HB0962 - Restaurant Carry

[TennFire]

Although a member here, I do most of my legislative posting on the TFA site and in its free update alert system.

However, the restaurant carry bill is important and I want to, if allowable, take this opportunity to provide an update on the bill and its status.

On April 6, I reported that HB0962 (restaurant carry) passed the House on a vote of 70 to 26 with the curfew provision and the "age restriction" provisions still burdening it.

Here is the vote detail on the bill in the House on April 6, 2009:

HB0962 by Todd - FLOOR VOTE: AS AMENDED PASSAGE ON THIRD CONSIDERATION 4/6/2009

Passed

Ayes...............................................70

Noes...............................................26

Representatives voting aye were: Barker, Bass, Bell, Borchert, Brooks H, Brooks K, Campfield, Carr, Casada, Cobb C, Cobb T, Coleman, Coley, Curtiss, Dean, Dennis, Dunn, Eldridge, Evans, Faulkner, Ferguson, Fincher, Floyd, Ford, Fraley, Hackworth, Halford, Harrison, Hawk, Haynes, Hensley, Hill, Johnson C, Johnson P, Kelsey, Litz, Lollar, Lundberg, Lynn, Maddox, Maggart, Matheny, Matlock, McCord, McCormick, McDaniel, McDonald, McManus, Montgomery, Moore, Mumpower, Niceley, Odom, Ramsey, Rich, Roach, Rowland, Sargent, Shepard, Shipley, Swafford, Tidwell, Tindell, Todd, Watson, Weaver, Windle, Winningham, Yokley, Mr. Speaker Williams -- 70.

Representatives voting no were: Armstrong, Bone, Brown, Camper, Cobb J, Cooper, DeBerry J, DeBerry L, Favors, Gilmore, Hardaway, Harmon, Harwell, Jones S, Jones U, Kernell, Miller, Naifeh, Pitts, Richardson, Shaw, Sontany, Stewart, Towns, Turner L, Turner M -- 26.

Note that the NO votes were predominately if not almost entirely urban Democrats with heavy vote unity from Memphis. Almost 1/2 of the state House Democrat caucus voted AGAINST the bill whereas all but one of the House Republicans voted for it. I want to stress that this is not and should not be a party line issue but 2nd Amendment issues continue to have strong resistance from significant numbers of the House Democrat party.

Sadly, one of the disappointing surprises here is Beth Harwell voting against the bill. It is important to know that Rep. Harwell has been discussed as a possible contender for House Speaker and voting against one of these bedrock 2nd Amendment issues is not a good sign.

The Senate then considered the bill and amended it to remove both of those restrictions. It passed overwhelmingly in the Senate on April 16.

HB0962 by Todd - FLOOR VOTE: THIRD CONSIDERATION AMENDED 4/16/2009

Passed

Ayes...............................................26

Noes................................................7

Senators voting aye were: Barnes, Beavers, Black, Bunch, Burchett, Crowe, Faulk, Finney L, Ford, Gresham, Herron, Jackson, Johnson, Ketron, McNally, Norris, Overbey, Southerland, Stanley, Stewart, Tate, Tracy, Watson, Woodson, Yager, Mr. Speaker Ramsey -- 26.

Senators voting no were: Berke, Burks, Harper, Haynes, Henry, Kyle, Marrero -- 7.

This sent the bill back to the House.

In the House, Rep. Joe McCord (R.) made a motion to reject the Senate's amendment which stripped out the restrictions. Essentially, the House was being asked by McCord to reject the Senate's version of the bill. Had the House simply "concurred" it would have been on its way to the governor by now with no restrictions.

Anyhow, back to McCord's motion to "non-concur." A vote "yes" on the motion would be a REJECTION of the Senate action. A vote "no" on the motion, would have brought the bill then up for a second vote on whether to accept the Senate version (I believe - it may be that a "no" vote would have the effect of a concurring vote but I am not sure on the parlimentary issue.)

Anyhow, the House voted 45 to 44 to "non-concur" with the Senate's action. That vote sent the bill back to the Senate to see what they want to do with it. The Senate can repeal its amendment and accept the original House version (which I oppose) or it can continue on toward a conference committee to try and work it out. My concern is that the House conference committee will likely have sponsoring legislators who, although they want restaurant carry, only want it with significant restrictions.

