Challenge "Guns-in-bars" Law: Nashville attorneys David Randolph Smith & Adam Dread

[Fallguy]

Wouldn't HCP holders be considered a special interest group?

Just saying

Well yes and no....

There are lots of Pro-2A groups that HCP holders belong to. But I don't know of any organized group solely for HCP holders.

Also if fighting for what is right means an outdated/stupid law has to be changed....so be it.

[Guest Doc44]

Wouldn't HCP holders be considered a special interest group?

Just saying

Maybe it is just my mind set but when I think of special interest groups for some reason I associate $$$ profit with their motives. A group of individuals from all walks of life standing up for a constitutional right does not come to my mind initially. The goal of our action is not personal profit but personal safety.

I am sure the burger flippers will call us a special interest group, but that glove does not fit.

Doc44

[Guest Ravendove]

Of course, profit is a subjective term. Most people think of money when they think profit but, really, it could be anything positive that you gain. For instance, I could consider more freedoms to be profit. Of course, I'm not really making a useful point, am I?

I don't suppose anyone has information on which way the case is leaning so far? I know it hasn't gone yet but I wasn't sure if anything has been mentioned.

[Guest HexHead]

I don't suppose anyone has information on which way the case is leaning so far? I know it hasn't gone yet but I wasn't sure if anything has been mentioned.

It's going to be decided by one Commissioner. I don't see her tipping her hand beforehand.

[Guest Ravendove]

I guess I'll just have to be patient, then.

[Fallguy]

LOL...yeah, Hex knows all about being patient....

[Guest HexHead]

LOL...yeah, Hex knows all about being patient....

HAHAHAHA.

In this case I hope it keeps getting postponed.

[Worriedman]

Wouldn't HCP holders be considered a special interest group?

Just saying

I would think that HCP Holders are Citizens who have availed themselves of statutes pursuant to legal verification of their standing, the completion of a class specified by the Legislature, (whose instructors are certified by the State), to perfect obtaining a permit to carry as restricted under Article 1, Section 26 of the Constitution.

Kind of like operators of automobiles satisfy requirements to get a drivers license.

Are drivers a Special Interest Group?

The State Legislature sets the prerequisites to obtain the Permit, as long as you are not disqualified, you shall have the permit issued.

[Guest Ravendove]

So who will be deciding the case and would it be appropriate for me to contact this person?

[Falcon1]

So who will be deciding the case and would it be appropriate for me to contact this person?

Chancellor Bonnyman (female), Davidson County Chancery Court. IMO, it would be inappropriate to "lobby" a judge in a court case. Lawyers will likely file "friend of the court" briefs for our side.

[Fallguy]

Chancellor Bonnyman (female), Davidson County Chancery Court. IMO, it would be inappropriate to "lobby" a judge in a court case. Lawyers will likely file "friend of the court" briefs for our side.

What he said....

[Guest Ravendove]

That's why I thought I should ask first. Thanks.

[Guest SUNTZU]

Has anyone seen the Red State Update video titled Guns Legal in Bars? I'm not linking to it due to language, but it is a great way to turn people against gun owners.

[Fallguy]

Has anyone seen the Red State Update video titled Guns Legal in Bars? I'm not linking to it due to language, but it is a great way to turn people against gun owners.

I have...

Normally I like those guys...but that video really didn't sit right with me.

[Guest Ravendove]

Here's another link that offers some insight as to the lawsuit's argument. Don't think I didn't catch the part about Glocks not having safeties.

DreadGuns 070909

The part I'm most concerned about is the local vs. state's rights issue. It's the only legitimate aspect of the entire argument that I can see. What do you guys think?

[Guest HexHead]

Dread's not only a jackass, but he's a liar too.

“From the flip side as a restaurateur, I don’t want people in my bar not drinking.”

It’s not a constitutional issue, Dread argued.

Isn't the whole argument this lawsuit brings is that it's unconstitutional?

He's just a ****ing idiot and a waste of air. My God, he's such a POS.

He's also disingenuous about this...

Parks and playgrounds are also at the county’s discretion. But they didn’t give us that opportunity with bars,” Dread said.

The parks and playgrounds can be posted by the county because they own them. Just like a restaurant/ bar owner can post the establishments they own. He wants to take the individual property owner's rights to post or not away from them and give those rights to the local government.

Edited July 9, 2009 by HexHead

[Guest HexHead]

Don't think I didn't catch the part about Glocks not having safeties.

About the only good think you say about Glocks is that they don't go off when dropped.

[Guest redbarron06]

Here's another link that offers some insight as to the lawsuit's argument. Don't think I didn't catch the part about Glocks not having safeties.

DreadGuns 070909

The part I'm most concerned about is the local vs. state's rights issue. It's the only legitimate aspect of the entire argument that I can see. What do you guys think?

How is it a ligitimate argument?

That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.

The legislature, not the county or the city council. If they want to argue that we can send them back to 3rd grade to learn how to read.

The law left the owners an option if they do not want guns there, all they have to do is post.

[Guest Doc44]

About the only good think you say about Glocks is that they don't go off when dropped.

Glocks do not fire unless the trigger is pulled.... period.... and they do that quite reliably.

Those safeties on revolvers make them so much safer.

Doc44

[TGO David]

So who will be deciding the case and would it be appropriate for me to contact this person?

Absolutely do not try to contact Chancellor Bonnyman or the Court Clerk regarding this. The only people who may interact with the Chancellor or Clerk regarding this case are the attorney(s) and person(s) of note in the case. Anything else is, at the very least, disrespectful of the court.

[Falcon1]

The part I'm most concerned about is the local vs. state's rights issue. It's the only legitimate aspect of the entire argument that I can see. What do you guys think?

IANAL...my personal take: states have police powers, local governments are chartered by the state and are creatures of it, and hence can be "dis-chartered" any time the state so chooses. Theoretically, localities have nothing that the state did not give them. So, it is a "straw man" issue.

[Guest HexHead]

IANAL...my personal take: states have police powers, local governments are chartered by the state and are creatures of it, and hence can be "dis-chartered" any time the state so chooses. Theoretically, localities have nothing that the state did not give them. So, it is a "straw man" issue.

ALL of their arguments are straw man issues. Maybe we should bring pitchforks and torches.

[mcurrier]

It is said that Mr. Rayburn is trying to fill the courtroom with people opposed to this common sense legislation. We are asking that as many of you who can, please come to silently show your support for the law and to demonstrate to all present that responsible citizens of our great state DO want the law to go into effect.

Just curious...if the court room is filled to capacity either way, by them or us, how will anyone be able to tell which side of the issue anyone is on? Just thinking out loud. I'm all for showing up in support, but if everyone remains silent and behaved, as they should, it will just be a room full of people, spectators, not discernible for either side.

I wouldn't put it past them to send someone in camo's to cause a ruckus. Maybe we should have someone in a chef outfit cause a ruckus.

[Guest lci419]

Just curious...if the court room is filled to capacity either way, by them or us, how will anyone be able to tell which side of the issue anyone is on?

Perhaps a use for Carry Badges?

[Guest HexHead]

Perhaps a use for Carry Badges?

Sadly, you may be right.