HB0962 - Restaurant Carry

[Guest bkelm18]

ya'll know what the message calender means right?

Glossary of Terms - TN General Assembly

Message - Calendars used for bills which have passed both chambers but remain unsettled because there has been no uniform agreement on the final language.

Judging by the definition, the only calendar it would be on would be the message calendar.

[GLOCKMEISTER]

what I remember is any house member can pull it off the message calender and it will be delayed yet another week. I just have an uneasy feeling about it is all... probably nothing.

[Guest djack41]

what I remember is any house member can pull it off the message calender and it will be delayed yet another week. I just have an uneasy feeling about it is all... probably nothing.

That is the consent calendar, not the message calendar.

[waynesan]

Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey on the gun bills:

JohnsonCityPress.com - Local News - Johnson City, TN

“I think it’s allowing people to exercise their second amendment right of personal protection. There are actually documented cases where people with handgun carry permits have stopped crimes in restaurants.†Ramsey said. “It’s a little bit ironic that if the handgun owner is a young lady, who feels she needs protection, can have a pistol in her pocket book and go to Shoney’s and eat or go to Ryan’s and eat but for some reason she can’t go to Applebees or O’Charleys.â€

[G27]

Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey on the gun bills:

JohnsonCityPress.com - Local News - Johnson City, TN

Great quote, thanks.

[Punisher84]

Ron Ramsey for Pres?

[Guest JavaGuy]

That is the consent calendar, not the message calendar.

DJack is correct.

Consent calendars are used to move things along like resolutions and joint resolutions. Many times the objections to an item on a consent calendar is because that item is honoring someone who is actually in attendance at that session, and the representative or senator wants to run the resolution personally rather than let it go through in a batch with all the rest.

Regular calendars are the main workhorse calendars. They carry the general bills, the items which, if passed, will become law. Stuff like the handgun bills or the budget bills.

Message calendars are used to pass items back and forth between the chambers. A bill is introduced in both chambers.. as a house bill and as a senate bill. Each chamber works on its version of the bill.. whichever chamber finishes first, well.. that bill will proceed through its chamber and then be passed to the other chamber. The message calendar is the vehicle used to bundle those bills up and bring them up for discussion.

[Daniel]

Mike Chase needs to worry more about his rest. than the carry bill....:dropjaw:

Last time I ate in Calhouns on Kingston Pike it sucked:puke:

The White Bridge Rd one isnt to swift either. My mother still lives in Knoxville and said her last meal at Calhouns on the river wasnt very good either.

[Guest nraforlife]

If Chase is really worried about the safety of his patrons then he needs to close down the bars and stop selling alcohol.

[Guest benchpresspower]

what I remember is any house member can pull it off the message calender and it will be delayed yet another week. I just have an uneasy feeling about it is all... probably nothing.

Agree with you on that. They've been playing ping pong with this bill for a while now and looks like it could go either way.

[Guest HexHead]

The White Bridge Rd one isnt to swift either. My mother still lives in Knoxville and said her last meal at Calhouns on the river wasnt very good either.

I have to admit, I'm gonna miss their hickory smoked prime rib they have on Friday and Saturday nights. Oh well, they just raised the prices on it recently.

I sent a comment on their website to the restaurant letting them know I'd be going to J. Alexander's across the street in the future for prime rib, since their owner Chase was an idiot.

[Guest MediaBuster]

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Benjamin Franklin, 1759

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

Thomas Jefferson

Have you ever notice that Politicians & Mayors never dispatch Police to wait outside of of bars that pay Thousands of dollars a year into that towns budget/coffers? The Government isn't truly worried about drunk drivers or safety, because I watch them leave every time I play a bar. Why aren't the cops & so called Reps. demanding the right to arrest the half dozen or so dangerous drunk drivers as they leave virtually every bar, every night?

The reason is that they don't want to stop the tax revenue from flowing by shutting down a bar's patronage. That is why we should stop compromising with these pieces of that tell us when we can & cannot exercise our God given right to self protection, not to mention our rights under the second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The Government does however not prefer an armed citizenry, because then they have to worry about reprisals if they try to force tyranny upon us.

Enough is enough.. If they don't put this bill through, & will sit outside of a Bar myself & start calling the cops on everyone I see stumbling out to their car..

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

I agree with you Media Buster. I am still optimistic that this bill will go through but it has been amazing along the way to listen to some of the arguments against it. the whole idea that our HCP allows us to carry 'sometimes' and only in 'some places' is really absurd. When we are issued a drivers license, they don't tell us "now, you can drive, but you can't drive to a restaurant that serves alcohol because you might be tempted to have a drink and then drive around killing people". Nope, they just say here is your license, have a nice day. If you listen to people like Hardaway or Santony, you would think that a drivers license is specifically designed to legally allow you to drive drunk.

It was almost comical to listent to Rep. Armstrong try to argue that "because alcohol is not sold between 11pm and 5am or before noon on Sundays at liquor stores - that it should also be the times that someone should NOT be able to carry a gun into a place that serves alcohol." It was possibly the most illogical argument I have ever heard regarding the right to carry.

