Vague laws.......

[Fallguy]

As most of you may know, the argument that those that are trying to repeal the restaurant carry law are using is that the law is too vague. You can ask TGO David and Daniel, we were at the first hearing…the judge seemed very interested in that argument. I’m not too worried though, I feel that even if the judge rules the law void, the legislature will come back in January and correct it.

However….what I have been wondering is that is a law that specifically defines what a restaurant is can be considered too vague…..how can a law (39-17-1359) which uses the words “substantially similar†not be considered vague?

I mean in 39-17-1305 there is no doubt what a restaurant is, although you may or may not know from the outside if a place meets that definition, but how in the world can you know for sure if the wording of a sign is substantially similar enough to that in 39-17-1359?

Win or lose on the lawsuit on restaurant carry, I think there could be strong argument made to rework 39-17-1359 based on the “void for vagueness†argument.

Thoughts, ideas or comments……

[TNTitan]

I dont think this was a mistake. To me it looks like the language was intentionally made specifically vague so that a Judge could err on the side of the business, not the permit holder.

[bubbiesdad]

As most of you may know, the argument that those that are trying to repeal the restaurant carry law are using is that the law is too vague. You can ask TGO David and Daniel, we were at the first hearing…the judge seemed very interested in that argument. I’m not too worried though, I feel that even if the judge rules the law void, the legislature will come back in January and correct it.

However….what I have been wondering is that is a law that specifically defines what a restaurant is can be considered too vague…..how can a law (39-17-1359) which uses the words “substantially similar†not be considered vague?

I mean in 39-17-1305 there is no doubt what a restaurant is, although you may or may not know from the outside if a place meets that definition, but how in the world can you know for sure if the wording of a sign is substantially similar enough to that in 39-17-1359?

Win or lose on the lawsuit on restaurant carry, I think there could be strong argument made to rework 39-17-1359 based on the “void for vagueness†argument.

Thoughts, ideas or comments……

Almost went to a local BBQ place today. But, they have began to serve beer and are only open four days a week, so I went elsewhere.

[Smith]

Almost went to a local BBQ place today. But, they have began to serve beer and are only open four days a week, so I went elsewhere.

Still a restraunt and if not posted why go somewhere else?

[bubbiesdad]

Still a restraunt and if not posted why go somewhere else?

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

STATE OF TENNESSEE

PUBLIC CHAPTER NO. 339

VETOED BY THE GOVERNOR

HOUSE BILL NO. 962

By Representatives Todd, McCord, Tindell, Evans, Fincher, Watson,

Faulkner, Eldridge, Rowland, McCormick, Bass, Hackworth, Curt Cobb,

Carr, Matheny, Mumpower, Floyd, Bell, Lollar, Casada, Rich, Lynn,

Harrison, Shipley, Dean, Curtis Johnson, Phillip Johnson, Niceley, Tidwell,

Shepard, Hill, Ramsey, Halford, Haynes, Swafford, Maggart, Hensley, West,

Montgomery, Dennis, Harry Brooks, Matlock, Dunn, Hawk, Lundberg,

Weaver, Roach, Ford, Moore, Fraley

Substituted for: Senate Bill No. 1127

By Senators Jackson, Norris, Gresham

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39, Chapter 17, relative to firearms.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE:

SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 39-17-1305©, is amended

by adding the following language as a new, appropriately designated subdivision:

(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 used in this subdivision ©(3), “restaurant†means any

public place kept, used, maintained, advertised and held out to the public

as a place where meals are served and where meals are actually and

regularly served, such place being provided with adequate and sanitary

kitchen and dining room equipment, having employed therein a sufficient

number and kind of employees to prepare, cook and serve suitable food

for its guests. At least one (1) meal per day shall be served at least five(5) days a week, with the exception of holidays, vacations and periods of redecorating, and the serving of such meals shall be the principal

business conducted.

SECTION 2. This act shall take effect on June 1, 2009, the public welfare

requiring it.

PASSED: May 14, 2009

This is one of the "vague" parts of the law.

[TMMT]

The laws in this state are some of the most screwed up I've seen in all my years of policing. Its not just gun laws its across the board, guns, criminal, taxes, alcohol etc...

