Restaurant Carry Law ruled Void!

[Punisher84]

There's another thread going on this.

LInk??

[Guest kdpate]

the judge declared the law vague and unconstitutional....to me that means...back to the drawing board boys.

x2. I hate to say this but the existing law seems like it's a tad flimsy on regulating and drawing clear consistent lines, plus I tink the lawmakers were trying to find some middle ground w/o making either side angry (which didn't work). Like Big Poppa said, maybe this go round they will make a firmer bill than what was passed........

[Steelharp]

It means keep your Bowie knife handy.

[Punisher84]

I AM SO GOD DAMN TIRED OF THIS ****ING BULL****!

[Guest SUNTZU]

LInk??

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/tennessee-politics-legislation/27498-well-here-we-go-again-round-two-7.html#post399490

[LagerHead]

As far as I know - and please correct me if I'm wrong - this changes nothing for the time being. Judges can't make or revoke laws. That's the job of the legislature.

[Guest GLOCKGUY]

Has anyone been able to determine what this actually means RIGHT NOW? Can we or can we not still carry in restaurants? when does this ruling go into effect etc...??

I was told it goes into effect immediately...

[tntnixon]

Early in this thread, I told you guys the fix was in when they got Bonneyman to hear the case. I was, unfortunately, right. None of the other judges in this state would have ruled the same way.

[Billco]

Since this is a Davidson County court, does it have any effect on the rest of the state, except maybe to set a precedent?

[raydog1]

"Rep. Curry Todd, a main sponsor of the measure, said he hadn't seen the ruling but disputed that the law is vague. The Collierville Republican said he will introduce legislation in January to fix any legal problems.

Todd said he will also ask the state attorney general to appeal the ruling."

Judge strikes down Tennessee guns-in-bars law; 'fraught with ambiguity'

[Smith]

As far as I know - and please correct me if I'm wrong - this changes nothing for the time being. Judges can't make or revoke laws. That's the job of the legislature.

They can put injunctions on laws till the matter is resolved in the legislature or higher court I do believe.

[Guest truthsayer]

"clean bill types" like me were going to ruin this whole thing at the beginning of the year. All of the apologists that didn't want to fight for a clean bill: suck one. We're back to zero. How does it feel?

[Guest jackdm3]

While I do recognize the possibilities, I have zero faith that they will make a clarified version that helps any of us. I obviously want blanket approval for us in all locations, but don't you know they will puss out somehow?

[Guest jg45]

Some lowly chancery court judge better not be able to make state wide rulings. Be careful out there as there are a lot of unknowns on the effect of this ruling statewide. The media is reporting it as though it effects the whole state.

[MikeW]

I have been a member for awhile and this is my first post.

We can carry in state parks, then some judge says we can't, then we can.

We can carry in restaurants, then some judge says we can't.

Who is running this country, legislation or women judges?

good 1st post ...dont be so shy

legislating from the bench is

[Oh Shoot]

I know good things aren't meant to last, but geez. . . less than 5 months???

We only had right to carry in National Parks two months or so, best I remember.

- OS

[Smith]

"clean bill types" like me were going to ruin this whole thing at the beginning of the year. All of the apologists that didn't want to fight for a clean bill: suck one. We're back to zero. How does it feel?

Two steps forward one step back. Had a "clean bill" been passed it would have been challenged as well. Then what? It leaves no answer to an argument. Sometimes you have to work through their stupidity with them. This is how difficult things get passed. Relax.

[Guest jg45]

We should really push the AG to uphold the law regarding liquor licenses and make sure that these "restaurants" are meeting the requirements, if not shut them down.

[steamnsteel]

I have not seen any injuction anywhere or a matter of fact change of law. So has anyone found out what the current law is other than be careful?

This really stinks but come next year I think that things will be better.

Just found the link that states the law is on hold until Jan.?

What a cluster.......

Edited November 20, 2009 by steamnsteel

[TGO David]

"clean bill types" like me were going to ruin this whole thing at the beginning of the year. All of the apologists that didn't want to fight for a clean bill: suck one. We're back to zero. How does it feel?

You can stow that attitude.

[Guest jg45]

from what I can tell, the chancery court only has jurisdiction because the plaintiff requested an injunction. It doesn't have jurisdiction to rule on the constitutionality of laws. So the ruling had to be for an injunction. As such, is the injunction only for the area that the court oversees? If not, could we not appeal to have an injunction on the injunction until the matter can be further reviewed by a court or until the legislature can fix things?

[BryanP]

Since this is a Davidson County court, does it have any effect on the rest of the state, except maybe to set a precedent?

It's a finding for a State law, not a Davidson County law.

Put it this way: I don't think I'll take my chances.

[Guest benchpresspower]

So confusion, confusion, confusion, is the name of the game here hunh? (still confused over the parks, so I just don't go)

I would hope that Todd will have enough to get this AGAIN! But even if it passes both the House and Senate, Bredesen will STILL be in office at the time and once again he will veto it right? Then the whole override thing over again.

[Guest jg45]

Arrrghhh, it's enough deep stuff to make someone want to take up arms. Oh wait, what a conundrum.

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

It is amazing what a few rich guys + an activist lawyer + a liberal judge can do eh?