Metro pulse "guns in bars"

[Guest jp79]

Knoxville Bar Owners Are Not So Gun Crazy : Citybeat : Metro Pulse

Thought this would be of interest. I have to say while it was slanted they did at least mention that one month later there hasn't been one incident involving a HCP holder.

[Daniel]

Being from South Knoxville I got a pretty good chuckle over this one. I drove by this place almost daily.

I am also a big fan of Metro Pulse.

Only one bar we contacted, Susie Q’s on Maryville Pike in South Knoxville, is allowing guns with any amount of enthusiasm.

“Hell, yes! As long as they’ve got a permit, I’ve got no problem with people bringing their guns in here,” says Susie Q’s owner John Rhinehart. He is not speaking directly into the phone, but he can be heard from across the room. Rhinehart is being questioned through an unnamed intermediary who, when asked, tells me that he is familiar with the “guns-in-laws bar.”

[Guest mn32768]

There's a list of anti-gun restaurants in another Metro Pulse article.

Bars Expressly Banning Guns (BEBs): 22

BEBs Doing So Emphatically: 5

Don R’s Sports Bar, 10015 Rutledge Pike, Corryton

“No way. I’m the owner, and I ain’t letting nobody carry a gun in here.”

—Don Morton, owner

Hugh’s Tavern, 904 N Central St.

“We would never do that.”

—Unidentified staff member

Judy’s, 6362 Maynardville Hwy., Maynardville

“Hell no!”

—Unidentified staff member

Longbranch Saloon, 1848 Cumberland Ave.

“Absolutely not. Please, please make a point of saying that we aren’t.”

—Christopher Hamblin, bartender

Marie’s Olde Towne Tavern, 202 W. Magnolia Ave.

“Absolutely not!”

—Marie Owens, owner

Smokey’s Sports Pub and Grill, 2613 Adair Dr.

“Hell, no! That gun law is asinine.”

—Michelle Mapstone, owner

BEBs Doing So With a Sense of Humor About It: 1

Club XYZ, 1215 N. Central St.

“No, sir. We are not letting guns, cigarettes, and homosexuals mix.”

—Richard Cameron, owner

[RinTN]

There's a list of anti-gun restaurants in another Metro Pulse article.

It would be interesting to check these locations and see how many are actually posted. There was an article in the JC Press a while back that mentioned a half dozen places by name, claiming that they were disallowing carry. I've been to half those places for meals since then and none of those three were actually posted.

[guyandarifle]

Is there not qualifications for what is a "restaurant" and what is a "bar"? For instance, I was under the impression that, say, O'Charlie's would be the former while Longbranch Saloon would be the latter. I believe it was predicated on ratio of food sales and such IIRC.

Is this not the case? If so, there's a bunch of places that wouldn't qualify for carry even if the owners WERE willing to let patrons do so. This may not have been part of the final law but I'm positive I read something to that affect somewhere.

Edited August 21, 2009 by guyandarifle

[Guest m&pc9]

Club XYZ, 1215 N. Central St.

“No, sir. We are not letting guns, cigarettes, and homosexuals mix.”

—Richard Cameron, owner

Mikeh will not like this.

[Daniel]

Is there not qualifications for what is a "restaurant" and what is a "bar"? For instance, I was under the impression that, say, O'Charlie's would be the former while Longbranch Saloon would be the latter. I believe it was predicated on ratio of food sales and such IIRC.

Is this not the case? If so, there's a bunch of places that wouldn't qualify for carry even if the owners WERE willing to let patrons do so. This may not have been part of the final law but I'm positive I read something to that affect somewhere.

Its foggy TBH

[Guest ab28]

Bleh, what crap, more gun restrictions. I don't eat out much, so whatever. I am sure there are plenty of places in Murfreesboro that don't allow carry either.

[Guest 270win]

Oh well.....what is hidden does not hurt them.

[Guest HexHead]

Club XYZ, 1215 N. Central St.

“No, sir. We are not letting guns, cigarettes, and homosexuals mix.”

—Richard Cameron, owner

So is this place a gay bar? Or do they also have a circle/slash with a pillow biter sign on the door too?

:D

[Guest DylisTN]

Is there not qualifications for what is a "restaurant" and what is a "bar"? For instance, I was under the impression that, say, O'Charlie's would be the former while Longbranch Saloon would be the latter. I believe it was predicated on ratio of food sales and such IIRC.

Is this not the case? If so, there's a bunch of places that wouldn't qualify for carry even if the owners WERE willing to let patrons do so. This may not have been part of the final law but I'm positive I read something to that affect somewhere.

