Met with Tn Hospitality Assoc CEO Walt Baker

[ngoeser59]

I met with Walt Baker (CEO of Tennessee Hospitality Association) for about 1.5 hours. Mr. Baker has been on the local news speaking as someone who is NOT a supporter of the Restaurant Carry Law as it is written. He was a very nice man and I appreciate him giving me the time to speak with him regrading the new Restaurant Carry Law. Mr. Baker is Not a HCP Holder nor does he own a gun of any sort (that is a personal decision on his part). Mr. Baker is very well known in the Nashville Community and beyond. He has done marketing for Convention Centers, Hotels, multiple restaurants such as Shoney's etc etc....I told Mr. Baker my entire story regarding my husband's murder at Jonny's Sports Bar and explained to him why I support the Restaurant Carry Law and why posting is a bad idea. Of course I believe Restaurant Owners do have the right to post, however....I don't believe it is "smart". It invites criminals to come in and do whatever to whoever, knowing there is nobody in that establishment that can defend themselves. Here is the basic break down of what Mr. Baker and the Coalition of Restaurants including Randy Rayburn want by this lawsuit they have filed.

One of the 3 choices

1. Make Restaurants "Opt In" instead of opting out. (I don't agree)

2. Retract the law all together for Vagueness. (The law could possibly use some revamping-maybe IN THE NEXT LEGISLATIVE SESSION). I do not believe the Law is "Vague" to the point that a HCP Holder would bring their Gun into a place they should not. The Bill clearly says what qualifies as a place you can carry. I however am someone who believes you should be able to carry just about everywhere. Crime occurs everywhere. But sometimes you have to take babysteps to ease these people. There probably needs to be a clear line drawn as to what is a restaurant and what is a bar. We have no "bars" in Tennessee right now. Maybe it is time to change that? There are many places that just pay the fine because they are not selling enough in food to carry alcohol. They should NOT be allowed to do this. So it really comes down to are they operating the way they should or just getting by under the radar? What a mess. (Not HCP Holders fault).

3. Make it so the Restaurant has zero liability if a HCP Holder is served a drink unknowing to the bartender that they are carrying. (I think this is fair). If a HCP Holder chooses to drink the bar should NOT be liable and they simply want it stated in the law itself to protect them.

Bottom line.......it is ALL ABOUT $$$$$$. It is NOT about personal safety of the patron. It is about MONEY. Money makes the world go round. Round & round & round.

Edited July 23, 2009 by ngoeser59

[E4 No More]

Maybe we should campaign for a law making the businesses liable in civil suits if they opt out? That sounds fair.

[creeky]

Maybe we should campaign for a law making the businesses liable in civil suits if they opt out? That sounds fair.

That might be seen as aggressive.

The same goal could be achieved by changing the law to state a restaurant can not be held liable for the actions of HCP holder that is acting in self defense or the defense of others.

[E4 No More]

I was being sarcastic...sorry.

[ngoeser59]

I do think that the Law will have to be looked at again and some adjustments made. However, all the restaurants have to do right now if they are that afraid of being held liable is "Post". However, I do think that they could possibly be held laible if they deny people the right to defend themselves and a criminal comes in and shoots a bunch of patrons. Of course, what they will say is....well, you chose to come in here and eat and you knew we had a posting up so you waived your right to protect yourself when you entered here. That is why it is very important that NONE of us give these type of establishments our business. Everyone has the right to defend themselves & their families. PERIOD. It sucks that we can't go to these places because some of them have wonderful food & service but....my life and my loved ones lives are more important than some great food.

[creeky]

I was being sarcastic...sorry.

My bad man... was doing a quick read off the board while at work.

[ngoeser59]

That might be seen as aggressive.

The same goal could be achieved by changing the law to state a restaurant can not be held liable for the actions of HCP holder that is acting in self defense or the defense of others.

I think that is very fair. However, should the restaurant be held liable for what a criminal does "if" they do not allow HCP Holders to be in their establishment (to give people a fighting chance at survival). In other words.....if they create a situation where everyone is basically a "sitting duck" then can they be held liable for "failure to protect a patron?" Or is it a situation where everyone who entered those doors, did so at their own risk? Just a thought, that's all..... Comments please.

[G27]

I'm completely shocked that this is about money. Completely stunned!