Here is the House vote:

HB0962 by Todd - FLOOR VOTE: NONCONCUR IN SENATE AMENDMENT# 1 4/23/2009

Failed

Ayes...............................................45

Noes...............................................44

Present and not voting.......................2

Representatives voting aye were: Armstrong, Barker, Bass, Borchert, Brooks H, Brown, Casada, Coley, Curtiss, Eldridge, Favors, Ferguson, Fincher, Ford, Fraley, Hackworth, Hardaway, Harmon, Harrison, Haynes, Litz, Lollar, Maddox, Maggart, McCord, McCormick, McDaniel, McDonald, McManus, Montgomery, Mumpower, Odom, Pitts, Pruitt, Ramsey, Sargent, Shepard, Shipley, Sontany, Tidwell, Tindell, Turner M, Watson, Yokley, Mr. Speaker Williams -- 45.

Representatives voting no were: Bell, Bone, Brooks K, Camper, Campfield, Carr, Cobb C, Cobb T, Dean, DeBerry L, Dennis, Dunn, Evans, Faulkner, Fitzhugh, Floyd, Halford, Harwell, Hawk, Hensley, Hill, Johnson C, Johnson P, Jones S, Jones U, Kelsey, Kernell, Lundberg, Lynn, Matlock, Miller, Moore, Naifeh, Niceley, Rich, Richardson, Shaw, Stewart, Swafford, Towns, Turner L, Weaver, Windle, Winningham -- 44.

Representatives present and not voting were: Cobb J, Coleman -- 2.

Looking at who voted where I draw 2 conclusions:

1. They were confused.

2. There is something going on in the shadows that we don't see at this time.

Why, the votes make no sense. Republicans on both sides. Democrats on both sides. Naifeh voting "no" but so did numerous typically pro-2nd Amendment legislators such as Bell, Evans, Kelsey, Lynn, Weaver, and Windle. Yet other noteable legislators who typically would vote against gun bills did not vote with Naifeh and instead voted to "noncur". These anti-2nd Amendment legislators were voting the same as many typically pro-2nd Amendment legislators. See, e.g., Sontany voting with Mumpower.

On Monday, April 27, the Senate rejected the House's efforts to remove the Senate amendment (which removed the House restrictions). That sent the bill back to the House for yet another vote.

The bill then went immediately back to the House where a motion was made to suspend the rules and consider the Senate's action immediately. The significance of that vote would have been either to adopt the Senate's amendment or move to send the bill to a conference committee. The motion to suspend the rules would have requires a vote of 66 affirmative but it failed on a vote of 53-40 - mainly on party lines.

HB0962 by Todd - FLOOR VOTE: MOTION TO SUSPEND THE RULES 4/27/2009

Failed

Ayes...............................................53

Noes...............................................40

Representatives voting aye were: Bass, Bell, Brooks H, Brooks K, Campfield, Carr, Casada, Cobb C, Cobb J, Coley, Dean, Dennis, Dunn, Eldridge, Evans, Faulkner, Ford, Fraley, Halford, Harrison, Harwell, Hawk, Haynes, Hensley, Hill, Johnson C, Johnson P, Kelsey, Kernell, Lollar, Lundberg, Lynn, Maggart, Matlock, McCord, McCormick, McDaniel, McDonald, McManus, Montgomery, Mumpower, Niceley, Ramsey, Rich, Roach, Rowland, Sargent, Shipley, Swafford, Todd, Watson, Weaver, Mr. Speaker Williams -- 53.

Representatives voting no were: Armstrong, Barker, Bone, Borchert, Brown, Camper, Cobb T, Coleman, Cooper, Curtiss, DeBerry J, DeBerry L, Favors, Ferguson, Fincher, Fitzhugh, Gilmore, Hackworth, Hardaway, Harmon, Jones S, Jones U, Litz, Maddox, Miller, Moore, Naifeh, Odom, Pitts, Pruitt, Shaw, Shepard, Sontany, Stewart, Tidwell, Towns, Turner L, Turner M, Windle, Yokley -- 40.