I guess to summarize my rant (too late to make it short), you are correct. People drive after drinking alcohol by the thousands every day of the week even though there are laws that say you can't drive drunk. Those people knowingly endanger the lives of everyone around them. But I don't see Hardaway or Armstrong trying to pass laws saying that you can't have a car at a restaurant that serves alcohol. I don't see News Channel 5 Investigative Reports running stories about "Cars at Bars" and talking about how 'Bad' it is for our society to allow legally licensed drivers to take their 3000 pound weapon to the parking lot so that they can get tanked and then possibly go on a pedestrian killing spree with their car.

Edited May 6, 2009 by pws_smokeyjones

[waynesan]

Smokeyjones:

MediaBuster: :up:

I would have given you guys stars but I couldn't find any. Two good posts.

[GLOCKMEISTER]

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Benjamin Franklin, 1759

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

Thomas Jefferson

Have you ever notice that Politicians & Mayors never dispatch Police to wait outside of of bars that pay Thousands of dollars a year into that towns budget/coffers? The Government isn't truly worried about drunk drivers or safety, because I watch them leave every time I play a bar. Why aren't the cops & so called Reps. demanding the right to arrest the half dozen or so dangerous drunk drivers as they leave virtually every bar, every night?

The reason is that they don't want to stop the tax revenue from flowing by shutting down a bar's patronage. That is why we should stop compromising with these pieces of that tell us when we can & cannot exercise our God given right to self protection, not to mention our rights under the second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The Government does however not prefer an armed citizenry, because then they have to worry about reprisals if they try to force tyranny upon us.

Enough is enough.. If they don't put this bill through, & will sit outside of a Bar myself & start calling the cops on everyone I see stumbling out to their car..

they cant lay in wait outside a bar anymore... its unconstitutional. I wish they could, but they cant.

[Guest MediaBuster]

they cant lay in wait outside a bar anymore... its unconstitutional. I wish they could, but they cant.

Agreed, yet that's kind of my point.. I heard talk of them doing "spot checks" to check people for illegal weapons in bars.. THAT sounds kind of "Brown Coat-ish" to me..

My point was not necessarily that they should babysit people, but rather that they are singling out legal Gun owners rather than drunk drivers who cause WAY more carnage & destruction than CWP holders do.

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

Agreed, yet that's kind of my point.. I heard talk of them doing "spot checks" to check people for illegal weapons in bars.. THAT sounds kind of "Brown Coat-ish" to me..

My point was not necessarily that they should babysit people, but rather that they are singling out legal Gun owners rather than drunk drivers who cause WAY more carnage & destruction than CWP holders do.

You are correct. The most recent stats I could find show that in 2006 there were 478 alcohol related deaths. That is 1.3 per day.

Tennessee Drunk Driving Statistics

I wonder how many gun related deaths there were in 2006 by HCP holders, that were NOT using their gun in the act of self defense.

[GLOCKMEISTER]

if you look at all the vehicle deaths some would start banning cars.

[E4 No More]

if you look at all the vehicle deaths some would start banning cars.

Iatrogenic deaths are the number one killer of Americans every year, so should we outlaw doctors too?

[GLOCKMEISTER]

sure....

[Guest MediaBuster]

Agreed, yet that's kind of my point.. I heard talk of them doing "spot checks" to check people for illegal weapons in bars.. THAT sounds kind of "Brown Coat-ish" to me..

My point was not necessarily that they should babysit people, but rather that they are singling out legal Gun owners rather than drunk drivers who cause WAY more carnage & destruction than CWP holders do.

Of course the correct term for the Sturmabteilung or

Nazi "stormtroopers" would be "Brown Shirts", not Brown Coats..

[Volzfan]

So does anyone know what time the House and Senate are expected to get to these bills tomorrow? Will it be on streaming vid?

[VolunteerGuns]

Should stream it live. +1. Would love to know a time myself...

[Guest djack41]

Should stream it live. +1. Would love to know a time myself...

Session begins at 9:00am for both house and senate.

[Guest HexHead]

I guess to summarize my rant (too late to make it short), you are correct. People drive after drinking alcohol by the thousands every day of the week even though there are laws that say you can't drive drunk. Those people knowingly endanger the lives of everyone around them. But I don't see Hardaway or Armstrong trying to pass laws saying that you can't have a car at a restaurant that serves alcohol. I don't see News Channel 5 Investigative Reports running stories about "Cars at Bars" and talking about how 'Bad' it is for our society to allow legally licensed drivers to take their 3000 pound weapon to the parking lot so that they can get tanked and then possibly go on a pedestrian killing spree with their car.

One of the arguments I see often against this bill is that people drink and drive when they shouldn't so why should WE be trusted?

Maybe if the penalty for driving while under the influence (any alcohol at all, not just over .08%) was the same as for someone with an HCP caught drinking while carrying, it might have an effect?

DUI is a relatively punishment free crime in comparison, especially the first time. Make a first time DUI a Class A misdemeanor, subject to a fine of up to $2500 and up to 12 months in jail. Oh yeah, and you permanently lose your drivers license.

The moonbats making the original premise are comparing apples and oranges.

Edited May 7, 2009 by HexHead