The Restaurant business

[Guest crotalus01]

It's a good idea to keep in mind that the early days of restaurant carry will be carefully scrutinized by a lot of people and organizations both friendly and unfriendly to the cause.

It really is up to all of us to point this thing in the right direction. Just like the new law went in our favor, future laws that could favor us may be jeopardized if there is any problems with this new one.

Most newspaper reports were quite negative or had a less than positive slant to the law. Even Fox News reported to a slant that bordered on, "how crazy is this" when they covered the story.

If you OC, maybe, for just a little while, you may consider a cooling period while the new law settles in. Tuck it in. I know this may get a negative response or two (or maybe even three) but we had a great win on this one and I am sure we all would like to see a bunch more like it. I am not saying that OC will destroy what we got but none of us know the full effect of what we are embarking on.

No negative comment here. I OC all the time and I fully intend to CC in restaraunts for a while after the law kicks in, just to let all the handwringers see theres no blood in the streets from drunk HCPers. I personally do not think OCing in a restaraunt on day 1 would cause any problems, but I also am not willing to take that chance, however slight I feel it is.

To the OP, good initial post but if I read a reply correctly you stated that you encouraged OCers to cover up in a state that did not allow CC in restaraunts - thats not cool at all. As to you opinion on OC, well you know what they say about opinions.

[Guest benchpresspower]

Really I guess I don't thoroughly understand the difference between properly and improperly posted signs. I've read the TN code and I just read the Attorney General report posted on here which states "substantially similiar". Can someone enlighten me as to what "substantially similar" means?

[GLOCKMEISTER]

im not getting into the OC/CC debate again. I will say this... Any place that post will not get a dime of my money and I'll do everything I can to see them no longer in buisness.

Period... this has been a long fight for our 2nd amendment rights... and after these latest stunts by metro... Im tired of playing nice.

[GLOCKMEISTER]

Really I guess I don't thoroughly understand the difference between properly and improperly posted signs. I've read the TN code and I just read the Attorney General report posted on here which states "substantially similiar". Can someone enlighten me as to what "substantially similar" means?

it basically has to say the same thing... it also has to be 6x14in...

[Guest benchpresspower]

it basically has to say the same thing... it also has to be 6x14in...

thank you

[Mousegun]

To the OP, good initial post but if I read a reply correctly you stated that you encouraged OCers to cover up in a state that did not allow CC in restaraunts - thats not cool at all. As to you opinion on OC, well you know what they say about opinions.

NO, what I meant was simply don't OC while our new law in Tennessee is being tested for a while. Cover up meant conceal. No intention of any law breaking here. If posted properly, don't carry at all or don't patronize the establishment.

[GLOCKMEISTER]

Heres a letter I wrote Randy at the sunset grill...

Randy,

I just wanted to drop you a line and tell you I have been a loyal customer for years. While I don't frequent your establishment weekly me and my friends do get down there when we can. Your position to exclude legal carry of firearms by law abiding citizens will cause me to never frequent your establishment again. I dont understand your position becasue permit holders cant drink and carry their firearms. If your position were valid, then you wouldnt serve anyone that drove a motor vehicle to your buisness. 37 states allow this type of carry and there have been no problems so far. You can easily use Georgia and Kentucky as examples. Right now I'd rather drive to either of them or your competition rather then give up a right allowed by God, our Constitution and our State Legislature.

Thanks You

Phillip Arrington

[Oh Shoot]

it basically has to say the same thing... it also has to be 6x14in...

Is that specified in the new statute? (because exact size isn't mentioned in 39-17-1359).

Actually, I've lost track here - where IS the exact verbiage of the new "bar" statute change?

thnx in advance

- OS

[wjh2657]

A restaurant is responsible to supply "reasonable security" to protect it's customers, even from third parties. However, it is not a simple cut and dried area. Risk assessments are made (by LEA and Insurance companies)of the neighborhood and history of like incidents in area and a rather complicated process of data analysis will determine neccessary security level. Security measures do not include armed guards but cover monitored cameras, lighting, locks on outside doors and possible entry surveillance by an employee.

The ultimate degree to which these are reasonable will be deternmined by the jury hearing the case. For most establishments, good employee awareness and locked outside doors will probably meet the "reasonable security" criteria. it will only be after multiple incidents at any one establishment or in one particular area that any insurance premiums will go up. What I am saying is that if the restaurant is in a "good neighborhood" and there is no history of problems, a threat to sue is pretty lame, as their lawyers know only too well that there is no "Negligent Security" tort to enable a judgement. They are not obligated to "bring in the Rangers" just because they won't let us "pack iron" in their establishment.

