Well, here we go again, Round Two...

[Guest HexHead]

Guns in bars case to be heard Nov. 6, attorney says

Published on September 17, 2009 in LOCAL and STATE.

A Davidson County judge will start hearing the guns-in-bars lawsuit on Nov. 6 at 9 a.m., attorney Will Cheek writes on his blog. Cheek is one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs who are trying to overturn a new state law. The law allows handgun carry permit holders to take their firearms into restaurants and bars unless the owners ban them on their premises.

Who's this Will Cheek guy? For starters, he was one of the Obama "super delegates"...

Will Cheek – Obama delegate – A former state party chairman, the Nashville investor is from one of Nashville's oldest families – the ones who put the "Cheek" in Cheekwood, the Belle Meade estate that hosts the Swan Ball and is the home of a museum and botanical garden. What you may not have known is that Cheek's family also brewed a helluva a cup of coffee. Cheek's ancestor, Leon T. Cheek, was one of the two founders of the Nashville Coffee and Manufacturing Company, makers of Maxwell House coffee.

And some more about him...

Bone McAllester Norton PLLC - News - Bone McAllester Norton Recruits Liquor Licensing Attorney Will Cheek

Looks like it's not just that idiot Dread anymore, they're bringing in the "big gun"...

He primarily represents national alcoholic beverage specialists in Tennessee licensing work.

His clients include national brands such as Marriott, Hilton and the Brinker Group, parent company of Chili's restaurants. Local clients include F. Scott's and Mambu.

Let's hope the AG doesn't just send his lackey again this time.

[Smith]

Bone McAllister is also Al Gore and the TN Democrat Parties lawyers. They made a ton of money on the 2001 election, which coincidently is the same year their business took off. While very nice, down to earth guys (Charles Bone and Sam McAllister), I wish their law practice would go the way of the Dodo bird.

[Guest HexHead]

Bone McAllister is also Al Gore and the TN Democrat Parties lawyers. They made a ton of money on the 2001 election, which coincidently is the same year their business took off. While very nice, down to earth guys (Charles Bone and Sam McAllister), I wish their law practice would go the way of the Dodo bird.

Sounds to me like this is a ploy to try an influence the Chancellor with some political pressure that Dread and Smith couldn't muster.

[GLOCKMEISTER]

well wheres the NRA when ya need'em????????

[Guest HexHead]

well wheres the NRA when ya need'em????????

I'd love to know what our legislators have in mind should Bonneyman rule against the law? Do they still have the will to do it all over again?

[Guest crotalus01]

Can someone explain the argument they are going to use to try and overturn the law? I don't get it as owners can choose to ban guns on their premises if they so choose...

[-boatman-]

Can someone explain the argument they are going to use to try and overturn the law? I don't get it as owners can choose to ban guns on their premises if they so choose...

I'm not the smartest guy in the world but this is why I can't see this going anywhere.

[tntnixon]

I'm not the smartest guy in the world but this is why I can't see this going anywhere.

You have to understand who Bonneyman is, in order to understand that she could very well overturn this law. She has been and is a very ardent liberal activist (that is not the same as an activist judge). Her husband is the guy who, in spite of the fact that TennCare is broke, keeps going to court to fight against any decrease in benefits or removal from any of the roles.

Unfortunately, the Bonneymans are good friends of my parents (my parents are what I refer to as limosine liberals- they support all the poor, downtrodden and disenfranchised, while trying to live as far away from them as possible). They do all kinds of left-wing rallys and events together. Guess what, sometimes family gatherings can get a little heated, to say the very least.

Anyway, back to my point. Bonneyman's core belief system will definitely lean her to side with the anti-gunners, if they can give her any reasonable arguement that won't get her overturned by the appelate courts. It's just her nature. That makes an overturn of the law a very real possibility. It was obvious to me, when I saw that this case was going before her, that the plaintiffs shopped court to get in the one that would give them their best shot.

[Guest db99wj]

They are going to use all the shootings by permit holders in restaurants and bars........oh wait.

[Fallguy]

Can someone explain the argument they are going to use to try and overturn the law? I don't get it as owners can choose to ban guns on their premises if they so choose...

Their arguments is the law is to vauge to be understood and/or enforced.

They contend that the average HCP holder can not know if a place meets all the qualifications to be deemed a restaurant per the law. Such as if it is open 5 days a week, if it's primary purpose is serving meals, if they have enough sitting capaicty, a kitchen and so on.

My suggestion is to simply repeal 39-17-1305 or not limit carry to restaurants, but allow it in all places that serve alcohol, unless they post. That would take care of that.

[Guest benchpresspower]

Can someone explain the argument they are going to use to try and overturn the law? I don't get it as owners can choose to ban guns on their premises if they so choose...

It's simple, they are too friggin lazy to post a sign so they want the gov't to do it for them.

[ngoeser59]

Would they use stories like this one too?

Retired Va. police officer’s gun discharges in restaurant, 3 injured - Kingsport Times-News Online

[Guest HexHead]

It's simple, they are too friggin lazy to post a sign so they want the gov't to do it for them.

It has nothing to do with laziness. This is about greed on their part. If they post, they risk alienating a portion of their clientele and lose some business. If they don't post, they may also lose a much smaller part of their customers, but risk filling seats with customers that won't be consuming their highest profit margin item, alcoholic beverages. Either way, the outcome potentially costs them money.