[cadillacdude1975]

the group you met with is just crying at the huge change. had the media kept their collective mouths shut on the issue, i would bet that most of this nonsense would have have started.

if you dont want HCP holders to be in your establishment, then post your gay sign. worry about the criminals then.

and you are right, it is all about money, MY MONEY. if i see a sign, i go the other way. if you do not welcome my right to self defense, you do not welcome my hard earned money.

[Guest redbarron06]

One of the 3 choices

1. Make Restaurants "Opt In" instead of opting out. (I don't agree)

I am with you on this one. The way the law is worded is that they are legal unless the buisness makes the decision to prohibit.

2. Retract the law all together for Vagueness. (The law could possibly use some revamping-maybe IN THE NEXT LEGISLATIVE SESSION). I do not believe the Law is "Vague" to the point that a HCP Holder would bring their Gun into a place they should not. The Bill clearly says what qualifies as a place you can carry. I however am someone who believes you should be able to carry just about everywhere. Crime occurs everywhere. But sometimes you have to take babysteps to ease these people. There probably needs to be a clear line drawn as to what is a restaurant and what is a bar. We have no "bars" in Tennessee right now. Maybe it is time to change that? There are many places that just pay the fine because they are not selling enough in food to carry alcohol. They should NOT be allowed to do this. So it really comes down to are they operating the way they should or just getting by under the radar? What a mess. (Not HCP Holders fault).

I dont understand what they mean by vague. I guess they are the same folks that are not understanding that "shall not be infringed" means no restrictions. As far as making a law that actually makes a "bar" in TN. Because the law in now on the books as "places that serve alcohol" they would have to make a law to create a bar then have the existing law changed to "resturaunts that serve alcohol"

3. Make it so the Restaurant has zero liability if a HCP Holder is served a drink unknowing to the bartender that they are carrying. (I think this is fair). If a HCP Holder chooses to drink the bar should NOT be liable and they simply want it stated in the law itself to protect them.

Part of me wants to agree with this and part disagrees. My first question would be, under the current law is the establishment responsible if they serve an underage person that is carrying a fake ID to get drinks? Then I would add what is there liability if a patron they serve goes out and gets behind a wheel and kills sombody with a BAC of .15? If they can not be held responsible for either of those actions then I would be ok saying they have zero liability if a HCP holder overpenitrates and hits an old lady at the table behind the target.

Bottom line.......it is ALL ABOUT $$$$$$. It is NOT about personal safety of the patron. It is about MONEY. Money makes the world go round. Round & round & round.

That is the truth. It is all they care about.

[creeky]

I think that is very fair. However, should the restaurant be held liable for what a criminal does "if" they do not allow HCP Holders to be in their establishment (to give people a fighting chance at survival).

Agreed!

It should be that if a business choses to "disarm" an HCP holder by posting their establishment... then they by doing so assume the responsibility (and is then held liable) of that holder's (and those with him) safety.

Or if you like, if a restaurant posts a no firearms sign then they in turn have to have an licensed armed security guard during business hours and have a written security plan in place and viewable at the request of the patron. (This can get all kinds of expensive if they want.)

or.... how about you don't post, we don't open carry.

Kind of a don't ask don't tell policy. The cheapest, easiest way for all parties involved.

[ngoeser59]

AMEN. And that is the bottom line-literally. I will NOT support these businesses PERIOD. For me, it is a very personal choice because I actually lost the most important person in my life due to being denied my 2nd Amendment Rights. It is a very serious issue and we have to stand up and be heard. If Rosa Parks had just gotten up out of that seat for that white man...where would blacks be today? What if women had said....oh okay all you Men out there...it's okay, we don't mind not voting. ???? Change takes EFFORT. LOTS OF EFFORT.

[dunndw]

Here's my question:

Where in the law did it lay the liability of serving a HCP holder at the business owner’s feet? I guess someone COULD sue if they get shot by a HCP holder who decides to go off the reservation, risk losing their freedom, permit and gun by having a drink and shooting someone, but..Where in the law does it say if they so serve someone in possession of a gun they are liable?

They don't have any problem serving drivers do they? If they go full stupid (like tootsies) and buy friggin metal detectors, are they stopping people with keys in their pocket? Fine. Change the law removing their liability…but PUT the additional liability of providing armed security and make them 100% liable for whatever happens on their property…including the parking lot IF they choose to disarm us. Place the liability on them if a gun gets stolen out of their parking lot.