Not explicitly. But the law prohibits carry in age restricted establishments. Or while they are age restricted.

[JeffL]

Not explicitly. But the law prohibits carry in age restricted establishments. Or while they are age restricted.

No it doesn't.

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/106/Chapter/PC0339.pdf

Edited August 22, 2009 by JeffL

[DaveTN]

Not explicitly. But the law prohibits carry in age restricted establishments. Or while they are age restricted.

I don’t think that is correct. That was the original draft. If that had passed we wouldn’t be having these problems. Because some people thought they had to be able to carry in bars it went from “Restaurant Carry†to “Guns in barsâ€.

[Guest Papa T]

My theory is that unless these restaurants install detecters at the entrances and weapons are trully concealed the bad guys will continue to carry and the licensed will have to follow thier consceince. I mean concealed means that NOBODY knows but the carrier right?

[DaveTN]

My theory is that unless these restaurants install detecters at the entrances and weapons are trully concealed the bad guys will continue to carry and the licensed will have to follow thier consceince. I mean concealed means that NOBODY knows but the carrier right?

That is correct. But I am a law abiding citizen; I will not lower myself to violate the law because I don’t agree with it. The law is that the owner has the rights; as it should be. If I see a posted establishment I will abide by their rules or I will not enter.

[Guest HexHead]

That is correct. But I am a law abiding citizen; I will not lower myself to violate the law because I don’t agree with it. The law is that the owner has the rights; as it should be. If I see a posted establishment I will abide by their rules or I will not enter.

Do you ever exceed the speed limit?

And I completely disagree about the owner having rights. There's lots of stuff the owner can/ cannot do. He can't choose to allow smokers into his restaurant unless he makes it a 21-over establishment. He can't put up a sign saying "no blacks", or "no gays" if he wants to. So don't give me this crap that he has the "right" to tell us we can't carry because of "property rights". That NEVER should have been put into the law.

Edited August 22, 2009 by HexHead

[DaveTN]

Do you ever exceed the speed limit?

I drive with total disregard for speed limits. I try not to be that way, but I can’t help it; it’s a sickness.

And I completely disagree about the owner having rights. There's lots of stuff the owner can/ cannot do. He can't choose to allow smokers into his restaurant unless he makes it a 21-over establishment. He can't put up a sign saying "no blacks", or "no gays" if he wants to. So don't give me this crap that he has the "right" to tell us we can't carry because of "property rights". That NEVER should have been put into the law.

And the smoking ban was wrong. The state (and most other states) saw fit to trample all over the owners rights in the name of health care. It was wrong; and it put some people out of business.

I’m sorry, but in their business or my house you follow the rules or you don’t enter.

Until the state of Tennessee recognizes the 2nd amendment as a right; you can’t make a rights argument. The state can’t (or shouldn’t be able to) force their “state sold privileges†on business owners.

[Guest HexHead]

Until the state of Tennessee recognizes the 2nd amendment as a right; you can’t make a rights argument. The state can’t (or shouldn’t be able to) force their “state sold privileges†on business owners.

Which amendment covers being gay?

[DaveTN]

Which amendment covers being gay?

The 14th.

[ftncityfatboy]

if memory serves me correct, are not most these places just for going in and drinking? I believe these are not actual restaurants, so why would a permit holder want to go into these mentioned locations?

[Guest HexHead]

The 14th.

I'll assume you're talking about the Equal Protection clause, but it doesn't have anything that would apply to being gay.

Equal Protection Clause

Main article: Equal Protection Clause

In the decades following the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court overturned laws barring blacks from juries (Strauder v. West Virginia (1880)) or discriminating against Chinese-Americans in the regulation of laundry businesses (Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)), as violations of the Equal Protection Clause. However, in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the Supreme Court held that the states could impose segregation so long as they provided equivalent facilities—the genesis of the “separate but equal†doctrine.[22] The Court went even further in restricting the Equal Protection Clause in Berea College v. Kentucky (1908), holding that the states could force private actors to discriminate by prohibiting an integrated college from admitting both black and white students. By the early twentieth century, the Equal Protection Clause had been eclipsed to the point that Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. dismissed it as "the usual last resort of constitutional arguments."[23]

