Restaurant Carry Law ruled Void!

[Wingshooter]

I think the legislature should just repeal 39-17-1305 (Possession of firearm where alcoholic beverages are served). Seems like that should fix it.

[Oh Shoot]

I do have a CCP and just found out the mess with the Rest Alcohol situation!

So i cant carry legally in a Rest. where Alcohol is served? What would be the fine if caught?

Class A misdemeanor.

Max is 11 months 29 days in jail and/or $2,500 fine.

- OS

[Oh Shoot]

This is sad, i feel dumb since i did not know or hear of this till i read it here when i joined a few days ago and had not heard anything about this! I watch the news daily!

I wonder how many more people dont know!

It's a mess, and not sure how informed about it all even the cops are, and would guess that it varies.

Carrying past a conforming posted sign is only $500 and is not even specified as to type of offense, although that amount is usually a Class C 'meanor. We've never actually yet heard of anyone being charged with that, though.

But of course lots of people have been charged with possession where booze is served through the years BEFORE the recent change in the law that allowed it. They'd usually add the general illegal weapon possession on top of that, too, assuming they didn't have a HCP, or in the days before HCP.

So that's another thing this re-enacted ban has done, is put you in higher jeopardy, penalty wise, than merely carrying in boozy place that was posted.

- OS

Edited December 4, 2009 by OhShoot

[Oh Shoot]

Thanks for the info! What are the chances this new law will be overturned sometime next yr?

I've given up predicting what TN legislature will do.

The old saying is ever more true, "making law is like making sausage - you may or may not like the final product, but both processes can be sickening to watch."

- OS

[Guest HexHead]

It's a mess, and not sure how informed about it all even the cops are, and would guess that it varies.

Carrying past a conforming posted sign is only $500 and is not even specified as to type of offense, although that amount is usually a Class C 'meanor. We've never actually yet heard of anyone being charged with that, though.

Yeah, well for all intents and purposes, that 'conforming sign" doesn't exist anymore, nor does the just $500 fine.

Edited December 5, 2009 by HexHead

[macville]

The legislature will NOT designate ONE type of business as not being able to post, while allowing all OTHER businesses to post. Won't. No how, no way.

If you're gonna push for something, then push for NO private businesses being able to post, or for posting to have no legal standing, like in some other states.

Either I didn't communicate clearly, or you didn't understand what I was saying. I'm saying that if we were pushing for dropping -1305 AND dropping 1359, we wouldn't get anything passed. So for right now I feel like it would be better to push for just dropping -1305 (carrying where alcohol is served.) Make all places that serve alcohol legal. That's all I am saying.

I would love to see 1359 dropped also because if we are going to force places that are open to the public to not allow smoking, and provide handicap access, then why can't we force them to allow us to carry?

Matthew

[Guest whall]

I just finished reading an article that strikes down the "guns in bars" ban. The judge (Bonneyman) ruled that law was unconstitutional because a customer has no way to identify how much food a restaurant serves. Bottom line being that the law was too ambiguos to understand and even less to enforce. The ruling came down on 20 November. So, if there are still restaurants that post against concealed carry, they need to comply with the new ruling. The only caveat being; the AG and the legislature is expected to draft and introduce a new bill to address the issue. Evidently Sen Doug Jackson is the culprit behind this effort. If he's in your district let him know what you think about this infringement!

[RinTN]

... Evidently Sen Doug Jackson is the culprit behind this effort. If he's in your district let him know what you think about this infringement!

Odd to hear the guy fighting for our rights to be referred to as "the culprit".

[Oh Shoot]

Yeah, well for all intents and purposes, that 'conforming sign" doesn't exist anymore, not does the just $500 fine.

As far as places that serve booze, correctamundo.

- OS

[Guest HexHead]

I would love to see 1359 dropped also because if we are going to force places that are open to the public to not allow smoking, and provide handicap access, then why can't we force them to allow us to carry?

Matthew

Thank you, that's the point I've been trying to make when I say they shouldn't be allowed to post and then the whiners pipe in crying about property owner's rights. They're already told many things they can and can't do, so why are we the only group allowed to be, no make that encouraged to be discriminated against?

[macville]

Thank you, that's the point I've been trying to make when I say they shouldn't be allowed to post and then the whiners pipe in crying about property owner's rights. They're already told many things they can and can't do, so why are we the only group allowed to be, no make that encouraged to be discriminated against?