Do what I do, forget the legal stuff and go eat somewhere else.

[Mike.357]

do all of you really eat out so much as this thing is a big deal anyway?

I am guessing my wife and I go to a restaurant and "eat out" maybe twice a year.

I am doubting anyone gives a crap if I spend money with them or not.

[GLOCKMEISTER]

Is that specified in the new statute? (because exact size isn't mentioned in 39-17-1359).

Actually, I've lost track here - where IS the exact verbiage of the new "bar" statute change?

thnx in advance

- OS

I think Michie's is outdated...

Heres the latest one I have...

Banning Locations

Tennessee law (T.C.A. § 39-17-1359) provides:

An individual, corporation, business entity or local, state or federal government entity or agent thereof is authorized to prohibit the possession of weapons by any person otherwise authorized by §§ 39-17-1351 -- 39-17-1360, at meetings conducted by, or on premises owned, operated, or managed or under control of such individual, corporation, business entity or government entity. Notice of such prohibition shall be posted. Posted notices shall be displayed in prominent locations, including all public entrances, shall be in English, and shall be at least six inches (6") high and fourteen inches (14") wide, stating:

PURSUANT TO T.C.A. § 39-17-1359, THE OWNER/OPERATOR OF THIS PROPERTY HAS BANNED WEAPONS WITHIN THIS BUILDING OR THIS PORTION OF THIS BUILDING. A VIOLATION OF THIS PROHIBITION IS PUNISHABLE AS A CRIMINAL ACT UNDER STATE LAW AND MAY BE SUBJECT TO A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $500.

[Guest crotalus01]

NO, what I meant was simply don't OC while our new law in Tennessee is being tested for a while. Cover up meant conceal. No intention of any law breaking here. If posted properly, don't carry at all or don't patronize the establishment.

That last bit was aimed at the guy that started the thread, not you Mousegun - he stated that when he ran a restaraunt in a state that did not allow CC in restaraunts, if an OCer came in he would ask them to conceal, thus asking them to break the law. That is, to me, just plain wrong, especially considering the state (by inference of his post) specifically allowed OC and disallowed CC in those establishments.

At any rate sorry for the misunderstanding.

[Guest crotalus01]

Glockmeister, does the sign specifically have to quote the TCA code number? I thought I read that the sign could be legally binding by simply saying THE OWNER/OPERATOR OF THIS PROPERTY HAS BANNED WEAPONS WITHIN THIS BUILDING OR THIS PORTION OF THIS BUILDING leaving out the TCA code reference and the penalty/fine reference. Do you know if that is true or not?

[Oh Shoot]

I think Michie's is outdated...

Heres the latest one I have...

Banning Locations

Tennessee law (T.C.A. § 39-17-1359) provides:

An individual, corporation, business entity or local, state or federal government entity or agent thereof is authorized to prohibit the possession of weapons by any person otherwise authorized by §§ 39-17-1351 -- 39-17-1360, at meetings conducted by, or on premises owned, operated, or managed or under control of such individual, corporation, business entity or government entity. Notice of such prohibition shall be posted. Posted notices shall be displayed in prominent locations, including all public entrances, shall be in English, and shall be at least six inches (6") high and fourteen inches (14") wide, stating:

PURSUANT TO T.C.A. § 39-17-1359, THE OWNER/OPERATOR OF THIS PROPERTY HAS BANNED WEAPONS WITHIN THIS BUILDING OR THIS PORTION OF THIS BUILDING. A VIOLATION OF THIS PROHIBITION IS PUNISHABLE AS A CRIMINAL ACT UNDER STATE LAW AND MAY BE SUBJECT TO A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $500.

Doubly confused now.

You're right, Michie's doesn't show the stature this way at all. No mention there of size of notice, and in this version, there's no mention of the "substantially similar".

I also can't find any other inroad into the TCA except for Michie's.

I had seen this above quoted somewhere previously, but assumed that was a new entry into the statutes mandated by one of the ones adopted this session.

How do we know what's the real verbiage?

- OS

Edited June 7, 2009 by OhShoot

[wjh2657]

do all of you really eat out so much as this thing is a big deal anyway?

I am guessing my wife and I go to a restaurant and "eat out" maybe twice a year.

I am doubting anyone gives a crap if I spend money with them or not.

Twice a week, at least, and that is just at "nice" sit down places. We probably eat out four or five times a week. We're retired and only have the two of us at home, cooking just cuts into our time to do something. I think you better keep your wife away from mine!

BTW most of my "fancy" restaurant eating is in Bowling Green, so Kentucky laws prevail. I am right on the border of TN/KY and Bowling Green has the least traffic congestion of any of the metro areas around here. Lots of movie theaters and big stores too!