Nikki, your're a much better person than me. I don't think I could sit that close to stupid without showing my...butt in a big way. I'm sick and damn tired of these idiots thinking they know whats best.

[ngoeser59]

I didn't show my butt....but I did show him my gun hidden under my suit jacket on my hip as I was leaving He did not even know. It shocked the cashier. I had to calm her down a little by telling her I was a HCP Holder and Walt explained it to her also. Then she said....oh okay, I know who you are now....I saw you on the news. Oh...and Shoney's has some pretty good coffee.

Edited July 23, 2009 by ngoeser59

[Mike.357]

if someone with an HCP is armed and drinks alcohol they no longer are in possession of a valid HCP.

I am not sure how the restaurant is liable for this action.

It would be the same as serving someone who has a gun and no HCP to begin with.

[Guest redbarron06]

I dont know about every body else but if these places wanted to post "no open carry" or "no visable firearms" I would be ok with that. I am not sure about the legality of it because they are not banning guns just saying I dont want the sight of the guns freaking out the sheep. I have been to a couple of places like Bass Pro that have a sign that sais "no loaded guns", Speciality Arms II in La Vergne has the same thing on the door. They are not telling you that you can not bring them in just under what circumstances it can be done.

[Guest db99wj]

I think they should determine the difference between a bar and a restaurant that serves should be done. With that said, I understand the argument of the Designated Driver, not drinking, right to protect myself in there argument, and I agree, in a perfect world, the world ain't perfect nor is it ever going to be. I think, might be wrong, that if there was a distinction between the two, people that are really not anti gun, but not pro gun, would not be up in arms. Why, because the media couldn't run every freak'n story with the tag line of "GUNS IN BARS LAW". Because of that message that is being hammered by every news outlet, the people that typically wouldn't and don't care, are going, well, guns and drinking don't mix, this is a stupid law, and they are taking what they hear in a 15 second, or 30 second tv blurb, or a headline on a newspapers website or paper, as the truth, which it is not. I know, this might not be popular, but I think if this was done on the front end, we wouldn't be having so many restaurants posting, and people screaming.

Second point, about liability. Insurance companies aren't going to arbitrarly raise rates due to a law change. It hasn't happened in the 36 or 37 other states that allow this. They don't base their rates on things like that, what they do base there rates on our numbers, statistics, that is why they have guys called actuaries, otherwise known as number nerds. They look at statistics, like, well one that would apply here, Permit Holder shootings in Restaurants....survey says, <insert number, Im going to say zero> over the past <number of years>, then they willl assign a risk number based on that, they will then look at claims that they have had in other states, same thing, <insert number> over the last <number of years>. They will look at other things as well, and base there decision on that. Also, they are not going to come out and run this study because of Tennessee. They will look at the other 37 states that they have policies in and make that decision. This would be on the front end. So overtime, if they DO start seeing claims come in, from these restaurants and they are due to permit holders shooting up the place, and the restaurant getting sued for it, then they could raise rates. Funny thing about liability, it is a two way street. Restaurant doesn't put sign up, place gets shot up, person could sue for not putting sign up. Restaurant puts sign up, place gets shot up, person could sue for not providing for their safety. The liability things goes both ways, so saying they have to post for liability sake is complete bull**** in my opinion.

I am no longer a practicing insurance agent, but I played one for @ 7 years., and nope, no Holiday Inn last night.

[ngoeser59]

A gun that is not loaded is about as good as having a rock in your pocket.

[Guest proudsuthrner]

A gun that is not loaded is about as good as having a rock in your pocket.

yea, when i took my hcp class, the instructor said that a gun without a round in the chamber might as well be used as a paper weight..useless.

[Guest redbarron06]

A gun that is not loaded is about as good as having a rock in your pocket.

