Okay, this is troubling....

[Guest sstouder]

I'm predicting that "the fix is in" over there, and the local pols in Nashville will "see the light" of the wisdom of our esteemed legislature.

- OS

they better...or im gonna have to use the ole holy hand grenade on these basteeds. 1...2.....5

[Volzfan]

btw, he said something about to watch the news tonight, there will something about Sen.Jackson killing this thing.

Anybody know what channel this is on or better yet do you have a link to the video?

[wjh2657]

I am not trying to stir anything up, as I find the back and forth on these topics interesting (and proof of the old saying about all of us having opinions and you know...).

But I have a questions: if Chilis is real close to your home, why even carry the gun one way, only to take it off and lock it up, then go back home?

Genuninely curious. For example, if I am going to Ft Campbell, I cannot carry on the post, so I leave my gun(s) at home (it is allowed if going directly to/from the shooting range on post, but no stops in between). Seems reasonable (to me) you would do the same for your trip to Chilis. I would do the same if going to a local place 15 minutes or from me to eat and have a beer. No worries then about what to do with my gun.

Last, if someone cannot stop themselves from drinking simply because there is alcohol present, they have bigger problems than we can cover on this forum(my two cents).

Chilis is last stop of the day. I am all over the place until then. I don't like to go unarmed all day just to be compliant in the last hour of the day. If I were going straight to Chilis and back, I would just leave gun at home, like I do for a trip to post office. On your last remark, you need to live with drinkers or vist an AA meeting to really understand the problem. Not everybody has the problem but a whole lot of drinkers do. Best to just avoid bars (not restaurants ) if you intend to carry. Just remember the one and only time I'm right and you are wrong, you are going to be dead or will have just killed and unarmed drunk. Not worth the trouble!

Edited June 6, 2009 by wjh2657

[Guest 3pugguy]

Chilis is last stop of the day. I am all over the place until then. I don't like to go unarmed all day just to be compliant in the last hour of the day. If I were going straight to Chilis and back, I would just leave gun at home, like I do for a trip to post office. On your last remark, you need to live with drinkers or vist an AA meeting to really understand the problem. Not everybody has the problem but a whole lot of drinkers do. Best to just avoid bars (not restaurants ) if you intend to carry. Just remember the one and only time I'm right and you are wrong, you are going to be dead or will have just killed and unarmed drunk. Not worth the trouble!

Thanks for the reply. I did wonder if the case was as you stated, i.e. going on the way home, not a special trip. I feel the same on not going unarmed unless 100% not possible to be so (legally - I am averse to jail or fines).

Also, I do understand the alcohol problem very well, after 24 years in the Navy where I saw plenty of shipmates go down the tube, via the bottle. I had the awful luck to have an alcoholic boss, who finally got help after making a complete mess of his life and his family's. Thus, my comment about the problem (not being able to not drink) and that it's really a serious problem. Bars here in Clarksville don't seem to be suffering any during this "downturn".

I rarely drink, not because I am against it -just don't have the time most days. But sometimes, a good old cold beer can't be beat. And I have been around plenty of drunks when I was sober and am not one to overreact to their foolishness. But I understand your point and it is absolutely something to consider.

There was a good article about a guy who wouldn't participate in training drills for using non-armed conflict methods (fighting), cause he was afraid people would make fun of him (guess he was large). So this fellow is in a bar one night (don't know what city/state, but it did say he should not have had the gun) and a drunk confronts him with the "I'm gonna kick you butt". Guy fires his gun into the floor in front of the drunk. Needless to say, gun guy is no longer a permit holder and acted way out of line.

Anyway, thanks for the reply - I appreicate you taking time to respond and offer your views on these topics; seems most folks are in agreement more times than not (must be that great minds thing).

Barry

BTW - I have to watch out for Chilis cause I can't resist the dessert!

Edited June 7, 2009 by 3pugguy
fix typo

[wjh2657]

"BTW - I have to watch out for Chilis cause I can't resist the dessert!"

That white chocolate cake and ice cream "volcano" thing is a killer! I like Cubano and Caribbean "island" food and Chilis is the closest thing to it that I can get around here.

[ki4otd]

Anybody know what channel this is on or better yet do you have a link to the video?

It's on the front page of the site, in the video box.

WZTV FOX 17/Nashville

[Guest 3pugguy]

Volcano cake...oh yeahhhh!!!!

There are a few places in Nashville - one I tried was very tasty (had jerked chicken). Can't remember the name, but think it might have been Calypso.

The few times I ate Cuban food, I liked it (trip to FL on business a few years ago).

Enjoy the rest of your weekend.

Barry

Edited June 7, 2009 by 3pugguy
add note

[Guest Tn.Mitch]

Guys, I spoke with Charlie Tygard this afternoon, they are serious about this ordinance, and are trying to force business to post in order to have a beer permit... Best not to wait until after they have proposed the ordinance but to go ahead and get in touch with the Metro Council now not later...