If you want to know why substantial pro-2nd Amendment legislation is not moving more quickly you should focus your inquiry on the House and in particular on those House members who keep blocking progress.

John Harris

Exec. Director Tennessee Firearms Association

These matters are discussed in more detail on the TFA alerts (free legislative email updates)

[Guest HexHead]

So, to recap, the House vote has gone from 70-26 (for) to 45-44 (against) to 53-40 (against).

Seems to me this bill has gone from a shoo-in to slowly circling the bowl. Thanks TFA and all those that don't want to compromise and tweak it later.

You guys got to the Senate, and every time it has to keep going back to the House, our position gets weaker. Just keep giving the Speaker Emeritus more time to peddle his influence. I knew giving the House more bites at the apple would just make things more difficult.

[Guest MediaBuster]

So, to recap, the House vote has gone from 70-26 (for) to 45-44 (against) to 53-40 (against).

Seems to me this bill has gone from a shoo-in to slowly circling the bowl. Thanks TFA and all those that don't want to compromise and tweak it later.

You guys got to the Senate, and every time it has to keep going back to the House, our position gets weaker. Just keep giving the Speaker Emeritus more time to peddle his influence. I knew giving the House more bites at the apple would just make things more difficult.

You can reach back & thank the idiots who slowly morphed our Republic into a Democracy. If you know your history, you'd know that if that hadn't been done, we wouldn't even be discussing this, because the Constitution would be law..

[TGO David]

John, thanks for stopping by to post this. It really does appear that there may be some side deals being cut with the way the votes fell.

People... email and call your Representatives today and tell them that you don't want HB0962 being held up any longer and that you want it passed without the age and curfew restrictions. These people work for you and it's up to you to remind them of that.

[TennFire]

Thanks David.

What some who are attacking TFA perhaps do not realize is the amount of work that TFA volunteers are doing on a daily basis without compensation to change these laws.

Also, some who look only at vote counts without knowing what is going on in detail by talking not just with their legislators but also by talking with bill sponsors, their staff and prospective conference committee members may confuse correlations with causation.

Finally, I have spent many of my days at the legislature over the last 15 years and one thing I strongly believe is that the concept of "get a little and come back next year" seldom if ever works. Its naive. Once a significant change takes place those involved in it will tend to say "We just fixed this last year and we must have held back for a reason .... so let's wait a few years and see how things go."

I am all for debating these issues and changing the laws to make things better for gun owners but some times, frankly, gun owners are as much of the problem - particularly those infected with apathy or the "let the NRA do it" preference - as the solution.

[GLOCKMEISTER]

John thanks for stopping by and posting, It looks like confusion was the issue. When I saw McDonald and Moore on two different sides I knew something was up.

I trust TFA's years of wisdom on these subjects. If you think we can get it all... then Im all for it. I just dont want to be disappointed yet again.

You of all people know what I mean.

Edited April 28, 2009 by GLOCKMEISTER

[Guest HexHead]

Finally, I have spent many of my days at the legislature over the last 15 years and one thing I strongly believe is that the concept of "get a little and come back next year" seldom if ever works. Its naive. Once a significant change takes place those involved in it will tend to say "We just fixed this last year and we must have held back for a reason .... so let's wait a few years and see how things go."

According to what I've read here by people like Phil at the Goodlettsville gun store, without compromise back in 1996 we never would have gotten the shall issue law in the first place. One of those compromises being not being able to carry where alcohol was served or sold, such as in Kroger, Mapco, Tiger Mart or the local liquor store. We got the off-premises restriction lifted a few years later. So it has worked, at least as far as the HCP laws are concerned.

I'll agree with you on one thing though. If we don't get a bill passed this session, it's likely to be several years before it's even considered again for the reasons you cite.

[Guest HexHead]

I just dont want to be disappointed yet again.

Amen, brother.

[TennFire]

According to what I've read here by people like Phil at the Goodlettsville gun store, without compromise back in 1996 we never would have gotten the shall issue law in the first place. One of those compromises being not being able to carry where alcohol was served or sold, such as in Kroger, Mapco, Tiger Mart or the local liquor store. We got the off-premises restriction lifted a few years later. So it has worked, at least as far as the HCP laws are concerned.