Edited June 7, 2009 by wjh2657

[Guest cowboy20th]

You really can't sue a restaurant that gets attacked by an armed assailant if they allow or disallow firearms into their establishment. I made the comparison to a lighting strike because neither one can be predicted or anticipated adequately enough to have the establishment assume liability for such incident.

As far as signage goes, from my quick interpretation of the law, the wording is vague enough yet descriptive enough to protect both parties in a useless law suite. Such as, a permit holder getting in trouble for carrying into a building that is posted with a really small sign, the law could be interpreted to protect the permit holder or vice versa for an owner with a large sign, the law could possibly be interpreted in anyway. Use common sense, if the sign is close enough to standards don't carry under the assumption that a slight technicality will protect you from trouble. The technicality will be interpreted by a judge who could be pro/anti gun and could rule either way.

No person is taking away or restricting your 2nd ammeandment right when they post no firearms in their establishment. They are actually excerising their right to not bear arms and not allow firearms on their property. Our rights are inalienable and simply recogonized by our constitution as such, not given to us by the constitution. We already had them when we were born, the constitution is there for us to help protect them. This is why you can carry on your own property and no one can bother you. Now governments may choose to restrict such freedoms in interest of public safety and protecting rights of the general public which gets into the 14th amendment which is a whole other topic.

I think it is silly to try and put a restaurant out of business because they do not allow carry in their establishment. Just as we do not appreciate antigun sentiment pushed on us, they do not appreciate progun sentiment pushed on them. Besides that we simply don't have the economic power to do such a thing anyway. We do have political strings though, and to tell you the truth those antigun restaurants that do get robbed with a weapon (not that I wish for that to happen) will simply strengthen our power and public image, and weaken the antigun parties. So to each their own, though I will not wish economic failure on any establishment who works hard and strongly feels allowing guns would cause that hard work to fail. I know it is silly but that is how some people feel about this issue, maybe they come around, maybe not, either way they have the right to have that opinion and you have the right to not patronize that establishment but wishing harm on them is just morally wrong to me. Its like if you owned a gunshop and someone tried to make you go out of business because you sold guns and they didn't like that. Just wrong.

[wjh2657]

Everybody owns their own feet. You can point them anywhere you want and you can make them go where you want. If you have strong feelings against an establishment, don't go in. If there rules are outweighed by their service and you like them, go in. We all belong to some kind of organization or another. Talk it up and if you want to boycott, do it. It is still our right to function as social groups or communities. Just keep it within the law. You don't have the option of forgetting the law in your actions. If you are within the law, do what you think is right.

Just remember, the other folks have the same options and rights!

[Guest cowboy20th]

you might be well within the law, but is it morally justifiable? People came to this country to escape persecution and now we persecute those with ideas that are different than what we imagine as normal. Just because an establishment bans guns, that might give an individual a reason to not enter the establishment, but trying to get other individuals to boycott it is simply morally unjustifiable in my opinion. I know others will disagree, but I think a group trying to interfere in free enterprise and disrespecting the right of the owner(s) to choose their stance is simply not American. Sure you can voice your opinion, but trying to economically punish an establishment for them exercising their rights is terrible.

[Smith]

you might be well within the law, but is it morally justifiable? People came to this country to escape persecution and now we persecute those with ideas that are different than what we imagine as normal. Just because an establishment bans guns, that might give an individual a reason to not enter the establishment, but trying to get other individuals to boycott it is simply morally unjustifiable in my opinion. I know others will disagree, but I think a group trying to interfere in free enterprise and disrespecting the right of the owner(s) to choose their stance is simply not American. Sure you can voice your opinion, but trying to economically punish an establishment for them exercising their rights is terrible.

Morally justifiable? Morally required. Freedom is allowed so that the betterment of mankind can be decided by men. the consequences of a person/buisness actions is huge. You make good decisions you're rewarded. You make bad decisions, you are punished. It is much more effective to punish/reward in society by society as opposed to an unjust political system that is easily bent towards corruption.

Is it any different for a person not to eat at a restaurant that serves awful food? According to your thinking, it is wrong to "protest" a restaurant solely on their decision/freedom to cook how they want.

Edited June 7, 2009 by Smith

[wjh2657]

Morally justifiable?

Boycotting is about the only tool we have against business. Get it straight, business got us into the mess we are in now, not the government. The way you keep business in line is to show that we have the ultimate tool, the market. If they feel they are going to lose the market, then they start giving in. The auto giants quit worrying about the market and kept on producing cars that we couldn't or wouldn't buy. Now we are using taxpayer money (education and medical money!) to allow them to stay in business.

