restaurant and alcohol sales

[Cruel Hand Luke]

39-17-1322. Defenses. -

A person shall not be charged with or convicted of a violation under this part if the person possessed, displayed or employed a handgun in justifiable self-defense or in justifiable defense of another during the commission of a crime in which that person or the other person defended was a victim.

And THIS is why we say concealed means concealed.

[TGO David]

And THIS is why we say concealed means concealed.

I believe that the new law supersedes this.

[Cruel Hand Luke]

Not what I'm being told. It is a seperate statute. And again, everyone has to make their own choices in life. The possibility of a class A misdemeanor conviction for being caught carrying a gun in a place where it is restricted is a REAL legal concern. The possibility of being the victim of violent crime and being killed or crippled is a REAL survival concern. Each person has to weigh them in the balance and see which is of more concern.

I'm NOT suggesting any specific individual take any specific course of action. I am just saying WHY some unnamed individuals might follow a certain path. There IS a mechanism in the TCA (39-17-1322) that prevents prosecution for defensively using a firearm-even where it is not legal to carry it. You in all likelihood WILL lose your permit for carrying in a place that does not allow it, but if you actually have to defend yourself the mechanism is there to avoid prosecution for the USE. So if it is not OK to carry, but you are covered for the use......I'll let you do the math.

[Marswolf]

You in all likelihood WILL lose your permit for carrying in a place that does not allow it,

Maybe and maybe not. You will if convicted of a felony, but not a misdemeanor.

BUT...there is a provision to suspend or revoke your permit if you pose "a material likelihood of risk of harm to the public". That sounds pretty unspecific to me.

[molonlabetn]

The law has been amended since I last looked at it:

39-17-1305. Possession of firearm where alcoholic beverages are served. —

(a) It is an offense for a person to possess a firearm within the confines of a building open to the public where liquor, wine or other alcoholic beverages, as defined in § 57-3-101(a)(1)(A), or beer, as defined in § 57-6-102(1), are served for on premises consumption.

[Guest Grizzly Johnson]

While I appreciate the fact that you can no longer smoke in an establishment open to persons under the age of 21, I agree. The legislature had no business making it a law that you can't smoke there. I believe in the rights of property owners and if Bobcat's wants to sell beer and allow smoking, I have the right not to go there. End of story.

Our government has spent the last 100 years trampling on individual rights "for the good of society" yet they don't put these things to a vote of the society. I personally say, FIRE THEM ALL!!!! Yes we would have to elect new ones, but maybe then the big boys would realize who REALLY has the power (or is supposed to at least.)

Amen, that's the same way I see it too. It would be nice to see a BIG change so that "society" made the rules to live by instead of some "joe blow" who thinks he knows whats good for me.

Guess we won't see that until "society" is at a "good guy, bad guy" level. It's getting closer every day!!

[GhostDog]

How much trouble you have w/ the law will probably depend on two things: your actions in the specific circumstances and, unfortunately, the "flavor" of your local DA. If you don't believe this, ask three young men from Duke.

Cruel Hand Luke makes a good point. We all "pays our money and takes our chances". Decide for yourself what you think is a greater risk to you.

For DaveTN: Some things cannot be "put to a vote" (for example; the Bill of Rights). Mob rule is not the way to settle all things in a free country. I smoke but am not so foolish to think that smoking is a "right" (that is just silly). The property rights of the business owners is another matter. If the "vote" were the law of the land in all things, black Americans might never have gotten the right to vote and Spanish might be the official language in some parts of the US today. I try to never impose on others. It's not about "rights", it's about being polite (something else that is becoming scarce these days:cool:).

It seems anymore that people tend to jump on the bandwagon of whatever is in vogue RIGHT NOW. Smokers and people who are overweight seem to be the popular targets these days. You can take shots at them and "look cool" to all the other "beautiful people" but heaven help you if you even tell the truth about anyone else. The "Law of Unintended Consequences" seems to have been forgotten. If you push your neighbor's ox out to be gored by the gov't, you can rest assured that your ox will be next. For example: if the SCHIP legislation is ever passed in any form, you will see very well what I mean. Regardless of what form it comes in, it can never be paid for w/ a cigarette tax (a fact well known to the powers that be in DC). Gov't programs always expand but this tax will be fairly constant (number of smokers not growing exponentially). At some point after it passes, this will become clear to all. Will the same folks who are all excited to put more taxes on cigarettes be equally excited when the gov't decides to tax something else (like BEER maybe)? We shall see.

Don't get me wrong, I know smoking is bad for me. I've tried to quit more than once. I just don't want you telling me to quit. And... if I do quit, how will you pay for your latest program to solve all the world's problems?

Human Nature, you gotta love it. We never learn from the past. Each new generation thinks they have all the answers, all the old folks are dumb, and they can fix it all. Some things never change. Instead of trying to fix everyone else, what say we all mind our own business and respect our neighbors' right to do what they want as long as they don't step us? This is probably why the Founders put the Second Amendment into the Bill of Rights. They realized that someone is always going to try to control someone else and, at the end of the day, the only way to stop them is by force. It's a miracle any of us have survived.

[Guest CrazyLincoln]

I believe that the new law supersedes this.

While its ultimately up to a judge, I beg to differ.

The new law pertains to it happening during an "unlawful" act. According to the TCA, at the point in time of defending oneself, regardless of permit or location status, your handgun use is lawful. Therefore, you were only unlawful until your life was threatened. The catch-22 is if they find that your defense was unjustified, then you're liable for all charges.

[Marswolf]

Human Nature, you gotta love it. We never learn from the past. Each new generation thinks they have all the answers, all the old folks are dumb, and they can fix it all.

Yeah, but a lot of us old folks also think we have all the answers and that younger people are all airheads. While that is generally true ......... sometime the world changes and the oldsters don't keep track of it.

[GhostDog]

Mars, you're right. We old folks are just as bad. The young ensure that the world will always be screwed up and the old ensure that the already screwed up world never changes. Either way you cut it, it's just screwed up!