I'll agree with you on one thing though. If we don't get a bill passed this session, it's likely to be several years before it's even considered again for the reasons you cite.

I don't mean to nitpick nor have I read all the posts. However, there was no compromise on things like restaurants, etc., in 1994 to 1997 relative to the permit law. We passed "may" issue in May 1994 in a very small text and then realized local law enforcement was not complying with the intent of the law. So, in 1995 - 1997 we worked hard to take the process away from local law enforcement and move it to the DOS and then, once it was moved, we had to change it to require leading issuance of permits within the 90 day window.

As a practical matter, almost all of the "thou shalt nots" - which is how I generally refer to the restrictions, date back at least to 1989 and many are far older than that. The big issues and areas of discussion in 1994 - 1997 had to do with whether local law enforcement would keep the process or whether the state would do it under a standardized process. While the "thou shalt not" issues existed then, they were so far off the radar they were non-existent because we were just working to get the permits issued and reciprocity in place. Now, had we had tens of thousands of Tennessee's gun owners helping since then - like we did in 1996 when it was taking up to a year to issue a permit - then we would see a lot more change in the last 15 years. However, most gun owners are the equivalent of couch potatos when it comes to being involved with the legislature. They sit back with apathy and complain rather than putting their time and their money where their mouth is all to frequently running rampant.

Now, since 1997 we have made incremental progress on topics such as carry in places that sell for off premises consumption, parking lots of places that sell for consumption, posting standards, reciprocity, and a few minor tweaks but there have been no major rollbacks relative to permit holders. We have also suffered some serious setbacks when, for example, the 2007 "castle doctrine" was passed that TFA and NRA's prior lobbyist had intentionally killed in prior years. We took another serious step back in 2008 when the legislature rolled back the rights of citizens who had non-violent felonies and who had obtained their restorations.

All in all, the senate finally starting show signs of helping us 3 years ago and the House has only recently but that was largely due to the displacement of Naifeh as speaker.

[Oh Shoot]

...email and call your Representatives today and tell them...

My district reps are totally polarized on gun issues...

Joe Armstrong in House: con

Tim Burchett in Senate: pro

Armstrong has NEVER returned an email or call. Doesn't even have a staffer do it.

- OS

[Guest db99wj]

I just sent out a plea to Rep Kelsy, to Rep Todd and to Sen Paul Stanley all at the same time, they all were in the address line.

[Punisher84]

I just sent out a plea to Rep Kelsy, to Rep Todd and to Sen Paul Stanley all at the same time, they all were in the address line.

I just told Kelsey and Stanley they had my support. Kelsey has been staying the course. I like that guy.

[enfield]

My district reps are totally polarized on gun issues...

Joe Armstrong in House: con

Tim Burchett in Senate: pro

Armstrong has NEVER returned an email or call. Doesn't even have a staffer do it.

- OS

Let the b@stard know you're not voting for him and why. Send him a certified letter, return receipt. It's a cheap way to annoy jerks.

[Guest db99wj]

Ok, so far I have got one response from Sen Paul Stanley.... Here is his response and my letter that I sent him and Kelsey and Todd.

db99wj,

Thanks for your note and I plan on voting for this bill once again. We passed it the bill in the Senate, however, the House passed a slightly different version. I will be a part of the conference committee to hammer out the details and feel confident we will come out with a clean bill.

Regards,

Paul

Gentleman,

I write you all today to ask for your consideration of this bill or at least a form of this bill with the exclusions. As you know, the law abiding citizens of this state that have decided to undergo the scrutiny of background checks, the expense of the class and appropriate fees, and the expense of our time for the class, would like to be able to go out to eat at establishments that happen to serve alcohol without disarming in our cars, and leaving a weapon in a more vulnerable location for would be thieves. Not to mention that we are giving up the ability to protect ourselves and our families. One day, the liberal, anti-gun people will realize that we are not the problem, guns are not the problem, its the criminals that are the problem, that we need to enforce the laws on the books to those that break the law and don't care about the laws (other than knowing where they can go and have an advantage in these gun free zones).

