Nashville Metro Council trying to keep HCP holders out of Restaurants

[Guest HexHead]

The key word is could.

It would be awfully nice if the same law that prevents them from making the restaurants "off limits" would also prevent them from posting the parks.

The clock's ticking on this one......

[JayC]

Lets just not let our guard down... nothing to stop somebody from re-introducing a better worded version of this bill. We should continue to push on TN legislature members to remove any possible loop hole.

OKAY>>>>> IT'S OFFICIAL !!!!!

This was just in the Nashville City Paper. Of course, no mention in the Tennessean....

Tygard to withdraw Council guns-in-restaurants bill

Monday, June 8, 2009 at 4:52pm

By Nate Rau

At-large Councilman Charlie Tygard will withdraw at the June 16 Council meeting his recently filed bill outlawing guns in Davidson County establishments which serve beer.

Tygard said he consulted the Metro Legal Department, which told him the legislation did not pass the legal litmus test. Tygard said the bill wouldn’t fly because it is pre-empted by state law established in the 1986. The law said local governments could not limit the right to bear arms, unless they already had a law on the books.

Metro’s law said firearms were forbidden in the urban services district, except for those permitted by law to carry.

“I was willing to let the public debate and the panel discussions and citizen input to come in to see what the restaurants and citizens had to say about it,†Tygard said. “Without the legal grounds to do so that doesn’t make much sense.

Tygard’s bill, co-sponsored by Council members Megan Barry, Jerry Maynard and Carter Todd, would have regulated firearms in establishments by revoking beer permits.

The bill was filed in response to recently passed state law, which said gun carry permit holders may take their guns into establishments provided they weren’t consuming alcoholic beverages.

Tygard pointed out that restaurant and bar owners could still post signs outlawing firearms in their establishments.

A similar bill outlawing firearms in Metro parks could also be withdrawn.

[Guest HexHead]

Lets just not let our guard down... nothing to stop somebody from re-introducing a better worded version of this bill. We should continue to push on TN legislature members to remove any possible loop hole.

I don't think they're that smart. Better wording isn't going to overcome the law saying they can't limit the right to bear arms unless grandfathered in before 1986.

Be great if the same principle applies to local parks (statewide) as well. But the loophole there is that the carry law passed regarding local parks says the local jurisdictions can opt out. It will be interesting to see which law trumps which?

[Guest HexHead]

Okay, they've extended the article and it seems the plot's thickened a bit....

Tygard to withdraw Council guns-in-restaurants bill

Monday, June 8, 2009 at 4:52pm

By Nate Rau

A group of Metro Council members hoping Nashville could take advantage of a loophole and ban guns from bars and restaurants got the news late last week their proposed ordinance was on shaky legal footing.

At-large Councilman Charlie Tygard said he would make a motion to withdraw the bill at the June 16 Metro Council meeting. Tygard’s decision came after the Metro legal department told him the ordinance was pre-empted by a 1986 state law that took away the right of local governments to outlaw firearms.

Tygard, along with Council members Megan Barry, Jerry Maynard and Carter Todd, filed the legislation last week. The proposed ordinance would have outlawed firearms from bars and restaurants, by making it a condition of a Metro beer permit.

But, according to Tygard, Metro Legal said Council could not take action that limited guns. The state legislature passed a law, initially vetoed by Gov. Phil Bredesen, that allows guns in bars and restaurants, provided the patron has a carry permit and isn’t consuming alcoholic beverages.

“I was willing to let the public debate and the panel discussions and citizen input to come in to see what the restaurants and citizens had to say about it,” Tygard said. “Without the legal grounds to do so that doesn’t make much sense.”

The ruling by Metro Legal also jeopardized another bill, which would have banned guns from Metro parks.

The 1986 state law said, unless local governments already had a law on the books, they could not ban firearms. Metro had a loosely written law forbidding firearms in the urban services district, but the law did not apply to those legally allowed to carry.

Tygard pointed out restaurants could still ban firearms from their establishments, although enforcing a posted sign would be difficult he conceded.

