Vague laws.......

[DoubleL]

I never have claimed to be real bright, but if I walk in and sit down and am handed a menu I am in a restaurant, if the waitress sets an ashtray and a 4" square napkin in front of me and says " Whatcha drinkin?", I am in a bar. Can our legislators not figure this out? I am just tired of the media and all the Guns In Bars deal when this is a resturant issue. Am I wrong?

I am a HCP and PPS licensed, trained, and paid in full concealed carrier. If you don't want my business or money just put up a sign and I will turn and walk away.

Edited November 26, 2009 by DoubleL

[macville]

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

I'm sorry, but I've seen just as many drunk people in places like Applebee's as bars. But maybe that's because I think I've only ever been in one place in TN that's actually got a "bar" license. I have been to plenty of "bars" (they act like bars, but are on on a restaurant license) and never drank (I'm cheap and it was a gathering of friends).

The issue is....if you can get alcohol at the place, then why does it matter if it's a "bar" or "restaurant"? You can get served at either just the same and drunk just the same! Just because one serves more booze doesn't make it ANY different because alcohol is alcohol. Personally, I believe you should be able to to drink up to the legal driving limit while carrying. They say that guns an alcohol don't mix, but neither do cars and alcohol, so why do we let people drive with ANY alcohol in their system???? Not to mention that people use "oh I'm drunk" to excuse their responsibility away. I've been drunk before and while I may not have been able to walk that great of a straight line, I still knew exactly what I was doing. It's really a cop out unless you so drunk your almost ready to pass out.

Matthew

[Fallguy]

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

Does your ability to try and use reason (although hard to do with a drunk) not work when you are armed?

Can't someone still use non-deadly force to defend themselves or others even if they are armed?

While this is not directly directed toward you, it seems many on here think that if they are armed...that is the only solution if they are involved in something. The weapon is just a tool and depending on the situation can pretty far down the line before it is required.

AFAIK there is no law that prevents you from using physical force to defend yourself if you are armed.

Surely the DD or any other non-drinking, armed person in a bar could still use reason and other tools instead of a firearm unless it was absolutely necessary.

Oh...and TN does not have any BAC level for being armed period 0 or otherwise, it says "shall not under the influence" The amount of alcohol it takes to influence a persons actions is different from person to person.

[Guest marionandjohn]

The fact that your are armed in a bar has nothing to do with if you can still use good reason or not, but it has alot to do with how the drunks or others in the bar act. If your in a restaurant and someone starts an altercation (given they are not one of the 5 people that are drunk) they are much more likely to listen to reasoning before the weapon ever comes out, I say one of 5 because I have been to many restaurants with bars and even worked at some and I have to say most everyone that comes in there are there for a couple drinks with dinner. And when it comes to TN law with bac as with most any state under the influnece is going to be determined by the cop at the scene not you. My ability to reason while armed if anything becomes much higher but, and I speak from personal experience, drastically declines with each drink. I am not a light weight by anymeans and I have taken the "drunk test" for local law enforcements training, it was a great volunteer opertunity. Is every person the same? no. However is a bar a place to get drunk and a restaurant a place to eat? yes. I always have and always will believe very strongly that alcohol dont mix with anything except good times with friends and family not guns or cars. If I have 1 single drink I will wait atleast 3 hours before I get behind the wheel no matter how I feel. If I dont have someone else to drive I simply dont drink. If I am going to drink I dont carry. Its been said many times Id rather be tried by 12 then carried by 6, however as firmly as I believe in this Id rather lower my chances of being in the situation and to me that means following simple reasoning and not mixing firearms/driving and alcohol or being around a bunch of strangers that are in that place to get drunk while with my weapon. When you drive down the street do you worry about how your driving or how the other car is driving? I say this for the comparison that when you go in public with your weapon do you worry about how you will handle situations or how "that guy" is going to handle it? If you make it legal to carry to a bar with a "under the influence" law only you are asking for drunks that stumble around that dont believe they've had to much to also have weapons. and yes they will because you have a under the influence law and a while intoxicated law for cars and yet how many people are killed each year by drunk drivers? I am not saying that anyone here will be that person but everyone who has been to a bar has seen "that guy" and you know your glad he didnt have a weapon.

[eapking]

I fail to understand all this verbiage about food, bars, restaraunts, etc. This law could be so simple: "Any HCP holder is exempt from the no-carry law in an establishment serving alcohol for on site consumption...." Just don't see why they threw all this extra junk in there. Just gave the anti's an avenue.

[Fallguy]

I fail to understand all this verbiage about food, bars, restaraunts, etc. This law could be so simple: "Any HCP holder is exempt from the no-carry law in an establishment serving alcohol for on site consumption...." Just don't see why they threw all this extra junk in there. Just gave the anti's an avenue.