Please work together and lets get this bill passed. Whether there is no restrictions, an age requirement, curfew or a combination of some or all, let's get this passed, this session. I'm afraid if it gets pushed, the support will be lost for years ahead.

Handgun Permit Holders already go to fast food restaurants, we go to sandwich shops, we go to family restaurants, and other restaurants that happen not to serve currently, just because someone can order a drink at other restaurants that do serve, doesn't make us gun waving lunatics.

Again, Please work hard on this and get this passed. Please send me your thoughts, concerns and your thought on if we are going to get something passed.

[Guest tlondon]

Ok, so far I have got one response from Sen Paul Stanley.... Here is his response and my letter that I sent him and Kelsey and Todd.

db99wj,

Thanks for your note and I plan on voting for this bill once again. We passed it the bill in the Senate, however, the House passed a slightly different version. I will be a part of the conference committee to hammer out the details and feel confident we will come out with a clean bill.

Regards,

Paul

Gentleman,

I write you all today to ask for your consideration of this bill or at least a form of this bill with the exclusions. As you know, the law abiding citizens of this state that have decided to undergo the scrutiny of background checks, the expense of the class and appropriate fees, and the expense of our time for the class, would like to be able to go out to eat at establishments that happen to serve alcohol without disarming in our cars, and leaving a weapon in a more vulnerable location for would be thieves. Not to mention that we are giving up the ability to protect ourselves and our families. One day, the liberal, anti-gun people will realize that we are not the problem, guns are not the problem, its the criminals that are the problem, that we need to enforce the laws on the books to those that break the law and don't care about the laws (other than knowing where they can go and have an advantage in these gun free zones).

Please work together and lets get this bill passed. Whether there is no restrictions, an age requirement, curfew or a combination of some or all, let's get this passed, this session. I'm afraid if it gets pushed, the support will be lost for years ahead.

Handgun Permit Holders already go to fast food restaurants, we go to sandwich shops, we go to family restaurants, and other restaurants that happen not to serve currently, just because someone can order a drink at other restaurants that do serve, doesn't make us gun waving lunatics.

Again, Please work hard on this and get this passed. Please send me your thoughts, concerns and your thought on if we are going to get something passed.

Nice letter.

[Guest db99wj]

I got word from Rep Curry Todd that basically says this "Thanks, got your email, we are going to pass it either Thursday or Monday at the latest, everything looks to be worked out from the House and the Senate, and everyone is going to be pleased when they are finished with it. Thanks for getting involved"

[cadillacdude1975]

lol my senator replied back with a thanks for the info.

[Guest kcnative]

I emailed Cooper a few days ago (like he's actually going to change his mind) and got a stock reply.

Fugger.

[Guest db99wj]

The session starts at 9am. The restaurant bill is on the House Message Calendar (1) for this morning. Video is not up yet, but will be shortly. There are these four items on the agenda below. The House Consent Calendar (1) has 28 items (all memorials), the Message Calendar (1) has 1, restaurant carry, the Message Calendar (2) has 1 item, and Regular Calendar (1) the bottom one has 31 bills. Here is the link, my firefox doesn't show the video at all only sound, I am having to use my IE. Here's the link.

Tennessee General Assembly::Streaming Video

.

House Consent Calendar (1) Agenda for 4/30/2009 House Message Calendar (1) Agenda for 4/30/2009 House Message Calendar (2) Agenda for 4/30/2009 House Regular Calendar (1) Agenda for 4/30/2009

[GLOCKMEISTER]

everyone needs to keep emailing them... even now.

But be rest assured unless something strange happens from what Im hearing all will be fine and happy in the end.

[GLOCKMEISTER]

its up right now...

[Guest db99wj]

It's up right now

[Guest db99wj]

Explaining what has happened to the newbies, due to the differences. A conf committiee is agreed upon, announced, time and place to meet, video'd,

[GLOCKMEISTER]

It's up right now

thats what she said....

I mean thats what I said...

[Guest db99wj]

If a majority of house and senate in committee agree, the agreement on the report would be sent back to the house and senate for vote, then sent to governor.

Today, house holds action, and a committee be formed. That is were we are today

Edited April 30, 2009 by db99wj