So where did all of us go on the 14th?

[deerslayer]

Got home from work at 8:30, so didn't go anywhere. Will probably hit some alcohol-serving place this weekend (probably Mexican).

[eapking]

DeerSlayer, betcha not going to Molly's in Midtown are ya?

I'd like to hear what kind of stupid (and invalid) signage they have up.

[Guest boatme99]

I went to the same places I always go to. In Smith Co., there's not to much to choose from. I stick to locally owned establishments , and no one has ever even brought up the subject, so I never did either.

[EMTRN]

Brad's BBQ in Oakland.

[Guest tnmale46]

grilled some chicken at home no posted signs lol

[deerslayer]

DeerSlayer, betcha not going to Molly's in Midtown are ya?

I'd like to hear what kind of stupid (and invalid) signage they have up.

Maybe Los Pilares in Bartlett...

[Guest rockytop]

Had lunch at Los Portales (Mex) in Jackson yesterday. Concealed as always. Only signage was a no smoking. I didn't shoot up the place but my trigger finger twitched a couple of times.

[Dropkick Murphy]

Took the family out to O'Charleys as we've never been there before. Food was alright, the soup was off the chains though.

[Guest jwb68]

Had lunch at Los Portales (Mex) in Jackson yesterday. Concealed as always. Only signage was a no smoking. I didn't shoot up the place but my trigger finger twitched a couple of times.

I think it is the hops in the beer. When it hits your nose it makes your trigger finger twitch like that. I think negligent discharges due to this

phenomena was part of the concern of the opponents of restaurant carry. Just wear noseplugs next time you go. It will be fine.

[ngoeser59]

I sat at home and ate Chinese take out. I'm too scared to go out now with all these vigilantes running around!

Hilarious! When I was eating at Pie in the Sky on the effective date of the Restaurant Carry Law I kept thinking to myself.....there are about 25+ people in here that are TGO Members eating with me, and most likely they are ALL carrying.....Holy Cat Crap Batman, this is the safest place in Nashville right now! Awesome! For the 1st time since Ben's murder, I could be in public and I really felt good about it.

These people that call us Vigilantes have no clue. They have never been through a tragedy, they have never had one of their loved ones shot right infront of them and they were probably raised to fear guns and just don't understand. I hope nothing ever happens to them like what happened to me & Ben. If it ever does....then and only then will they finally "get it".

[Guest cwcaesar]

On the 15th, I went to Cheddar's in Cookeville. My waitress was a girl I know from college and she was none the wiser.

[Bigiron]

I am truly disappointed in my gun carrying brethren. No blood running in the streets. No ninja acts of vigilanteeism. No innocents shot in gun battles between crazed gun nuts. Not even a fist fight or beer bottle throwing. Not one looting and pillaging event. What is this world coming to when you can't have a little fun.

[Guest Ravendove]

No ninja acts of vigilanteeism.

If you had heard about it, it wouldn't have been ninja.

I took the wife to Olive Garden in Mt. Juliet. It was a very pleasant evening.

[Guest foister82]

a few of us got together at Knights in JC. Not bad food either to be honest, and a huge selection of tap.

[Fallguy]

a few of us got together at Knights in JC. Not bad food either to be honest, and a huge selection of tap.

Which I'm sure you know is a no-no while armed....

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

<anxiously awaiting foister82's response>

[Guest bkelm18]

Well Hooters has a huge selection of rack, but that doesn't mean I partake in it.

[Oh Shoot]

a few of us got together at Knights in JC. Not bad food either to be honest, and a huge selection of tap.

Which I'm sure you know is a no-no while armed....

Oddly, there seems to be no penalty specified if you DO have a beer or two while packing. Unless this is considered "under the influence" as addressed by 39-17-1321.

Does "under the influence" mean ANY alcohol or "legally drunk"?

If "legally drunk", then seems there is no penalty for consuming while carrying unless reaching that level.

- OS

[Fallguy]

Oddly, there seems to be no penalty specified if you DO have a beer or two while packing. Unless this is considered "under the influence" as addressed by 39-17-1321.

Does "under the influence" mean ANY alcohol or "legally drunk"?

If "legally drunk", then seems there is no penalty for consuming while carrying unless reaching that level.

- OS

You need to re-read the bill....

Public Chapter 339

The new 39-17-1305©(3)(A)

Authorized to carry a firearm under § 39-17-1351 who is not consuming beer, wine or any alcoholic beverage, and is within the confines of a restaurant that is open to the public and serves alcoholic beverages, wine or beer.

As far as 39-17-1321 that you mention, for when you are not in an establishment that serves alcohol, it seems like I've heard that most LEOs would take that to mean ANY influence.

[redstategunnut]

I went to City Hall in my hometown to fight for our rights to carry in parks.

[Oh Shoot]

You need to re-read the bill....

Public Chapter 339

The new 39-17-1305©(3)(A) ...

I'm familiar with it, FG, my point is, there is not a penalty specified for carrying and consuming in the new statute.

As far as 39-17-1321 that you mention, for when you are not in an establishment that serves alcohol, it seems like I've heard that most LEOs would take that to mean ANY influence

That may or may not be true.

Driving "under the influence", hence why it's called DUI, has a certain blood alcohol level associated with the charge. Would not CUI (carrying under the influence) need same?

- OS

[titan14]

Which I'm sure you know is a no-no while armed....

None, of the 6 of us, even had a sip of an alcoholic beverage.

[Fallguy]

I'm familiar with it, FG, my point is, there is not a penalty specified for carrying and consuming in the new statute.

It's not in the new part, because it already part of 39-17-1305 ....if you are not complying with all parts of 39-17-1305 (in a "restaurant" and not consuming) then you are in violation of 39-17-1305 which is a Class A misdemeanor.

That may or may not be true.

Driving "under the influence", hence why it's called DUI, has a certain blood alcohol level associated with the charge. Would not CUI (carrying under the influence) need same?

- OS

Being under the influence can have a BAC which means it is assumed you are under the influence, but it doesn't have to be a certain BAC. 55-10-401

Edited July 21, 2009 by Fallguy

[Oh Shoot]

It's not in the new part, because it already part of 39-17-1305 ....if you are not complying with all parts of 39-17-1305 (in a "restaurant" and not consuming) then you are in violation of 39-17-1305 which is a Class A misdemeanor.

Ah, you are most certainly probably correct on this point.

DWI or driving while intoxicated has a BAC assoicated with it. Being under the influence is a lower standard and has no BAC with it.

Are you sure TN even HAS the charge of DWI anymore?

I, having some, um, experience in this area, can assure you that when your BAC is over .08 you are charged with DUI. Driving under the influence.

- OS

edit: I see you edited. :-)

Edited July 21, 2009 by OhShoot

[Fallguy]

Are you sure TN even HAS the charge of DWI anymore?

I, having some, um, experience in this area, can assure you that when your BAC is over .08 you are charged with DUI. Driving under the influence.

- OS

I looked...don't think it does...was editing my post as you sent this I guess.

To be honest I wish there was a BAC associtated with 39-17-1321, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Many other states either have the same BAC for carry as they DUI or it may be a lower one. But either way it is not just up to the discression of the LEO.