FYI, here is the link to the list of Nashville Council Members, included are phone numbers and email addresses. If you live inside Davidson County you should at least email and/or call all the at large members and any members who cover areas where you live, work, and dine out. Although comments to all wouldn't hurt either.

Nashville.gov - Metro Council - Council Roster

I was born in Babtist Hospital,in downtown Nashville 53 years ago,grew up there,I have lived in Summner Co.,in Hendersonville for the past 22 years,and an very happy here,Crime rate is 0 compared to Nashville's, no gangbanging going on here.I wouldnt live in Nashville,if you tried to pay me to,I feel I have the right to say that ,after have living,and working , half of my life there. Surpass can kiss my grits....

[wjh2657]

Tn.Mitch:

I feel same way you do. I lived in or near big cities for a good part of my life. Now I live in Macon County. I can hear and see my neighbors sheep, watch the deer and turkeys cross my 2 acre yard and smell new mown hay. I'll go into the city to shop or catch a new movie, but no way I'll ever live in one again! Good people in good places doing good things. 3 G's instead of the 3 S's!

[Guest Charles Morgan]

They may as well put out a sign "rape, rob, and pillage our customers." Seems to me that after hoodlums start robbing people going back to their cars at night in these parking lots--these signs will vanish without a trace.

[wjh2657]

They may as well put out a sign "rape, rob, and pillage our customers." Seems to me that after hoodlums start robbing people going back to their cars at night in these parking lots--these signs will vanish without a trace.

I am missing something here. In the past we were not allowed to carry in these places period! Were there long lines of hood waiting to mug us then? No, in fact incidence of violent muggings are lower in these places than they are in Walmart parking lots, where we can carry (the subject population is more diverse!) There are some very valid arguments as to why we should be able to carry but this one smacks a little too much of the "Chicken Little" syndrome.

I don't believe crime will go up because we can't carry, but it definitely could go down because we carry. Maybe a more sound debating point.

[Oh Shoot]

I am missing something here. In the past we were not allowed to carry in these places period! Were there long lines of hood waiting to mug us then? No, in fact incidence of violent muggings are lower in these places than they are in Walmart parking lots, where we can carry (the subject population is more diverse!) There are some very valid arguments as to why we should be able to carry but this one smacks a little too much of the "Chicken Little" syndrome.

I don't believe crime will go up because we can't carry, but it definitely could go down because we carry. Maybe a more sound debating point.

Good points.

One stat that definitely will go down is the number of handguns stolen from cars in restaurant parking lots.

Or maybe not, actually, if all the most popular places post.

- OS

[dunndw]

That's my concern. Now that so much has been make of it, IF I were a thief, I'd shop the Sunset Grills parking lot everytime. Chances are...you'll get lucky and score a throwaway or two...or something to sell quick on the street.

The thugs watch the news...some of them can actually put two and two together. If some joint is posted, then I might find a pistol in one of the cars in the parking lot

[Oh Shoot]

That's my concern. Now that so much has been make of it, IF I were a thief, I'd shop the Sunset Grills parking lot everytime. Chances are...you'll get lucky and score a throwaway or two...or something to sell quick on the street.

The thugs watch the news...some of them can actually put two and two together. If some joint is posted, then I might find a pistol in one of the cars in the parking lot

Exactly.

Smart thieves (the ones that don't get caught as often) know that handguns are in cars at Hooters, Red Lobster, O'Charleys, etc etc. Not Walmart.

- OS

[Guest oldfella]

Even big corporations have been brought to their knees; when the posted no guns allowed and soon saw their bottom-line failing, they promptly reversed their no-gun policy: "No Money, No Washy" - No service, No Business!!! Period.

Pete (The Oldfella)

[SavageSig]

Volcano cake...oh yeahhhh!!!!

There are a few places in Nashville - one I tried was very tasty (had jerked chicken). Can't remember the name, but think it might have been Calypso.

The few times I ate Cuban food, I liked it (trip to FL on business a few years ago).

Enjoy the rest of your weekend.

Barry

Calypso Cafe makes pretty good carribean food. There is also a Jamaican place in the Farmer's Market that is excellent (Johnny cake, rice and peas, fried plantains, and jerk sauce...delicious) and a Cuban place off of 65 at the Harding exit called Back to Cuba. They make a killer roast pork with rice and black beans, but the menu varies a little from day to day. A little OT, but I like food.

On the thread issue, I personally feel that if somebody wants to post a sign on their private property and disallow firearms, that is their business, and I should follow the house rules or step off. If my house is my castle, why can't his restaurants be his domain?

[Guest HexHead]

If my house is my castle, why can't his restaurants be his domain?

My thinking is beginning to evolve on this issue. Because your house isn't open to the public. If they want to discriminate against HCP holders, who are licensed and are acting in a legal manner, they need to make themselves a private club.

[Fallguy]

If my house is my castle, why can't his restaurants be his domain?

Because you have extended an open invitation to anyone and everyone to come into your house and opened it to the public, like the restaurant owner has.

