Poll: So if Rayburn, Dread et al succeed in getting an injunction....

[Guest HexHead]

HOW are they going to deprive us?? look at the numbers that passed the bill...it was a landslide...the ACLU doesnt win every case...they wont win this one...

they already lost.

I think you're missing the point here. They are trying to first get a restraining order to prevent the law from becoming effective on July 14. Then they want a temporary or ideally a permanent injunction to prevent the law from becoming effective, claiming it's unconstitutional. They're going for a "hail Mary pass", pulling out all the stops including citing federal OSHA rules that they say this law violates. The other nine plaintiffs are supposedly waiters, servers and bartenders that say this law will impact them and are the heart of the OSHA ploy.

They only need to convince a judge to get what they want. The fact that the bill passed the legislature in a landslide is immaterial. They're making the case it's unconstitutional on it's face.

I think if they win the first round, we'll ultimately be successful, but only after how many layers of appeals? Look at how long it took for those firefighters in New Haven to get a fair shake, 6 years.

ACLU isn't involved in this, I was saying they are using the tactics out of the ACLU playbook or from Saul Alinsky. What you can't accomplish in the legislature, you challenge in the courts. It's the classic liberal ploy. It's a lot easier to sway one liberal judge (who doesn't have to worry about reelection) than 130 legislators.

Edited July 2, 2009 by HexHead

[Guest canynracer]

ok, I will never claim to be smart when it comes to this stuff...but I think the majority of the emotion is because they are smarter than us??

I say that with no disrespect..but where are the pro-gun groups? and why arent they using ploys like this to our advantage...I mean, sorry, but pulling in OSHA is pretty smart IMHO...

[Guest HexHead]

ok, I will never claim to be smart when it comes to this stuff...but I think the majority of the emotion is because they are smarter than us??

I say that with no disrespect..but where are the pro-gun groups? and why arent they using ploys like this to our advantage...I mean, sorry, but pulling in OSHA is pretty smart IMHO...

They're not smarter than us, liberals just like to think they are just so ****ing clever.

And yes, where are the pro-gun groups? Problem is, we basically have NO media outlet to get out our message. Just look at how the "guns in bars" bill was portrayed by the media over the past few months, 3-4 major newspapers in the state, ALL the TV stations, basically all the media against us. How are we supposed to get the truth out without all the liberal bias in the way?

We didn't need to use stuff like OSHA, that employees are in an unsafe workplace when only criminals carry guns into them because a) again, the media is against us and we didn't need to, we had the legislation behind us.

[Oh Shoot]

So, just how private are the votes on these polls? ;-)

VERY private on this one, since there is no poll.

Additional thought: What level of judge would it take to GET an injunction? I assume we're talking TN state judiciary here?

Would that be an appointed or elected judgeship?

Just wondering what judge would like to take on the wrath of the majority of the TN Legislature.

- OS

Edited July 2, 2009 by OhShoot

[TGO David]

VERY private on this one, since there is no poll.

Additional thought: What level of judge would it take to GET an injunction? I assume we're talking TN state judiciary here?

Would that be an appointed or elected judgeship?

Just wondering what judge would like to take on the wrath of the majority of the TN Legislature.

- OS

There was a poll to begin with but I removed it.

[DavidD]

Hex, it really pisses me off too. Like you, I believe thay have a good chance of finding a judge to put the brakes on this thing then gain momentum in getting it nixed. However, we cannot turn into criminals just because we don't agree with the laws. They are what they are. We my friend are the minority plain and simple. We must suck it up and keep on putting up the good fight.

I'm starting to wonder if the striping of the age restriction wasn't going too far........

[Guest BillOfRightsFan]

So the random guy who points a gun at your head while demanding money for his crack habits is not your enemy? It's not your enemies you should be concerned with, it's the guy who you've never seen before in your life that's about to knife you that you should be concerned about.

