't like the bill I do. ...and if someone's main goal was to be able to carry in a restaurant, this is a perfect bill.

My only point was that I had noticed it wouldn't help to allow carry in any other place that serves alcohol except restaurants.

BTW....let me know which bowling alley's serve liquor...a Jack and Coke may be a nice change.

[Oh Shoot]

....

My point about %'s is a bill that would allow carry in a place that makes less than 50% of it's revenue for alcohol would allow carry in more places than a bill that allows carry in a place that makes 51% or greater of it's revenue from food sales...or a bill that allows carry in restaurants....

Maybe I'm (as usual) out of the loop on this, but if the current iteration passes, won't it simply repeal the existing statue? Meaning, "serving alcohol for on site consumption" being the only criterion? And that being no longer barred?

If so, what diff does any of this make?

Or, is there actually going to be a new statute with "restaurant" in the wording?

- OS