I agree, but the thought at the time was they did not want to allow carry in "bars" although there is no legal definition of a bar in TN.

[DaveTN]

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?

then isn't 39-17-1359 vague for sure.

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

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

Do you understand the intent sign when you see it?

When you see a sign that says “No Trespassing” do you need a team of lawyers to explain it to you?

Other than some people desperately grasping for some way to do away with a law they don’t agree with; is this even an issue? Has anyone been charged for carrying past a sign?

Intent, both in the law itself and in the intent of the person is very important in criminal law, as is state of mind and other factors. You can’t just pitch them aside when reading the written law; you must interpret its intent. If you don’t understand what the sign says or its intent, you can argue that in court. But I wouldn’t want to be the one telling the Judge the wording was not substantially similar and therefore the sign isn’t a legal posting. You may very well win, and then we may have case law on what a legal sign is. But until that happens it could be a costly undertaking carrying past a sign. I mean let’s face it no one here is saying they don’t understand the signs.

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.

There is an AG opinion on this, why do you need another one? An AG opinion is not law and will not settle anything.

Civil liability is the driving factor on signs. Sure, some may post because of their feelings on guns, but I believe the majority do it to give them some support when they are sued civilly because a shooting took place in their business. We need some legislation that makes business owners exempt from liability, and not like that lame azz exception we have; something with some teeth.

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.

Has carrying past a sign ever been to court?

Can't someone still use non-deadly force to defend themselves or others even if they are armed?

While this is not directly directed toward you, it seems many on here think that if they are armed...that is the only solution if they are involved in something. The weapon is just a tool and depending on the situation can pretty far down the line before it is required.

AFAIK there is no law that prevents you from using physical force to defend yourself if you are armed.

Depends. If you get in a fight and the cop decides to charge you with assault and your weapon is seen; you could be charged with aggravated assault, a felony.

I’m not getting in a fight with anyone while I’m armed. It’s reckless and puts you and everyone around you in danger.

Edited November 26, 2009 by DaveTN

[Fallguy]

Do you understand the intent sign when you see it?

When you see a sign that says “No Trespassing†do you need a team of lawyers to explain it to you?

Other than some people desperately grasping for some way to do away with a law they don’t agree with; is this even an issue? Has anyone been charged for carrying past a sign?

Intent, both in the law itself and in the intent of the person is very important in criminal law, as is state of mind and other factors. You can’t just pitch them aside when reading the written law; you must interpret its intent. If you don’t understand what the sign says or its intent, you can argue that in court. But I wouldn’t want to be the one telling the Judge the wording was not substantially similar and therefore the sign isn’t a legal posting. You may very well win, and then we may have case law on what a legal sign is. But until that happens it could be a costly undertaking carrying past a sign. I mean let’s face it no one here is saying they don’t understand the signs.

When I see a sing that says "Managment not responsiable for any accidents" I understand that sign, but I know it's not legally binding.

Yes one reason I would like to see something done with the law is I don't like it, but mainly because I would like it to be clear whether it is a violation or not.

I understand intent is part of it. There is no doubt what the intent of gun and slash sign is, but that sign alone does not legally prohibit carry.

There is an AG opinion on this, why do you need another one? An AG opinion is not law and will not settle anything.

There is no AG opinion directly on point to what "substainlly simillar" is only that the wording is required to be that.

Civil liability is the driving factor on signs. Sure, some may post because of their feelings on guns, but I believe the majority do it to give them some support when they are sued civilly because a shooting took place in their business. We need some legislation that makes business owners exempt from liability, and not like that lame azz exception we have; something with some teeth.

I 100% agree on exemption off liabilty for property owners for the actions of HCP holders on their property.

However I'm not sure that is the reason most places post, but that is simply my feeling and I can't show any facts either way.

Has carrying past a sign ever been to court?

Not according to Rep Curry and whatever legal staff at the legislature he had check on it.

Depends. If you get in a fight and the cop decides to charge you with assault and your weapon is seen; you could be charged with aggravated assault, a felony. I'm

not getting in a fight with anyone while I’m armed. It’s reckless and puts you and everyone around you in danger.

True enough I guess, although I would hope if was determined that the weapon was not used in the assault or purpossley displayed that you wouldn't be convicted...but a courtroom is not a good place to rely on hope.

I'm not going to intentionaly get into a fight with someone while armed, but I'm not going to just stand there and get my a$$ whooped either. ...and no that doesn't mean drawing my weapon.

[DaveTN]

No one can post any facts either way.

Fallguy, let’s say that you are an attorney and you are meeting with a client that owns a restaurant. You are discussing slip and fall liability and all that BS, employee issues, etc.

Then your client says the following….

What about this gun carrying business in Tennessee? I really don’t have any strong feelings one way or the other about people carrying guns, but is there something I should do to help limit my liability in case someone gets shot in my restaurant?

