Just got back from the Chancery Court Hearing... details inside

[TGO David]

First and foremost, thanks to Ngoeser59, Daniel and Fallguy for coming out today. If there were other TGO members present, you guys must have been in the overflow room so please do not take this as an official tally of who was there and who wasn't.

The bottom line is that the Court denied the motion for an injunction filed by all three groups of plaintiffs. So yes, at midnight tonight the new law goes into effect.

HOWEVER...

Chancellor Bonnyman did encourage both sides to revisit the issue in 90 days, passing the matter on as a cross-motion for examination on the basis that the new law might indeed be unconstitutional.

So this may not be the last we will hear about whether or not HB0962 will remain a law.

[mcurrier]

Chancellor Bonnyman did encourage both sides to revisit the issue in 90 days, passing the matter on as a cross-motion for examination on the basis that the new law might indeed be unconstitutional.

Well...liberals LOVE precedent, and there's 36 states of precedent on this issue. Thinking that the new law might indeed be unconstitutional makes about as much sense as the size of someone's Johnson being unconstitutional. It just don't make rational sense.

And tomorrow we start what will hopefully be 90 days of incident free precedent to pile on top of that.

[Falcon1]

I just don't buy the "unconstitutionally vague" argument. If a business has a restaurant liquor license in Tennessee, they are representing to the public that they are meeting the current state standard that 51%-plus of their business comes from sources other than alcoholic-beverage sales. If that is not truly the case, the remedy is to close their business IAW state law, not prevent law-abiding permit holders from carrying there.

[Punisher84]

Shelby County is trying to use the same argument...

Shelby County Attorney's opinion: New state gun laws unconstitutional : Local News : Memphis Commercial Appeal

[TGO David]

I just don't buy the "unconstitutionally vague" argument. If a business has a restaurant liquor license in Tennessee, they are representing to the public that they are meeting the current state standard that 51%-plus of their business comes from sources other than alcoholic-beverage sales. If that is not truly the case, the remedy is to close their business IAW state law, not prevent law-abiding permit holders from carrying there.

Correct.

[Guest Swamprunner]

Sucks to be on their side tonight.

[Smith]

You know, if they keep pushing this they may just get the clarification they are pushing for. If that is the case I doubt they will be any more pleased with the results. It would be more likely to remove any local rights to prohibit as opposed to removing 2a across the board.

[Guest HexHead]

From the Nashville City Paper...

During Monday’s hearing, lead counsel for the plaintiffs David Randolph Smith argued that the new law was so vague that permit holders wouldn’t know where they could and couldn’t carry. The new law states guns are allowed only in establishments deriving most of their income from the sale of food.

I posted this as a comment there....

David Randolph Smith is either stupid or a liar. There is a definition of what is considered a restaurant in the new handgun carry bill, but it makes no mention at off any percentages of food vs alcohol sales.

"( As used in this subdivision ©(3), “restaurant†means any public

place kept, used, maintained, advertised and held out to the public as a place where meals are served and where meals are actually and regularly served, such place being provided with adequate and sanitary kitchen and dining room equipment, having employed therein a sufficient number and kind of employees to prepare, cook and serve suitable food for its guests. At least one (1) meal per day shall be served at least five (5) days a week, with the exception of holidays, vacations and periods of redecorating, and the serving of such meals shall be the principal business conducted."

He's just a second rate ambulance chaser.

There is NOTHING in the new law that references any percentage as to what constitutes a restaurant. It clearly states it's own definition.

[Guest HexHead]

You know, if they keep pushing this they may just get the clarification they are pushing for. If that is the case I doubt they will be any more pleased with the results. It would be more likely to remove any local rights to prohibit as opposed to removing 2a across the board.

The State legislature needs to push the ABC to enforce the law and shut down the places that don't meet the requirements of their license.

[TGO David]

I posted this as a comment there....

There is NOTHING in the new law that references any percentage as to what constitutes a restaurant. It clearly states it's own definition.

As usual, you are as subtle as a chainsaw hysterectomy, Hex. I don't know if you attended the hearing today, but if you did you will recall that the percentages issue was part of what the plaintiffs argued makes the law unconstitutional.

Now, this only becomes an issue when a restaurant (or bar) fails to meet the minimum percentage of non-alcohol sales imposed on them by the State to begin with, which in turn makes those venues in violation, but the fact remains that percentages do play a role in a venue's ability to serve alcohol.

No, Tennessee does not license bars and all places that serve alcohol also must serve food AND are required to generate at least 50% of their revenue from non-alcohol related sales in order to retain their liquor license.

Edited July 14, 2009 by TGO David

[Guest Rugerman]

David,

What was the overall general mood there tonight? How well was "our side" represented?

[Guest HexHead]

As usual, you are as subtle as a chainsaw hysterectomy, Hex. I don't know if you attended the hearing today, but if you did you will recall that the percentages issue was part of what the plaintiffs argued makes the law unconstitutional.

Now, this only becomes an issue when a restaurant (or bar) fails to meet the minimum percentage of non-alcohol sales imposed on them by the State to begin with, which in turn makes those venues in violation, but the fact remains that percentages do play a role in a venue's ability to serve alcohol.

No, Tennessee does not license bars and all places that serve alcohol also must serve food AND are required to generate at least 50% of their revenue from non-alcohol related sales in order to retain their liquor license.

Again, he's making the case "The new law states guns are allowed only in establishments deriving most of their income from the sale of food." which is not what the law says. There may be issues with the original liquor license, but that's a whole different issue. He's just doing what lawyers do too often, lying through his teeth, grabbing at straws to make a point.

And as I've stated so often in the past, I'm tired of playing nice with these losers.

