The Tennessean calls for veto of allowing guns in alcohol-serving establishments

[Guest johnnyo]

The editorial page of The Tennessean in Nashville has called on Gov. Phil Bredesen to veto the bill that would allow individuals with a handgun carry permit to carry weapons in establishments that serve alcohol. Currently, that practice is prohibited. Those carrying guns would still be prohibited from consuming alcohol.

You can read the Tennessean's call to veto the bill below. You can weigh in on the topic on Friday's Tell Us What You Think story. Selected comments will be used on-air.

Disclosure: WBIR.com and The Tennessean are both Gannett properties and thus share news content. WBIR.com does not take editorial positions and did not weigh in on this topic with The Tennessean's editorial board. We welcome your thoughts on the issue--comments can be posted here but will be more likely to be seen on air if posted in Friday's Tell Us What You Think story.

Editorial: Veto the gun bill, Governor

Tennessean Editorial Page

They have handed the gun to you, Governor. And it's loaded.

Legislators sent House Bill 0962, which promises to be the defining work of this General Assembly, to your desk on Thursday. The bill would allow any Tennessee handgun permit holder to bring their firearms into any establishment that serves alcohol.

Will you allow this?

It is not just smoky, adult-only bars that would be taking on this risk - that would be bad enough - it is any restaurant with a beer permit or liquor license, including family oriented restaurants.

The bill stipulates that the firearm bearer not consume any alcohol on the premises. But the bill does not say how a restaurant server will ascertain whether a person ordering a drink is packing. After all, these permit holders are allowed to conceal their weapons.

Will restaurants have to set up metal detectors, or search each adult before serving them a drink? Is that realistic?

What about the many thousands of people who won't be spending money in Tennessee restaurants and bars anymore, because they'll no longer have a reasonable expectation of safety? The bill proponents will tell you, Governor, that more guns make bars and restaurants safer, but they have no data to back up these claims.

The data is solid when it comes to police reports, which can tell you what happens when people enter drinking establishments with a gun. Sometimes, they come bearing a grudge, as with the killing of a DJ in a Nashville sports bar last month. Sometimes, a spur-of-the-moment dispute occurs between patrons, turning fatal because one or both are armed.

Then there are the accidental shootings, because someone who has had a few drinks simply has no business handling a gun, especially in a crowded restaurant.

Governor, you could stop, or at least slow, the progress of this deadly legislation, with a veto. Yes, a veto is likely to be overridden. Sixty-six House members and 26 senators voted to approve the legislation. But there are times to take a stand, and this is certainly one of those times.

Some have suggested that you will sign the bill, or allow it to become law, because doing so will help get the legislative votes needed to pass your budget. That seems unlikely, because how much money would make up for even a single loss of life because of a barfight for which no one can be held legally accountable?

Listen to the law-enforcement leaders in this state, who strongly oppose this bill and are worried about the safety of the public and of their officers, who will have to respond to these disturbances.

Governor, Tennesseans are outraged that this bill is on the verge of becoming law. It is wrong, and should be fought at every turn.

Will you allow this? Or will you send the legislature and the gun lobby a message that Tennessee cares about the safety of its citizens?

source: WBIR.com | Knoxville, TN | The Tennessean calls for veto of allowing guns in alcohol-serving establishments

[Guest johnnyo]

This type of liberal propaganda pisses me off.

[Guest Bronker]

Eloquently written, and a very clear perspective.

Too bad it's wrong, and misinformed.

[Guest SUNTZU]

The data is solid

I agree that their data is solid.

[ukerduker]

The bill stipulates that the firearm bearer not consume any alcohol on the premises. But the bill does not say how a restaurant server will ascertain whether a person ordering a drink is packing. After all, these permit holders are allowed to conceal their weapons.

Oh, so the resturaunts currently check to see who is driving before allowing a person to order an alcoholic beverage? Drunk driving is illegal.

Will restaurants have to set up metal detectors, or search each adult before serving them a drink? Is that realistic?

This is the equivalent to asking whether the resturaunts are going to give breath-a-lizers to everyone leaving their establishment?

I hope I never get this stupid and become a liberal. I would have to kill myself, rather than face society.

[Guest mustangdave]

Eloquently written, and a very clear perspective.

Too bad it's wrong, and misinformed.

LOL...there are 3 sides to every story...the right side...the left side...and where the usually settles...whether the GOV signs the legislation or not...I think is irrelivent. That is gets passed into LAW is what matters. I just hope the legislature doesn't dick around once its known what the GOV did.

[jgrauman]

all the statements about the criminals bringing handguns into bars with ill intent are correct. they are CRIMINALS the law is not in affect so how can he use that as a precedent? that's some goofy thinking if you as me.

[Guest sstouder]

The linked article says the age restriction is still in the bill. I thought that was not the case? Can someone clear that up please

[Guest crotalus01]

So thousands of potential patrons will no longer eat out because they "no longer have a reasonable expectation of safety" ???

By God, they are damn sure safer with HCPers packing than they would be at, say, Lubys in Texas.

That editorial pisses me off beyond belief...

[Guest crotalus01]

Not to mention the fact that there are NO BARS in Tennessee!!!!!

[cadillacdude1975]

the local news has been running **** like this for a few days. i then leave a very long comment on my feelings about this very thing. it will become law, and right now i dont give a flying you know what if the gov signs it or not.

[Guest 270win]

This is pretty funny! So are people blowing each other away in Birmingham, Atlanta, or Little Rock because it is legal for licensed folks to carry handguns in places that serve???? It is even legal to drink in AL and MS in a restaurant while carrying....some think it is legal in Arkansas too (i've never seen a law prohibiting it in AR...except the state police's out of date website).

I like how people say that Tennessee is a 'redneck state' and 'backward' because the legislature passed this bill. What about New York, California, Connecticut, and Massachusetts? It is legal to carry in places that serve alcohol in those states too....and those are supposed to be 'progressive' and 'free thinking' places.

It sounds like some folks need to get a grip on life.

[Guest JavaGuy]

Okay fellows.. let me point out something. Some of the folks on this board are a bit cavalier with their spelling and grammar. If you plan to post a comment on the Tennessean's site (or any other site) in opposition to this (or any other) editorial, please take care to use words correctly.

There is a location. Their means it belongs to them. They're means they are.

Where is also a reference to location. Were is the past tense of are.

Things like that. Spelling errors and grammar miscues lessen the impact of your thoughts and opinions.

Okay.. go ahead and flame me now for preferring well-written commentary to poorly-written comments.

[Guest SigVol]

Okay fellows.. let me point out something. Some of the folks on this board are a bit cavalier with their spelling and grammar. If you plan to post a comment on the Tennessean's site (or any other site) in opposition to this (or any other) editorial, please take care to use words correctly.

There is a location. Their means it belongs to them. They're means they are.

Where is also a reference to location. Were is the past tense of are.

Things like that. Spelling errors and grammar miscues lessen the impact of your thoughts and opinions.

Okay.. go ahead and flame me now for preferring well-written commentary to poorly-written comments.

Okay...consider yourself phlegmed...

[Bigiron]

Thanks, JavaGuy.

[Guest JavaGuy]

Okay...consider yourself phlegmed...

Ahh.. next time, I'd much prefer that you have the gal in your avatar pic phlegm me.

[Guest SigVol]

You and me both...brother!