Now… this is no longer a gun control issue. Your client has no strong feelings about it, he isn’t paying you for your personal feelings on it, and he just wants to know what he should do. Your advice could ultimately determine if this guy losses his business or not. How would you respond?

[Fallguy]

I can't disagree that the lawyer would say post.

I watched something on TV about "haunted" places a while back and one of the places was a club in KY. Someone actually sued the owner over something that happened. The person that brought the suit lost, but after that the owner's lawyer told him to post a warning sign about the place being haunted.

Again I agree laws on liabilty definetly need to be addressed....

[Guest HexHead]

I’m not getting in a fight with anyone while I’m armed. It’s reckless and puts you and everyone around you in danger.

I agree.

And I also don't think establishments should have the right to post, period. There's plenty of other laws the state doesn't give them a choice over.

[Guest HexHead]

I understand intent is part of it. There is no doubt what the intent of gun and slash sign is, but that sign alone does not legally prohibit carry.

All that sign by itself means is "we'd prefer you not carry". Without the "substantially similar" language, it carries no force of law. Has anyone even been arrested or charged for ignoring a circle/slash sign?

[Guest HexHead]

Then your client says the following….

What about this gun carrying business in Tennessee? I really don’t have any strong feelings one way or the other about people carrying guns, but is there something I should do to help limit my liability in case someone gets shot in my restaurant?

Simple answer really, "yes, increase the liability limits on your insurance."

[Fallguy]

All that sign by itself means is "we'd prefer you not carry". Without the "substantially similar" language, it carries no force of law. Has anyone even been arrested or charged for ignoring a circle/slash sign?

I understand and that was my point, that simply knowing the intent of a sign doesn't make it legally enforceable.

AFAIK no one has ever been charged for carrying past any sign.

[DaveTN]

All that sign by itself means is "we'd prefer you not carry". Without the "substantially similar" language, it carries no force of law. Has anyone even been arrested or charged for ignoring a circle/slash sign?

Add the words “THE OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY HAS BANNED WEAPONS ON THIS PROPERTY†and now it is substantially similar. “Substantially similar†will be determined in this order… the responding Officer, the DA, a Judge or jury. I choose not to play that game.

I don’t think we have found a single person that has been arrested anywhere in the state for carrying past a sign, legal or not.

So this whole discussion dragging on for thread after thread after thread…. Really just gives us something to discuss when things are slow.

And I also don't think establishments should have the right to post, period. There's plenty of other laws the state doesn't give them a choice over.

And I think unless the state gives them immunity they are faced with making a business decision. This isn’t about guns; it’s about money.

They are the only ones with any rights in this situation. We are HCP holders, we bought a privilege from the state that citizens do not have as a right; no rights involved for us. If you had a right to carry we would not be having this discussion.

Simple answer really, "yes, increase the liability limits on your insurance."

Well certainly you would.

But that’s an emotional response and one I doubt you would truly give to someone that could care less about guns or who carries them.

[Guest HexHead]

Add the words “THE OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY HAS BANNED WEAPONS ON THIS PROPERTY†and now it is substantially similar. “Substantially similar†will be determined in this order… the responding Officer, the DA, a Judge or jury. I choose not to play that game.[/qupte]

I was referring to just the circle/slash sign without the verbage.

And I think unless the state gives them immunity they are faced with making a business decision. This isn’t about guns; it’s about money.

Why should they have any more immunity than any other business owner that chooses to post or not post? They have no more or less liability than a TJ Maxx, Wal-mart or Kroger if something happens on their property.

Well certainly you would.

But that’s an emotional response and one I doubt you would truly give to someone that could care less about guns or who carries them.

Don't doubt it. As a financial professional, that's exactly the advice I would give them. Signs don't prevent from happening.

[DaveTN]

Why should they have any more immunity than any other business owner that chooses to post or not post? They have no more or less liability than a TJ Maxx, Wal-mart or Kroger if something happens on their property.

Sorry if I wasn’t clear. They shouldn’t have any more protection than those other stores you named. If the state wants to allow carry in a business they should give businesses exemptions from civil liability.

They tried to do it with us, but stopped short. We can sue to recover expenses if we are sued in a good shoot, but a judgment doesn’t pay the bills if the person doesn’t have the money. A judge should have to have a hearing before we have to hire legal counsel and before a civil action can even be filed.

We don’t have a Justice system, we have a legal system. While it is basically a good system it is still broke. I don’t look for it to change anytime soon because most of the people that allow it to be broke are lawyers and they make the laws.

[Guest HexHead]

We don’t have a Justice system, we have a legal system. While it is basically a good system it is still broke. I don’t look for it to change anytime soon because most of the people that allow it to be broke are lawyers and they make the laws.

Yep, that's why we'll never get tort reform either.