The Court held to the "separate but equal" doctrine for more than fifty years, despite numerous cases in which the Court itself had found that the segregated facilities provided by the states were almost never equal, until Brown v. Board of Education (1954) reached the Court. Brown met with a campaign of resistance from white Southerners, and for decades the federal courts attempted to enforce Brown's mandate against continual attempts at circumvention.[24] This resulted in the controversial desegregation busing decrees handed down by federal courts in many parts of the nation (see Milliken v. Bradley (1974)).[25] In Hernandez v. Texas,[26] the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment protects those beyond the racial classes of white or "Negro",and extends to other racial and nationalistic groups, such as Mexican Americans in this case. In the half century since Brown, the Court has extended the reach of the Equal Protection Clause to other historically disadvantaged groups, such as women and illegitimate children, although it has applied a somewhat less stringent test than it has applied to governmental discrimination on the basis of race (United States v. Virginia (1996); Levy v. Louisiana (1968)).[27]

Though the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not believe it would expand voting rights[28] (leading to the passage of the Fifteenth Amendment), the Supreme Court, since Wesberry v. Sanders (1964) and Reynolds v. Sims (1964), has interpreted the Equal Protection Clause as requiring the states to apportion their congressional districts and state legislative seats on a "one man, one vote" basis.[29] The Court has also struck down districting plans in which race was a major consideration. In Shaw v. Reno (1993), the Court prohibited a North Carolina plan aimed at creating majority-black districts to balance historic underrepresentation in the state's congressional delegations.[30] In League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry (2006), the Court ruled that Tom DeLay's Texas redistricting plan intentionally diluted the votes of Latinos and thus violated the Equal Protection Clause.

Here's the book footnote 27 refers to.

The constitutional underclass: gays ... - Google Books

[Guest (BH)]

XYZ is definitely a gay bar, and for some reason I just don't see anyone being too pissed about the banning of CCW there. I have yet to meet any gay HCP holders (although I'm sure there are plenty out there). So unless you are a gay HCP holder that one really shouldn't bother you.

And I completely disagree about the owner having rights. There's lots of stuff the owner can/ cannot do. He can't choose to allow smokers into his restaurant unless he makes it a 21-over establishment. He can't put up a sign saying "no blacks", or "no gays" if he wants to. So don't give me this crap that he has the "right" to tell us we can't carry because of "property rights". That NEVER should have been put into the law.

Ok I get what you're saying but I think this is a bit far fetched. Saying no gays/blacks allowed is quite different from saying no guns or smoking. If you are black or gay you can't exactly leave your skin color or sexual orientation at home for the day. "I'm gonna go down there to Bigot Bob's BBQ, I better remember to leave my gay at home and take off my black or they won't let me in." Not so much... Nobody is banning smokers or HCP holders, they are banning smoking and carrying.

I understand you're frustration with businesses who ban CCW. In fact, if you have an open anti-gun policy then me and my family tend to have an open anti-your-business policy. It frustrates me too, but it is their right to refuse service to anyone. For me it's an easy way to tell what businesses I will not be supporting in the future.

Edited August 23, 2009 by (BH)

[Guest HexHead]

I understand you're frustration with businesses who ban CCW. In fact, if you have an open anti-gun policy then me and my family tend to have an open anti-your-business policy. It frustrates me too, but it is their right to refuse service to anyone. For me it's an easy way to tell what businesses I will not be supporting in the future.

It's still discrimination any way you slice it. It doesn't have to be race or gender based, those are just more commonly used. One of the ways we can win this is to play the "discrimination" card. Just like liberals will play the "race card" in a heartbeat.

discrimination |disˌkriməˈnā sh ən|

noun

1 the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things.

Edited August 23, 2009 by HexHead

[DaveTN]

It's still discrimination any way you slice it. It doesn't have to be race or gender based, those are just more commonly used. One of the ways we can win this is to play the "discrimination" card. Just like liberals will play the "race card" in a heartbeat.

discrimination |disˌkriməˈnā sh ən|

noun

1 the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things.

Certainly its discrimination; but it’s lawful.

No shirt = No service, No shoes = No service, No smoking, No distributing of printed material, No freedom of speech, No gang colors, No vulgar T-shirts, No cameras, No food or drink, No loud talking, No one under 21, and the list goes on and on.

If carrying a gun in Tennessee was a right, you would have a valid argument. But it isn’t; carrying a gun in Tennessee is illegal.

[Guest HexHead]

Certainly its discrimination; but it’s lawful.

Again, a page should be taken from the liberal playbook and demonize those that discriminate against us, lawful or not. The word "discrimination" should be used at every opportunity. Remember another rule from the liberal's playbook, a lie told often enough becomes the truth.

Edited August 23, 2009 by HexHead