House Rejects Senate Guns In Bars Bill

[Fallguy]

So if I read you correctly - if/when this passes we'll be able to carry into any establishment that serves by the drink?

Depends on the wording of the bill. If it defines "age restricted" then no. As most if not all "bars" or "Saloons" are now age restricted so that they can allow smoking in accordance with the new smoking bans.

One thing to remember is....with or without any of the restrictions, the bill would only allow carry in restaurants as defined in the bill.

Now who knows what versions is liable to finally come out of things, but the first amendement to the House bill defines "age-restricted" as....

As used in this subdivision ©(3), “age-restricted ” means a restaurant that affirmatively restricts access to its buildings or facilities to persons who are eighteen (18) years of age or older by requiring each person who attempts to gain entry to those buildings or facilities to submit for inspection an acceptable form of identification for the express purpose of determining if the person is eighteen (18) years of age or older;

The key part of that definition is "requiring each person who attempts to gain entry to those buildings or facilities to submit for inspection an acceptable form of identification"

One could argue that if they don't card you at the door, it is not age-restricted per that definition, even if by rule or whatever they only allow those 18 and up in.

Edited April 27, 2009 by Fallguy

[G27]

Thanks, guys. It looks like there may be a few 'growing pains' as we figure out the intricacies of how they are planning on enforcing some of these gray areas. I had forgotten about the age restriction amendment, so yah, if that makes the final law, that will be obvious. But heck, when I go to the Flying Saucer (and get there before 8PM) they're not carding people even though it supposedly 21 or older all the time...

[DavidD]

Depends on the wording of the bill. If it defines "age restricted" then no. As most if not all "bars" or "Saloons" are now age restricted so that they can allow smoking in accordance with the new smoking bans.

That's kind of the way I was seeing it. Most of the Bars I go into (not many I must confess) only added age restrictions once the Smoking Ban was inacted.

Edited April 27, 2009 by DavidD

[JayC]

So if I read you correctly - if/when this passes we'll be able to carry into any establishment that serves by the drink?

We'll be able to carry in pretty much establishment which has a 'restaurant liquor license' which is well over 90% of the places that serve liquor, hotels are a maybe, most of the 'other' licenses will be a no.

Keep in mind this is assuming they don't card at the door (21+) or are properly posted.

[JayC]

Depends on the wording of the bill. If it defines "age restricted" then no. As most if not all "bars" or "Saloons" are now age restricted so that they can allow smoking in accordance with the new smoking bans.

It's only age restricted if they card at the door, not if they post a sign.

[Guest kcnative]

Since the "21+" designation is in the vast majority of case to allow for smoking, I would say that if smoking is allowed, it is considered by law to be 21+. I don't see how one would argue you could both smoke and carry in an establishment. Either the person who is carrying or the restaurant (by allowing smoking) is breaking the law.

[Fallguy]

Since the "21+" designation is in the vast majority of case to allow for smoking, I would say that if smoking is allowed, it is considered by law to be 21+. I don't see how one would argue you could both smoke and carry in an establishment. Either the person who is carrying or the restaurant (by allowing smoking) is breaking the law.

You're right....if a place that allows smoking doesn't card people as they enter...they are technically breaking the law. 39-17-1804(1) You can see the defintion of "age-restricted" as it applies to smoking in 39-17-1802(2)

Also if a place has a big "NO ONE UNDER 21 ALLOWED" sign...I admit I would not want to try to argue with the judge that since they didn't card, they are not technically an "age-restricted venue"

[JayC]

Since the "21+" designation is in the vast majority of case to allow for smoking, I would say that if smoking is allowed, it is considered by law to be 21+. I don't see how one would argue you could both smoke and carry in an establishment. Either the person who is carrying or the restaurant (by allowing smoking) is breaking the law.

The restaurant is breaking the law, but currently the local health inspectors aren't enforcing this.

It's not different than saying a sign with a handgun and a circle/line through it isn't a properly posted building and therefore you can still carry.

Technically you're not breaking the law, but there is a slight risk you might have to get a lawyer to prove it.