I agree I was just using those signs as an example. If restuarants were to post no open carry. every HCP would no what they mean and I would (going out on a limb here) not mind dining there. Those that are not educated on the subject would look at it like a 6 month old puppy, tilt their head to the side and say "carry what openly". This may be a way to meet in the middle. I can understand and respect that folks dont want to see bubba with his 50AE desert eagle in his mall ninja tack holster munching on hot wings and drinking sweet tea. I dont even want to see that. Though I carry I actually dont like the image of folks carrying open. Sure some do it for innocently but to me most of the folks that are carrying open are doing so to draw attention to themselves. In my opinion they are the ones that are looking for trouble. Not all cases, but I would think most people that are carrying for protection want to keep the elliment of supprise on thier side.

Last year I went to a holloween party at the school my little girl used to go to in daycare. One of the ladies there was a police person and was wearing her little glock on a belt holster and made a bad choice of vests as it was about 2 inches to short to cover the pistol. She must have streached it a half an inch because every time she bent over to deal with her child the vest would ride up on it. Even as a cop she understood that it is one thing to carry concealed but people (as a group) tend to freak out when they see one of those Glock weapons of mass destruction. to top it off all of the other parents there knew she was a Metro officer and had seen here there before in uniform.

[Guest HexHead]

A gun that is not loaded is about as good as having a rock in your pocket.

Well, you could beat someone to death with it.

[Guest HexHead]

Okay, I'm going to be my usual subtle self here. I don't think we should change one ******* thing in the law for the benefit of the restaurant owners. All they've done through all of this is piss and moan and spread viscous lies about us and call us names. I wouldn't give them an inch more of our rights. If anything, the law never should have given them the right to post. Once again proving the old saw, let no good deed go unpunished. When will we learn, you just can't cut liberals any slack or they will turn it against you and try to give you a good screwing with it.

Other than that, the law was well written. It includes a definition of a restaurant we can carry in that is more current than the one used by the ABC to give an establishment a license. It therefore should supersede the percentage law, at least for our purposes. Their vagueness argument holds no water. There is no vagueness in the new law's definition.

As for them now wanting the law changed to "opt-in"? Again, they're just grasping at straws and that stupid idea should just be dismissed out of hand. The Chancellor already admonished them once for bringing up the vagueness issue in the hearing when it was never part of the original complaint. I don't think she'll take too kindly to that argument if they try to use it with her.

As for the liability issue. Face it, under ANY circumstances if someone is shot in a restaurant or bar, the establishment is going to get sued as they are the deep pockets. I don't care if it's the old law, the new law or the next law. Again, they are just using it as a smokescreen.

All their arguments are just that, a smokescreen to distract everyone from the truth, they're all just being greedy and want to grab onto every penny they can. We're idiots if we give these bastards one inch of ground we've fought so hard for, and for so long.

[E4 No More]

Well, you could beat someone to death with it.

Yes, but you'd get awful yucky doing it.

[Fallguy]

On each point in the OP

1. No other property owners have the abilty to "opt in" why should they? All other property owners where it is legal have to post a sign to prohibit carry. You're not going to make them all happy. There is a letter from a restaurant owner in onther thread upset that the state left the decesion to him. He sounds like he would rather have been forced to allow handguns in his place.

2. Although I too agree the law could have maybe been slighty better, I in no way think it is too vauge to be understood. But if they want to make it really simple, just take out the restaurant part and make having a HCP a straight exception to all places just like for LEOs and owners.

3. Restaurant owners or no more or less liable for the actions of HCP holders than anyother business. Yes, they do serve alcohol and I guess there could be a question in some situations if they served alcohol to someone they knew was armed, but I don't think any would.

Overall I think the law should exempt all property owners from the independent actions of HCP holders on their property as it to pertians to using the handgun. On the flipside, I think if a property owner does post against carry, then they should be held liable for anything that happens to you because you were disarmed.

[Guest justme]

That might be seen as aggressive.

Who cares if it seems "aggressive"? If restaurants intentionally post and do not take steps to protect the lives of their patrons-posting armed guards--then the restaurant should be fully liable in the event a patron or patrons become injured, or killed while in their establishment if the establishment is robbed or assaulted by criminals. They want to "opt out" of allowing customers to carry in their businesses--then they should be fully liable in a civil lawsuit for any injuries their customers receive. They should not have their cake and eat it too.

The same goal could be achieved by changing the law to state a restaurant can not be held liable for the actions of HCP holder that is acting in self defense or the defense of others.

I can agree with that--as long as the HCP holder is also fully covered from all civil/criminal liability for any actions he/she takes to protect their life or the lives of others....