You are too young to remember the Houswives Boycott Against Beef decades ago. The Beef business priced beef way out of sight. Their answer was that if we wanted it we would pay the price, whether it was reasonable or not.Houswives all over the country boycotted beef and drove the price down. It even changed our eating habits to better. We used to eat turkey once or twice a year and chicken once a week. Now many people eat both every day. Pork became leaner (they sold the hogs quicker to cash in on the boycott) and we learned we liked leaner pork.

Boycott and ballot are the only tools we have to control business and government, both of which do need control.

You have to dangle market control in front of all businesses to make them provide the services you need. They are not going to serve you out of the kindness of their heart, they don't have a heart.

Edited June 7, 2009 by wjh2657

[Guest cowboy20th]

Boycotting an injustice is one thing, boycotting a business because you don't like their opinions totally another. If a group of businesses are trying to bully the market to their favor then yes, the market needs to be controlled. But this issue is not about controlling the market, they are not bullying the price of their food, they are simply trying to decide the best thing for their restaurant. Which we may or may not agree with. Just like if we like or don't like their food, you just don't go there. You don't start a grassroots movement to take down the evil establishment that puts butter on their green beans, you just don't eat their green beans, because the next guy might like those.

Just like the gun laws, the owner of that establishment knows their clientel more than anyone else, and has probably been talking to them over the past month to decide what to do about the gun issue. Maybe their clientel is really anti/pro gun and the owner will do what they wish to still attract those guest. this decision isn't personal for them, it is business. They will only post if their clientel is typically antigun and has expressed concerns about the issue. Besides that, we are not a majority in this state, and for us to sponsor a sit in or something of the like would probably be pretty weak anyway.

[wjh2657]

a: In light of what unbridled government subsidized capitalism has done to this country ( It has proven a greater threat to our nation than any terrorist group could ever hope to be!) I find it very hard to be sympathetic with the business world. I am not a Socialist, I am a Free Market Conservative Libertarian (card carrying!) Conduct your business to match your market or go broke. Somebody else with a better idea will replace you. I believe in business Darwinism, better known as dog eat dog. This breeds quality management!

b: As to us being a minority and ineffective, it is the organized minority groups that dictate political action in this country! The majority just don't care and an effective minority campaign can make a bigger splash than the majority.

c: I don't organize boycotts myself , I just tell my friends why I won't go with them to certain establishments as I also believe strongly in word of mouth!

d. Citizens are political activists, people who are unwilling to be politically active are just Subjects.

Edited June 7, 2009 by wjh2657

[Guest bheard]

If you screw up bad enough in business you can always get a government bailout.

BH

[Guest Major Pain]

If a place is posted, whether properly or not, I know the owners feelings about weapons and self defense and I will not spend a cent with that business.--MP

[R1100R]

As a lot of you that know me I was in the Bar and Restaurant business for years. I have had this sign posted in all of my places. In Restaurants for one reason and Bars for another. I am on the fence on this issue. You have to have lived the business to understand. This practice exits in all States that I have visited and friends that I have in the business practice this. If you came into my place OC'ing I would bounce your ass in a minute. Concealed would be a different story. It's not just about your right, It is about everybody's right.

So Are “We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone” Signs in Restaurants Legal?

Yes, however they still do not give a restaurant the power to refuse service on the basis of race, color, religion, or natural origin. These signs also do not preclude a court from finding other arbitrary refusals of service to be discriminatory. Simply put, restaurants that carry a “Right to Refuse Service” sign are subject to the same laws as restaurants without one. :

What Conditions Allow a Restaurant to Refuse Service?

There a number of legitimate reasons for a restaurant to refuse service, some of which include:

Patrons who are unreasonably rowdy or causing trouble

Patrons that may overfill capacity if let in

Patrons who come in just before closing time or when the kitchen is closed

Patrons accompanied by large groups of non-customers looking to sit in

Patrons lacking adequate hygiene (e.g. excess dirt, extreme body odor, etc.)

In most cases, refusal of service is warranted where a customer’s presence in the restaurant detracts from the safety, welfare, and well-being of other patrons and the restaurant itself.

In some of my places it was based on how you looked. Dress Code can be set up to be vague. It was a good tool. It was about business, my business. It was not personal. A lot of mainstream America do not agree

with us.

I had a lot of guys conceal carry, legal or not in my place. They did not advertise or showboat it.

The "right to refuse" is law in most States as long as you don't base it

under the basic discrimination laws. I have been challenged only a few times over the years and none made it to court.

Treat this new hcp in restaurant and bars law with respect. It was a great victory.

Edited June 7, 2009 by R1100R