In the meantime, Mayor Karl Dean remained in opposition to guns in bars and restaurant and said his office was not yet finished with the issue.

“Allowing guns in our restaurants and bars is simply a bad idea,” Dean said. “I fully support the governor’s veto. My office is looking into a way to address this in Nashville.”

Had the proposed ordinance gotten the green light from Metro Legal, it seemed to have support on Council. Earlier this year, Council passed a memorializing resolution opposing the state legislature’s efforts to allow firearms in parks. That resolution passed with a 27-13 vote.

There was no word Monday on the status of the guns in parks legislation.

I'm sure that douchebag Dean has been on the phone with his fellow douchebag Bloomberg in NYC asking what to do.

Edited June 9, 2009 by HexHead

[Fallguy]

I don't think they're that smart. Better wording isn't going to overcome the law saying they can't limit the right to bear arms unless grandfathered in before 1986.

Be great if the same principle applies to local parks (statewide) as well. But the loophole there is that the carry law passed regarding local parks says the local jurisdictions can opt out. It will be interesting to see which law trumps which?

HB0716 (park carry bill) also admends 39-17-1314 (preemption law) to allow local goverment to ban carry of firearms in parks, but that is the only state control it gives up. See Section 3 of Seneate Amendment 2 (the amendment that makes the bill)

So there is really nothing to be trumped they are changing the preemption law to specifically allow local goverment control over carry in their parks.

But I won't tell Metro if you don't....lol

[eapking]

Guarantee the a___hats in Memphis are wathcing this, ready to jump on the bandwagon.

[eapking]

Yeah- sounds like the Mayor (d-bag) is not done figuring this out.

[ngoeser59]

So is he Vinegar, Fresh Orchid or Morning Rain scented Massengill? hahaha....

[GLOCKMEISTER]

you guys dont go counting your chickens yet, this and any other possible loophole needs to be closed before they go out of session.

Whta the council sayd then does is too different things... they could just be postponing it until the legislature leaves then they can bring it back up. I havent talked to John in a day or two it will be interesting to see what he thinks about the Charlie withddrawing he bill.

[Guest Jamie]

you guys dont go counting your chickens yet, this and any other possible loophole needs to be closed before they go out of session.

Whta the council sayd then does is too different things... they could just be postponing it until the legislature leaves then they can bring it back up. I havent talked to John in a day or two it will be interesting to see what he thinks about the Charlie withddrawing he bill.

Given that Charlie "the tuna" Tygard has admitted that there's no legal standing to do what he/they want with their bill, wouldn't that be kind'a.... I dunno... stupid?

I mean, it's not like the AG is going on a sabbatical with the state legislature...

I know the Metro council ( and any other political body ) can be sneaky and under-handed in trying to get what they want, but would they really risk possibly losing control over beer licensing for this? ( And you know that has to have been pointed out as one possible outcome of pursuing things involving firearms. )

As for any other possible loophole, I'm thinking the same section of law that blocked this one pretty much cuts off any other as well.

But then, I've been wrong many times before... :-\

[Smith]

“I was willing to let the public debate and the panel discussions and citizen input to come in to see what the restaurants and citizens had to say about it,†Tygard said. “Without the legal grounds to do so that doesn’t make much sense.

Isn't that what the TN legislature has been doing debating and ultimately passing this thing in the first place? How do these guys just not get how government is supposed to work?

[Guest HexHead]

Isn't that what the TN legislature has been doing debating and ultimately passing this thing in the first place? How do these guys just not get how government is supposed to work?

Obviously Metro Council doesn't think enough citizen input guided their decision. There's lots of ****ing liberals in Nashville between the eggheads at the universities, musicians and all the CA asswipes that moved here with Nissan.

[GLOCKMEISTER]

Given that Charlie "the tuna" Tygard has admitted that there's no legal standing to do what he/they want with their bill, wouldn't that be kind'a.... I dunno... stupid?

I mean, it's not like the AG is going on a sabbatical with the state legislature...