I suspect that we'll see some LEOs who don't fully understand the law at first and it will take some run-ins before things settle down.

But, age restricted venue is clearing defined in the law as a place that requires everybody entering to show ID (and be restricted to 21+). If they don't do that, they're not an age restricted venue under the law.

[Guest kcnative]

Interesting.

NONE of the restaurants I've frequented that allow smoking (3-4, but most of them pretty regularly) have carded me at the door. I've only actually been carded ordering a drink once. Some of them didn't even have a sign.

EDIT: Actually one of them did now that I think of it, as I was going to see a band and they did card me and give me a wristband. That one was in M'boro.

Edited April 29, 2009 by kcnative
postscript

[Guest sstouder]

Well, when does this go back to the Senate?

the website says that the senate has "refused to recede from am. 1" and that its on the House calendar for 04/30

[JayC]

Interesting.

NONE of the restaurants I've frequented that allow smoking (3-4, but most of them pretty regularly) have carded me at the door. I've only actually been carded ordering a drink once. Some of them didn't even have a sign.

EDIT: Actually one of them did now that I think of it, as I was going to see a band and they did card me and give me a wristband. That one was in M'boro.

I'd guess if they are using wristbands that means they're allowing 18-20 year olds into the building as well (Only time I've seen wrist bands used were to tell the difference between 21+ and others)...

If that is the case it's not an age restricted venue under the law. They must card and only allow 21+ into the building.

[Fallguy]

I'd guess if they are using wristbands that means they're allowing 18-20 year olds into the building as well (Only time I've seen wrist bands used were to tell the difference between 21+ and others)...

If that is the case it's not an age restricted venue under the law. They must card and only allow 21+ into the building.

See post 51.

For purposes of carry in restaurants that serve alcohol they defined age restricted as any place restricts admission to those 18 and up, not 21 and up.

So yes, for smoking it is 21+ per 39-17-1802(2) but not for carry in restaurants that serve alcohol. Both definitions apply only to the parts of the law they say they do.

[JayC]

I stand corrected, the current language of the House Adm #1 would block if they card 18+, not 21+. The language from the Senate version if re-introduced in conference would be 21+.

[Fallguy]

Wonder if there will be a video feed of the conference committee?

Could be REAL interesting....

[GLOCKMEISTER]

Dont think there will be video but it will be interesting.... I think in the end we will all be happy.

[Fallguy]

Dont think there will be video but it will be interesting.... I think in the end we will all be happy.

Figure you are right on point 1, hope you are right on point 2, I am optimistic though.

[Guest clownsdd]

lowbud....best answer!!!

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

Latest Update for those who could not watch the live video stream of today's House session. The house passed Rep. Todd's requests to have this bill go to conference committee. The members that were assigned to that committee were Todd, McCord, Armstrong, Bass and Casada.

Pretty sure the next step will be for the Senate to appoint conf. committee members and then the committee will meet to work out language that they can all agree on.

[GLOCKMEISTER]

I think were all good to go.... keep sending emails and keep your fingers crossed

[Falcon1]

Senate Conference Members are: Jackson, Finney, Burchett, Stanley, Beavers

Tennessee Firearms Assoc. Inc. • View topic - HB0962 - Restaurants - to meet May 4

[Volzfan]

Latest Update for those who could not watch the live video stream of today's House session. The house passed Rep. Todd's requests to have this bill go to conference committee. The members that were assigned to that committee were Todd, McCord, Armstrong, Bass and Casada.

Pretty sure the next step will be for the Senate to appoint conf. committee members and then the committee will meet to work out language that they can all agree on.

"rep curry todd" rep.curry.todd@capitol.tn.gov

"rep joe mccord" rep.joe.mccord@capitol.tn.gov

"rep joe armstrong" rep.joe.armstrong@capitol.tn.gov

"rep eddie bass" rep.eddie.bass@capitol.tn.gov

"rep glen casada" rep.glen.casada@capitol.tn.gov

Send them all an email now!