Since I moved here and began policing its been a struggle to at times comprehend some of the ridiculous ramblings and obvious twisting and torturing of the english language that has passed as law in this state.

Couple that with the overt and very brazenly incorrect application of these same laws day in and day out by local and state LE.

Such as the one instance I pointed out recently where a police department used the state Disorderly Conduct Law to arrest a HCP holder for simply being "spotted" by people who reacted hysterically and call 911 leading the dispatcher to believe someone was wandering around Wal mart with a belt fed bazooka or something...

This state has alot of problems in many areas but the gun laws are one of the worst. If I didn't know better I'd swear we were in Wisconsin, Michigan or some other hybrid liberal union...

Just look at the disaster of the parks carry bill and the opt out provision. The guns in bars bill is just as messed up.

Its a serious problem that needs to be addressed on so many levels not just gun laws, but laws in many categories.

Edited November 1, 2009 by TMMT

[Smith]

I stand corrected. Missed the 4 day thing. However, they can't serve food only 4 days and alcohol can they? They would cease to be a restaurant and a become a bar.

[bubbiesdad]

This place is mainly food, been around for years selling great BBQ and just recently began serving beer. The 5 day thing is just one of silly parts of the TN law.

[Guest GimpyLeg]

Wish they would "re-work" some of these laws and dump the opt-out's.

[Fallguy]

I stand corrected. Missed the 4 day thing. However, they can't serve food only 4 days and alcohol can they? They would cease to be a restaurant and a become a bar.

To get a license from the state to serve liquor they only have to be open 4 days a week. To get a license form the city/county to sell beer there is no state level mandated amount of days to be open.

But I really wanted this thread to be about if 39-17-1305 is ruled vague or even the fact that is being considered to be vague...then isn't 39-17-1359 vague for sure.

[Fallguy]

Guess not too many on here really ponder such things......

[Guest dizzielizzie]

I am suprised the state didn't learn they could make a quick buck with the whole "posting" thing and sell special signs you have to purchase through the state...

[56FordGuy]

39-17-1359 is vague, for sure. I think it could be argued, under the current law, that the intent of any "No Guns" sign would be substantially similar to posting a sign as described.

Would there be any harm in requesting an attorney general's opinion on the matter? I understand that it doesn't change the law, but perhaps it could be clarified a little that way. It seems to me that there must be some reason no one has done that yet.

[Fallguy]

I am suprised the state didn't learn they could make a quick buck with the whole "posting" thing and sell special signs you have to purchase through the state...

LOL...true, but the one good thing about that would have been that there would be no doubt as to what a legal sign was.

[Fallguy]

39-17-1359 is vague, for sure. I think it could be argued, under the current law, that the intent of any "No Guns" sign would be substantially similar to posting a sign as described.

Would there be any harm in requesting an attorney general's opinion on the matter? I understand that it doesn't change the law, but perhaps it could be clarified a little that way. It seems to me that there must be some reason no one has done that yet.

I don't disagree.

But the law doesn't say the "intent" has to be substantially similar but that the "wording" of the sign does.

I have asked Rep Todd (sponsor of the Restaurant carry bill) to check on an AG opinion as to whether certain things would have to be in the sign etc... He is supposed to be checking into it.

So far any AG opinion mentioning 39-17-1359 only repeats the "substantially similar" that is in the law, without any further clarification.

[Fallguy]

Got a phone call from Rep Todd this evening.

He had legal check and they said they cold not find any case where "substantially similar" has been defined or ruled upon as used in 39-17-1359.

We talked about getting an AG opinion, but both agreed that based on previous AG rulings he doesn't seem to be on "our side" so could be worse off than we are now.

I think he said he is going to talk with someone about it a little more, he just wanted to get back with me.

I have to say I have always had good dealing with Curry. I don't live in his district but he has always got back with me in some form when I have contacted him.

Anyway....just thought I'd pass this along.

[56FordGuy]

Appreciate the update.

[wjh2657]

I believe that the law should have been specific and inclusive. there should only be one wording that is acceptable. When it reaches the point of law, it should be the definitive directive without ambiguities.