I know the Metro council ( and any other political body ) can be sneaky and under-handed in trying to get what they want, but would they really risk possibly losing control over beer licensing for this? ( And you know that has to have been pointed out as one possible outcome of pursuing things involving firearms. )

As for any other possible loophole, I'm thinking the same section of law that blocked this one pretty much cuts off any other as well.

But then, I've been wrong many times before... :-\

the council has went against their legal council John Cooper before.... and Sue Cain's bunch at metro legal aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer. These decisions have cost the city millions in litigation and judgments. What many of you don't know is there are about 6 attorneys on the council... Jerry Maynard is one of them. I'd say if they think they can really do it they will delay the bill and do it later. The only thing that might help us is the "rules" of the council. I think once they have a bill killed or its defeated they cant bring it back up for a year. Their rules may stipulate that it has to be killed after 1st reading or defeated by vote to be official. Id say thats got more to do with them pulling it hen any pressure that we may have caused. I have talked to about 8 of them so far and honestly support is split about in half.

1. We need to concentrate on is if there is a loophole... it doesn't stay open very long.

2. We need to label which council members wernt with us in this and expose them as anti 2nd amendment. So far most of the council at large sponsored this bill except for Tim Garrett... which I know was on our side on this one at least. So put Megan Berry, Jerry Maynard, and Charlie Tygard on your crap lists for sure. They need to be replaced... period.

[Guest Jamie]

the council has went against their legal council John Cooper before.... and Sue Cain's bunch at metro legal aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer. These decisions have cost the city millions in litigation and judgments.

Ah, I see now... so they really are that stupid.

Scary.

[GLOCKMEISTER]

yep.....

[TGO David]

Here's the problem with this whole situation distilled down to it's most basic level:

Every report of Metro Council withdrawing their proposal to ban firearms where alcohol is served centers around the legal aspects of doing so. They are not withdrawing it because they have had a change of heart and feel that is wrong to deprive the citizens of their right to a reasonable means of self defense.

Until that change happens within the Metro Council at large and Mayor Karl "The Kommie" Dean, there will always be the specter of a renewed attack against our gun rights looming in the shadows, waiting for the right moment to pounce once again.

The voting, gun-owning public needs to vote these anti self-defense jackholes out of office every time the opportunity presents itself. Only then will we have a decent assurance that the people in elected offices are executing the will of the people.

[JayC]

I disagree, there are some smart anti-gunners out there, just as smart as any of us pro-gunners...

I don't want to give out a road map to anybody reading on how to word the law to possibly bypass 39-17-1314 but I think it could be done...

The key here is that the soon to be pulled ordinance bars possession which clearly violates state law, but state law only bars direct impact, not indirect impact.

I hope you're right and this is over... but I personally think we need to keep our eyes open of the course of the next month or two to make sure the metro council doesn't try to pull a fast one on us.

I don't think they're that smart. Better wording isn't going to overcome the law saying they can't limit the right to bear arms unless grandfathered in before 1986.

Be great if the same principle applies to local parks (statewide) as well. But the loophole there is that the carry law passed regarding local parks says the local jurisdictions can opt out. It will be interesting to see which law trumps which?

[Guest HexHead]

Here's the problem with this whole situation distilled down to it's most basic level:

Every report of Metro Council withdrawing their proposal to ban firearms where alcohol is served centers around the legal aspects of doing so. They are not withdrawing it because they have had a change of heart and feel that is wrong to deprive the citizens of their right to a reasonable means of self defense.

I hope you're right and this is over... but I personally think we need to keep our eyes open of the course of the next month or two to make sure the metro council doesn't try to pull a fast one on us.

You're both right, we must be ever vigilant. This will surely be an ongoing battle with these liberals. We may have won this battle, but to quote Donald Rumsfeld, "It's going to be a long slog."

[bubbadavis]

Obviously Metro Council doesn't think enough citizen input guided their decision. There's lots of ****ing liberals in Nashville between the eggheads at the universities, musicians and all the CA asswipes that moved here with Nissan.

Hey, not all the eggheads at the universities are liberals. I used to be one of them eggheads for awhile.