I have faced drug dealers. I lived in a great community in Nashville that after 4 rapid management changes devolved into a haven for the dispossesed, bringing with them drug consuming children and drug dealing young adults. I passed by drug dealers every time I went to the dumpster with my trash or on the way to pick up my mail. I put up with it for about 6 months then moved. I did so because it was just a matter of time before I killed 2 or 3 of them. As it was, one of them (or their clients) was killed in a breezeway, another had a home invasion and their car stolen. One was pissed at the slow rate of payment from a client, stole his puppy and shot it while hopped up. He left his pistol on the ground next to the animal, walked home and passed out where he was arrested.

So I've seen it personally.

If threated I would shoot but there are other options. One of them is to not wade into it. The reason is simple - under what circumstances would the Law aide me? If I carry into an establishment during injunction and kill someone who deeply deserves it I have broken the law as well. Worse is if I just injure someone because then I get sued. In that case, even though I have an inherent right to self defense, the law of the land is that my right is limited in what I may use. I would be better off defending myself with a bottle with the bottom smashed off than drawing a gun.

So just be aware that there are consequences to drawing a gun in a bar or resturant if there is an injunction. I am all for the law because I believe in A) being reasonable with people and violently opposing unreasonable people who deem it necessary to attack me.

Did I let drug dealers drive me out of my last place? You bet. The reason is there was no reasoning with a 19 year old who is high. There just isn't - no sane argument or just cause will make it through that dumb, inexperience and currently numb head. You can't trust them and you have no way of predicting what they will do. That community changed out from under me. At some point it was going to turn violent and frankly I have no desire for that. It was not an easy decision to leave but short of turning the tennis court into a concentration camp for dumb asses and becomeing the draconian warlord of the complex there wasn't much I was going to be able to do. (Though I bet the title Draconian Warlord comes with some perquisets such as a nice uniform, bit hat, gold plated AK and of course adoring women with a lust for power... but I digress ).

Another incident happened last night. I was at a Target and there were two scared women. Some creep had been following them around the store. Another woman with her child said that the creep had approached her and asked if she was a school teacher, what was her name and then looked like the wolf at her 8 year old daughter. He was later seen driving around the parking lot in a white van. Nice. He was either demented or criminal. In either case it really showed how much good there is in being not able to defend yourself but also the others around you. Had this guy done something he probably would not have been stopped in time by the police who did eventually show up. He is the random guy you are talking about. Taking him out during an attempted rape or kidnapping at the Target or in the parking lot would gain the support of the community. Shooting him at a bar or resturant across the street, with an injunction, brings on a world of trouble for you. Same guy, same offence, same reaction, different place.

Does it make sense? No, of course not. Do we fight the injunction? Yes - with every effort. Do we disobey the law? NO - absolutely not.

"The history of law is the history of civilization, and law itself is only the blessed tie that binds human society together. ... Our long armed and hairy ancestors had no idea of redress beyond vengeance, or of justice beyond mere individual reprisal. ...

The law, like everything we do and like everything we say, is a heritage from the past."

John Marshall Gest, 1913

[Worriedman]

Hex, it really pisses me off too. Like you, I believe thay have a good chance of finding a judge to put the brakes on this thing then gain momentum in getting it nixed. However, we cannot turn into criminals just because we don't agree with the laws. They are what they are. We my friend are the minority plain and simple. We must suck it up and keep on putting up the good fight.

I'm starting to wonder if the striping of the age restriction wasn't going too far........

The Age Restriction is solely related to tobacco use, has nothing to do with alcohol. I am aware of several restaurants that have instituted the Age Restriction with a view to not driving a way patrons who smoke.

I think what we need is a declarative difference between Restaurant, and Bar or Nightclub. I am sure that the Restaurant Association is not in favor of that, as the liability insurance for a "Bar" will be substantially more expensive than for a Restaurant. A restaurant intends to feed you, a bar functions to get you liqueured up.