[dats82]

There is a really easy way to fix ALL of this. The law should state that with an HCP you should be able to carry everywhere unless a sign has been posted. The signs should be standardized and sold the state at cost. Every place that is posted (schools, gvt buildings, bars, or "gun free zones") will be posted with these signs. If no sign, carry on.

[Guest grimel]

There is a really easy way to fix ALL of this. The law should state that with an HCP you should be able to carry everywhere unless a sign has been posted. The signs should be standardized and sold the state at cost. Every place that is posted (schools, gvt buildings, bars, or "gun free zones") will be posted with these signs. If no sign, carry on.

Oh, he!! no! The state is complaining about a lack of $$. Sell the signs for $500 each. A drop in the bucket for a business.

[Guest HexHead]

My wife and I were discussing the gun law being stricken down as being "vague" and she wasn't surprised. She pointed out the US Constitution is vague, otherwise so much time wouldn't be spent trying to figure out intent.

[macville]

My wife and I were discussing the gun law being stricken down as being "vague" and she wasn't surprised. She pointed out the US Constitution is vague, otherwise so much time wouldn't be spent trying to figure out intent.

Funny. I disagree. The Constitution is quite clear. In fact, when you read the Federalist papers, you are pretty reaffirmed by what it says. However, we have, over the lifetime of our country, elected people who take one word out of the Constitution and out of context (words like "welfare" or "commerce") and said they mean they can do all of this other crap. We the people were not CLEAR by voting out the idiots. Ignoring what was written is not the same as something not being clear.

Matthew

[Guest marionandjohn]

While I know this is about the signage law being vague and I agree with it being that way I also feel that if any bussiness is going to go through the trouble of posting any kind of signage stating they dont want my bussiness (weapon) then so be it and i wont give them it. I feel the reason the restaraunt law was stricken down (the bussiness owners went forward) was they noticed a drop in bussiness for the restaraunts that did post a sign, this is my opinion and I have no hard evidence to back it up. They felt if they posted a sign then they would loose bussiness but if it were illegal to carry there then they are in the clear. If this is the case then our voice is being heard and I say keep up the good work. I am currently out of country and since the law passed I was in TN a few times and only was able to carry to a few restaraunts but I did and thats what matters to me. The law is sure to be passed again and we the people need to keep our voices in good working order. I do believe a very simple way to fix this is the way it is in GA you have Restaraunt and you have Bar licenses I aggree guns in "bars" and Clubs are bad and thats why I dont visit those venues. but I am sure if we look hard enough we can find many more laws that are vague and could possibly help "proove" a point. I will be looking and keep yall posted since I have some extra time on my hands right now. As for if the signage law was to change for the better or the worst (making any sign legally binding) I dont see the difference from my stand point. this is just MHO

[Guest 270win]

I don't think there needs to be a difference between 'bars' and 'restaurants' as far as liquor licenses. I have paid the money for a permit, what difference does it make whether I am in a 'bar', 'restaurant', or school for that matter?

[Guest marionandjohn]

I don't think there needs to be a difference between 'bars' and 'restaurants' as far as liquor licenses. I have paid the money for a permit, what difference does it make whether I am in a 'bar', 'restaurant', or school for that matter?

To you it might not make a difference weather your in a bar or restaraunt, however the point of going to a bar is to drink and drinking + ccw = bad just like drinking and driving you can very easily loose your situational awarness and escalate somthing you might other wise not have. And even if your at the bar as a DD for your friends are they gonna get into an altercation with liquid courage in them and are you just gonna leave your friends out to dry or are you gonna have their back? I am a firm believer in ORM (operation risk management) does the reward out weight the risk? is carrying a gun to a place where drunks gather a good idea? I dont go out looking for a reason to draw my weapon but instead with the confidence that if I HAVE to then I have it with me but in the end run I am not here to take anyones life and will do what I can to deescalte a situation with out my weapon. I seeing carrying a gun to a bar as a customer is the same as walking through "the ghetto" with one. And dont worry just leaving it in your vehicle dont work either because TN has a 0 bac with weapon allowance. as