Now if he wants to close it to the public and only allow members in, then he can place whatever restrictions on entry he wants to as far as I am concerned.

[Guest oldfella]

My motto, at least on this issue, is: "No Money, No Washy" - If they want my business, but refuse to let me defend myself and my family, then they must provide armed escort from and to my can in their parking lot - they must be told that up-front in no uncertain terms. If it is a chain store/restaurant, we should bombard their home office with our emails, and ask all our friends and acquaintances to do likewise... money talks, always.

Pete

[LagerHead]

his no guns sign has no meaning. Ignore it and it will be like it isn't really there.

I also do not believe city council can ban guns.

His signs have meaning to me. They mean I won't be eating at any establishment owned by this anti-gun, illogical, half-witted, uninformed, maniacal, fear-mongering mental midget for brains.

DISCLAIMER: I couldn't come up with any more insults to throw in one sentence. Feel free to imply any that I missed.

[Guest Ravendove]

Well, I agree partially with the "open to the public" argument but you also have to admit that the restaurants are still not public property. They own it and have the right to place restrictions on patrons who choose to eat there. Most restrictions are generally unquestioned like the 'no shirt, no shoes' rule. It only makes sense that they be allowed to restrict firearms on their property also.

That being said, this doesn't mean I agree with posting "no firearms". I still feel any restaurant owner that does is irrationally and unjustifiably restricting my right and responsibility to defend myself and those I care about while dining there. As such, I will not patronize such an establishment. And I will be sure to let them know.

As for Mr. Rayburn, I won't be spending any money or time in his establishments whether he takes his signs down or not. He's already made his bed.

[JayC]

The issue is not to take away an owners right to post his property, but to make them liable for their customers safety.

If they choose to post, and a visitor is injuried or killed due to their posting and not themselves protecting that visitor, than the law needs to hold them accountable... 39-17-1359 should state that any location that has posted is liable for the protection of visitors to those locations and to/from the parking lot of that location, if injury, or death occur then it is negligence on the part of the location that posted, and the person or their estate should be able to recoup actual damages and say 100x punitive damages for said negligence.

And impose that restrict on both private as well as public entities (ie local and county governments).

Trust me, the number of locations you'd see posted would be as rare as an albino deer if we pasted something like this.

Well, I agree partially with the "open to the public" argument but you also have to admit that the restaurants are still not public property. They own it and have the right to place restrictions on patrons who choose to eat there. Most restrictions are generally unquestioned like the 'no shirt, no shoes' rule. It only makes sense that they be allowed to restrict firearms on their property also.

That being said, this doesn't mean I agree with posting "no firearms". I still feel any restaurant owner that does is irrationally and unjustifiably restricting my right and responsibility to defend myself and those I care about while dining there. As such, I will not patronize such an establishment. And I will be sure to let them know.

As for Mr. Rayburn, I won't be spending any money or time in his establishments whether he takes his signs down or not. He's already made his bed.

[Fallguy]

Well, I agree partially with the "open to the public" argument but you also have to admit that the restaurants are still not public property. They own it and have the right to place restrictions on patrons who choose to eat there. Most restrictions are generally unquestioned like the 'no shirt, no shoes' rule. It only makes sense that they be allowed to restrict firearms on their property also.

That being said, this doesn't mean I agree with posting "no firearms". I still feel any restaurant owner that does is irrationally and unjustifiably restricting my right and responsibility to defend myself and those I care about while dining there. As such, I will not patronize such an establishment. And I will be sure to let them know.

As for Mr. Rayburn, I won't be spending any money or time in his establishments whether he takes his signs down or not. He's already made his bed.

I agree restaurants aren't public property. (Also just a note, all of my positions are about property in general, just restaurants).

The reason I don't have a problem with a "No Shoe, No Shirt" restriction is because, depending on the business, you can make a reasonable argument that someone with no shoes and/or no shirt would be disrupting business being conducted. My argument is, how is someone carrying a legal handgun disrupt the business?

Oh I understand you don't agree with No Firearms sign.

I also agree with you about Mr. Rayburn's establishments.

[Guest Ravendove]

I don't think firearms would be disrupting business in anyway. And the no shirt, no shoes thing could also be argued as a health code thing. I was just using it as an example (couldn't think of anything else in a hurry).

I would also worry about imposing liability on businesses that post just because I could also see that spilling over to residences where the homeowner doesn't want invited guests to bring firearms into their homes. I'm sure it could be written to avoid that, it's just one of those things I'd have nagging me in the back of my mind. I think sensible arguments and examples of how we aren't a danger to businesses or their patrons and information about incidents that could have been stopped or prevented by HCP holders are the better way to convince these owners to take down their signs, rather than litigation or the threat of retribution. And just to be clear, I don't mean that telling them we won't spend our money there is included in threats of retribution. After all, where we spend our money is our choice.

Aside from that, just letting the time pass without incident makes a very strong case. It's been law for two weeks now. Blood running in the streets is no longer a valid argument, not that it ever was to begin with.