At the last Goodman gun show, I spent a couple of hours walking around with two Professors Emeritus from a local university,

[Guest KevinM]

I disagree, there are some smart anti-gunners out there, just as smart as any of us pro-gunners...

Smart but devoid of logic on this particular issue...

[Guest SigVol]

My heartfelt condolences ma'am for your lose...For Ben!!!

The position of our antagonists would be effectively neutered

if HB0962's (Restaurant Carry) closing were worded as HB0716's (Park Carry) closing stating:

"SECTION 3. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, neither the department of

environment and conservation nor any other entity of state or local government shall prohibit

any Tennessee resident from possessing a handgun while within the boundaries of any state

park, if the resident is in immediate possession of a valid handgun carry permit issued to such

resident pursuant to § 39-17-1351."

It has teeth and could be argued as ironclad...

[Guest HexHead]

Well, they're only a day late on breaking news... LOLOLOL

Metro councilman to withdraw guns-in-bars bill

By Colby Sledge and Michael Cass • THE TENNESSEAN • June 9, 2009

A Metro Council bill to exempt Davidson County from a state law allowing guns in bars will be withdrawn after the sponsor said he learned it would be illegal.

Metro Councilman-At-Large Charlie Tygard said council attorney Jon Cooper called him late Friday to explain that a local ordinance would not supersede a state law passed last week to allow handgun carry permit holders to take their weapons in bars.

Local attorney Adam Dread had earlier proposed that the city could add a restriction to beer permits to prohibit businesses with beer permits from allowing anyone with a handgun inside.

Tygard said he would withdraw the bill at the council's June 16 meeting.

"These things happen, and I think based on the interest from both sides, there's a lot of misconceptions," Tygard said. "It would have been good to put experts in the room, have a good debate and a panel discussion … and then be able to make an informed decision. Unless something changes, that's not going to happen."

"It would have been a nice thing to do, but it didn't work out," said Councilman Carter Todd, another sponsor.

The state legislature voted last month to allow handgun carry permit holders to take their weapons into all eating and drinking establishments in the state. Gov. Phil Bredesen vetoed the bill, arguing that guns and alcohol don't mix well, but the House and Senate easily overrode the veto.

Todd, an attorney, said he was glad Metro's attorneys had made their opinion known. The opinion should steer the city away from a potential lawsuit, he said.

"This is a very emotional issue for people on both sides," Todd said. "The worst thing you can do as a councilman is to get Metro government sued."

The new state law does allow restaurant and bar owners to ban guns from their establishments, but some feel a proliferation of "No Guns" signs would cause tourists to think the city is full of firearms.

[E4 No More]

My heartfelt condolences ma'am for your lose...For Ben!!!

The position of our antagonists would be effectively neutered

if HB0962's (Restaurant Carry) closing were worded as HB0716's (Park Carry) closing stating:

"SECTION 3. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, neither the department of

environment and conservation nor any other entity of state or local government shall prohibit

any Tennessee resident from possessing a handgun while within the boundaries of any state

park, if the resident is in immediate possession of a valid handgun carry permit issued to such

resident pursuant to § 39-17-1351."

It has teeth and could be argued as ironclad...

I have a hard time reading your posts because of your avatar.

Not that I'm complaining, mind you!

[Guest SUNTZU]

The new state law does allow restaurant and bar owners to ban guns from their establishments, but some feel a proliferation of "No Guns" signs would cause tourists to think the city is full of firearms.

That's why there are so many HCP holders in that area as well.

This is something I've wondered about since I was a kid. My mom and dad would warn me about going to certain parts of town because of the criminal element. I was told that it would be a bad idea to even drive through these areas because I might get shot. If people have such a fear of going into bad areas because of all the guns, you'd think that all the bad guys wouldn't want to go into better parts of town because of all the guns. The whole armed society is a polite society thing.

[GLOCKMEISTER]

"The new state law does allow restaurant and bar owners to ban guns from their establishments, but some feel a proliferation of "No Guns" signs would cause tourists to think the city is full of firearms."

No not really because they are probably from one of hte 37 states that allow carry in resturants.