To add my thoughts to those of TCO David, I have recently been the recipient of a Phil Williams of Chanel 5 News bushwhacking. Taking a statement that I made on a public forum, he used quite a bit of "license" with it, (changed it up totally), and used it out of context to our detriment. They can do that, and I had no recourse to challenge the action, as I had posted on a "Public Forum". They are under no responsibility to be honest or fair, making the gun owner look bad is their ultimate goal.

Be aware, the other side is mining Gun Rights Forums, anything you say here, can and will be used against us if the opportunity arises.

Edited July 2, 2009 by Worriedman

[Wingshooter]

I will not violate an injuction or posted places, but I will be a richer man because of it. Those people will not see any of my money if they are succesful with this suit - I'm ready (pretty much have already) to give up Outback, O'Charley's, you name it. I always carry, so the whole of the restaurants that serve alcohol will suffer the loss of my money because of the actions of the few involved with the lawsuit. I don't drink, so it's only the food that interests me; and it can still be found without these idiots.

My grill sees a lot of activity, though. And I don't have to leave a tip...

[pegasusrider]

What about demanding fair and equal treatment if an injunction is ordered by demanding that all restaurant owners that serve alcohol search their patrons before entering in order to comply with the injunction otherwise it is discriminatory against HCP holders as the criminals will only be the ones carrying? All the arguments that the opposition offer apply to those that choose to carry in defiance of all laws.

I live near Virginia where you must open carry in resturants that serve alcohol and have not heard anything about shoot outs there.

[Worriedman]

I live near Virginia where you must open carry in resturants that serve alcohol and have not heard anything about shoot outs there.

Had there been any empirical data to offer lending support to their assertions, don't you suppose that Naifeh or Hardaway would have spewed it during the House floor debates, or Kyle in the Senate?

It does not exist.

[DavidD]

The Age Restriction is solely related to tobacco use, has nothing to do with alcohol. I am aware of several restaurants that have instituted the Age Restriction with a view to not driving a way patrons who smoke.

I think what we need is a declarative difference between Restaurant, and Bar or Nightclub. I am sure that the Restaurant Association is not in favor of that, as the liability insurance for a "Bar" will be substantially more expensive than for a Restaurant. A restaurant intends to feed you, a bar functions to get you liqueured up.

To add my thoughts to those of TCO David, I have recently been the recipient of a Phil Williams of Chanel 5 News bushwhacking. Taking a statement that I made on a public forum, he used quite a bit of "license" with it, (changed it up totally), and used it out of context to our detriment. They can do that, and I had no recourse to challenge the action, as I had posted on a "Public Forum". They are under no responsibility to be honest or fair, making the gun owner look bad is their ultimate goal.

Be aware, the other side is mining Gun Rights Forums, anything you say here, can and will be used against us if the opportunity arises.

I understand the dilemma regarding the lack of differentiation between a bar and a restaurant in TN. Like you, I believe that is at the heart of the current problem. It was my understanding that the closest the House Sub committee could come to making a differentiation was the age restriction since "generally speaking", that would apply to places such as bars. It is hard to argue with that logic in my opinion. I am glad that the ridiculous curfew of 11:00 PM was removed as I have been at places such as Ruth's Chris and the Palm past that time enjoying desert after a fine meal.

I sympathize with your plight in the Phil Williams case however do not see where that has any bearings regarding my statement. I by no means want to show any disrespect towards you as you have done wonderful things for me personally in your long fight for my second amendment rights. I truly appreciate all that you and your organization have done and vow to support TFA financially by becoming a member in the very very near future. You have my word. I also have the utmost respect for Senator Jackson and his fight in the Senate. Frankly, I'd vote for him anytime if I had the chance even though he is a Dem . I still stand by my statements above. Call me paranoid, but I do fear that "they" have a chance, even if ever so small, of jeopardizing this new law.

Edited July 2, 2009 by DavidD