If they can get the law overturned and go back to the status quo, they don't make anyone mad, and HCP holders will have to go back to leaving the gun at home or in the car and they can potentially sell them drinks.

No, this is all about the money. Every thing else they may claim is just a smokescreen.

[RRMan03]

NRA: Get you lazy ass lawyers down here and help defend this case. And yes I am a LIFE MEMBER so I can say what i want and they just have to take it. They need to be involved in every case no matter where it is at. They spend enough on postage recruiting new members to defend about all these cases. I will and always have supported the NRA but their support of us is sometimes lacking for political reasons. They choose only the fights they are sure they can win.

[Worriedman]

It has nothing to do with laziness. This is about greed on their part. If they post, they risk alienating a portion of their clientele and lose some business. If they don't post, they may also lose a much smaller part of their customers, but risk filling seats with customers that won't be consuming their highest profit margin item, alcoholic beverages. Either way, the outcome potentially costs them money.

If they can get the law overturned and go back to the status quo, they don't make anyone mad, and HCP holders will have to go back to leaving the gun at home or in the car and they can potentially sell them drinks.

No, this is all about the money. Every thing else they may claim is just a smokescreen.

It is about money, pure and simple. Anybody that makes a living selling alcohol to a driving public has no consideration for their safety.

[Guest HexHead]

Bump for TGO David. This has really been flying under the radar since that initial announcement of the date.

[TGO David]

Bump for TGO David. This has really been flying under the radar since that initial announcement of the date.

A lack of response shouldn't indicate a lack of interest. I don't always reply when I'm waiting for more information from other parties.

[Mike.357]

It is about money, pure and simple. Anybody that makes a living selling alcohol to a driving public has no consideration for their safety.

Ever hear of a designated driver? Your statement is akin to assuming that because I carry a pistol I am going to start shooting it at any second.

Not everyone goes to a bar or restaurant and drinks regardless of being armed or not.

[Worriedman]

Ever hear of a designated driver? Your statement is akin to assuming that because I carry a pistol I am going to start shooting it at any second.

Not everyone goes to a bar or restaurant and drinks regardless of being armed or not.

Having worked, and spent some time in a number of "bars" over the years, I can count on one hand the number of actual "designated drivers" I have ever encountered.

Establishments that serve alcohol for a living are interested in sales and profits. Remember the statement by our friend Adam Dread, about not wanting non-drinkers taking up seats in his bars? By their very existence, a "bar" hopes to pour as much hooch down the necks of their customers as possible. It is how they keep the lights on, and their payments made.

[Guest HexHead]

A lack of response shouldn't indicate a lack of interest. I don't always reply when I'm waiting for more information from other parties.

I just wanted to make sure you saw it since we were discussing it on Sat.

It's curious that the Tennessean hasn't been beating the drum with this coming up in a couple of weeks now. Unless they are convinced they have nothing to worry about with this change in the legal team, as in "the fix is in"?

[Volzfan]

I got the chance Sat. to ask one of our speakers about this hearing. I was told that the chance of this being successful was 50/50. He said they actually had a good case. He said that if they were successful that when the legislature went back into session that it would be quickly fixed and that I should not worry about it.

I hope he's right! I hope the lawsuit will be thrown out.

[Fallguy]

I got the chance Sat. to ask one of our speakers about this hearing. I was told that the chance of this being successful was 50/50. He said they actually had a good case. He said that if they were successful that when the legislature went back into session that it would be quickly fixed and that I should not worry about it.

I hope he's right! I hope the lawsuit will be thrown out.

To be honest....I almost wouldn't mind losing the case.

Then legislator could fix it by simply repealing 39-17-1305 all together. That would make it fairly simple to interpret and not vauge at all. Then any place that serves alcohol, regardless of whether they are a bar, restaurant, bowling alley or whatever could just post a 39-17-1359 sign or not.

[Guest HexHead]

I got the chance Sat. to ask one of our speakers about this hearing. I was told that the chance of this being successful was 50/50. He said they actually had a good case. He said that if they were successful that when the legislature went back into session that it would be quickly fixed and that I should not worry about it.

I hope he's right! I hope the lawsuit will be thrown out.

I'm dubious about the quickly fixed and not worry about it part. If they pass a new law, it will have to go to the Gov. again for signature. Then back to conference committees and voted on again to override. After all the bad press the last time, I'm not so sure we'll get the kind of "veto proof" majority we got last time. Never mind there haven't been any incidents, since when have facts mattered to a liberal? At best, I'd bet if it's overturned we won't be carrying into restaurants again from Nov. until July 1. At best.

[Guest HexHead]

To be honest....I almost wouldn't mind losing the case.

Then legislator could fix it by simply repealing 39-17-1305 all together. That would make it fairly simple to interpret and not vauge at all. Then any place that serves alcohol, regardless of whether they are a bar, restaurant, bowling alley or whatever could just post a 39-17-1359 sign or not.

Be careful what you wish for. And if they do have to go back to ground zero, I'd rather they just do away with businesses being able to post at all. At least to where it has any force of law whatsoever.

[Fallguy]

Wish I could go Friday.

I don't get off work till 7:00 Friday morning....no way I could make it to Nashville by 9:00 and last time had to be in the courtroom nearly 2 hours before the hearing just to get a seat.