[mrbond]

I'm curious, not knowing what everyone looks like, how would you know who was there from TGO? Were yall wearing shirts or something? For that matter, how did you know which person was for which side? I've had these questions ever since I read your bulletin asking people to come to the hearing.

If there were other TGO members present, you guys must have been in the overflow room so please do not take this as an official tally of who was there and who wasn't.

[mrbond]

A legal argument that should be considered is: the restaurant owner's opt-out ability (by posting the no guns sign) would remove their standing to bring the case. In other words, since restaurant owner's can opt-out like any other business, they do not have standing to bring the case.

[RinTN]

A legal argument that should be considered is: the restaurant owner's opt-out ability (by posting the no guns sign) would remove their standing to bring the case. In other words, since restaurant owner's can opt-out like any other business, they do not have standing to bring the case.

I had wondered about exactly that, but am not sure if these business have actually posted yet or not. Assuming that they hadn't, then their standing likely couldn't be questioned. Assuming that they do before tomorrow because they really don't want handguns brought in, there may be a chance that they would lose their standing for the suit.

[Guest HexHead]

A legal argument that should be considered is: the restaurant owner's opt-out ability (by posting the no guns sign) would remove their standing to bring the case. In other words, since restaurant owner's can opt-out like any other business, they do not have standing to bring the case.

You know, I don't have a problem with a business that wants to post and prohibit our entry when we carry. I can respect that.

I also wouldn't have a problem with the opposition to this law if there were substantial and cognitive opposition to it. But in that regard, that's the problem and why I've adopted a "take no prisoners" approach. The only reasons our opponents have given are all based on fear and emotion as opposed to a single hard fact regarding HCP holders. They dream up these wild scenarios just like they have every time any handgun proposal has come up and have been wrong every single time. Now they are taking a play from the ACLU/ Saul Alinsky playbook, what you can't accomplish through the legislature, you attack through the courts.

Fortunately, I would hope for a state law to be declared unconstitutional probably has a pretty high hurdle, to overturn the representative will of the people. Especially on as feeble an argument as these assclowns are making.

[TGO David]

David,

What was the overall general mood there tonight? How well was "our side" represented?

The mood was respectful and reserved. During the brief recess while Chancellor Bonnyman was in her chambers to craft her response, discussion was a bit lighthearted among the parties present but I think everyone's minds were still set squarely on just what the Chancellor might say once session resumed.

I did find it... odd, perhaps? ... that there seemed to be a lot of backslapping and yucking it up going on between players on opposite sides of the aisle. For instance, Adam Dread was hamming it up pretty good with Bob Pope of the Pope's Gun Show fame. The seemed to know each other from outside the courtroom, so who knows. I just found that to be odd and not quite adversarial.

I'm curious, not knowing what everyone looks like, how would you know who was there from TGO? Were yall wearing shirts or something? For that matter, how did you know which person was for which side? I've had these questions ever since I read your bulletin asking people to come to the hearing.

A while back I had polo shirts made up with the TGO logo embroidered on it and offered them up to the Moderators and Staff. We already offer hats up to the members at large, but shirts will be made available to the members as well very soon.

So yeah a few of us had TGO shirts on. Beyond that, I've gotten to know quite a few of the local members (by face, if not by name) thanks to the monthly Meet & Shoot events that we have down at Owl Hollow. Since the courtroom that I was in was so small, it was easy to spot any other TGO'ers that may have been present. I didn't see inside the other room so I have no idea if anyone from here was in there.

Hope that answers your questions.

[Guest HexHead]

I had wondered about exactly that, but am not sure if these business have actually posted yet or not. Assuming that they hadn't, then their standing likely couldn't be questioned. Assuming that they do before tomorrow because they really don't want handguns brought in, there may be a chance that they would lose their standing for the suit.

Just the fact that the simple act of posting gives them relief from all the things they are suing over removes their standing. Whether they actually do post or not. This suit is entirely without merit. Otherwise, the Chancellor would have given them the injunction.

It'll really be interesting to see if Rayburn posts his dumps properly now or keeps his cute "no guns-ever, free parking-always" signs. I wonder how the ambulance chasers advised him?

[Guest HexHead]

T Since the courtroom that I was in was so small, it was easy to spot any other TGO'ers that may have been present. I didn't see inside the other room so I have no idea if anyone from here was in there.

Hope that answers your questions.

Did it appear that the opposition got out the support they were claiming to on their Facebook page and website?

[mrbond]

Shirts for members sounds cool, maybe have a couple of colors to choose from. Could be an additional revenue stream to support the website as well.

We already offer hats up to the members at large, but shirts will be made available to the members as well very soon.

[TGO David]

Did it appear that the opposition got out the support they were claiming to on their Facebook page and website?

In the courtroom proper? At best they had 10-12 people on their side present. There were at least that many on our side present and the room would have only held 24 total, max.

[Wingshooter]

With plans for a hearing in 90 days, that pretty much prevents an appeal right now. Hopefully things will settle down and the anti's will loose some traction by then.

[Guest HexHead]

In the courtroom proper? At best they had 10-12 people on their side present. There were at least that many on our side present and the room would have only held 24 total, max.

And btw David, thanks for all you've been doing and this great place you share with us.

[Guest HexHead]

With plans for a hearing in 90 days, that pretty much prevents an appeal right now. Hopefully things will settle down and the anti's will loose some traction by then.

It will be interesting to see what they dredge up as an excuse for this going forward over the next 90 days. The two legal eagles are trying to get to the payday on page 29 of the complaint.

[Guest HexHead]

David, How did AG Cooper do in handling their assertions? Did he appear to be on our side?