I think we (really pro-gun people) have taken the high road in the past because we understand the constitution as a WHOLE and how the founding fathers wanted to protect people from each others greedy hands and especially the gov's greedy hand. It's one of those things that I don't really like being told, or telling others what to do with their property when they open it up to the public, but that's the cost of living in this society:( If I am having to pay that cost, then I might as well get something for my money and be allowed to protect me and my family while I am out and about. While I don't like cigarette smoke in restaurant/bowling ally's/etc, considering the amount of of armed robberies within 5 miles of my house this year, I am FAR more likely to die from a robbery than second hand smoke.

Matthew

[Guest ColdEspresso]

Sorry to be so ignorant but I am still unclear whether it is currently legal or illegal carry in a restaurant that serves alcohol any longer. This should not be so vague but I am stumped.

Thanks

[Punisher84]

Sorry to be so ignorant but I am still unclear whether it is currently legal or illegal carry in a restaurant that serves alcohol any longer. This should not be so vague but I am stumped.

Thanks

Illegal.

[Guest HexHead]

I think we (really pro-gun people) have taken the high road in the past because we understand the constitution as a WHOLE and how the founding fathers wanted to protect people from each others greedy hands and especially the gov's greedy hand. It's one of those things that I don't really like being told, or telling others what to do with their property when they open it up to the public, but that's the cost of living in this society:( If I am having to pay that cost, then I might as well get something for my money and be allowed to protect me and my family while I am out and about. While I don't like cigarette smoke in restaurant/bowling ally's/etc, considering the amount of of armed robberies within 5 miles of my house this year, I am FAR more likely to die from a robbery than second hand smoke.

Matthew

Well, screw that whole "high road" . Nice guys finish last.

We try to play by the rules, but our opponents keep twisting those rules to suit their agenda. You need to fight fire with fire.

[Guest voigts]

The very way the anti gun lobby has labeled this thing ticks me off by this being called the "guns in bars" law. I'll be it wouldn't have the same sting if it was labeled the "guns in Olive Garden" or "guns in Appleby's" law.

This stupid anti gun legal wrangling simply leaves the gun permit holder to decide whether carrying in violation of the law and any possible consequences are more troublesome than the potential of having you or your loved ones killed by some idiot in the parking lot going to/from a restaurant.

I hope this law gets fixed so this issue can be settled.

[ffr1910]

Illegal.

The law is still on the books as of today, it seems to me:

Michie's Legal Resources#

ffr1910

[macville]

The law is still on the books as of today, it seems to me:

Michie's Legal Resources#

Uhhh... Michie online is always a few months behind in updating the law. I think it was just a month or two ago that they actually got the law up on there.

Matthew

[Fallguy]

The law is still on the books as of today, it seems to me:

Michie's Legal Resources#

ffr1910

Uhhh... Michie online is always a few months behind in updating the law. I think it was just a month or two ago that they actually got the law up on there.

Matthew

Yep, they only update Michie's online once or maybe twice a year. Also it is only a refrence, not anything official.

[Superman]

The law is still on the books as of today, it seems to me:

Michie's Legal Resources#

ffr1910

This is on the handgun permit page of the TDOS website

On November 20, 2009, the Davidson County Chancery Court held that the law allowing Tennessee handgun carry permit holders to carry their handguns into establishments serving alcohol was unconstitutional. As a result, the prior law which prohibited all persons from carrying firearms into establishments serving alcohol is back in effect.

[Guest whall]

I obviously read a bunk periodical story relating to this issue. And it came from a liberal paper to boot. If anyone would get a story right about banning guns I'd thought it'd be them. Apparently not.

[Guest 270win]

The easiest thing to do is create an exemption for those with permits to carry in places that serve alcohol open to the public....make it good and clean like the off duty LEO's....don't call it a restaurant..don't call it a bar...just good and clean "Off Duty LEO's can carry in places that serve" and another permit holders AND those with written directives (I believe some govt types get these) can carry...end of story...it's simple...it's easy to enforce....if you are off duty LEO, permit, or written directive and in a place that serves....you're legal......if you're not...you get the 'intent to go armed' charge AND violating the weapons/alcohol law...two misdemeanor charges like before.

On the signs....goodness $500 possible fine over a SIGN? How silly......i'd change that to at most a very minor civil penalty to where it is like a parking violation...nothing on a criminal record.....no gun seizure....no arrest.Preferably I'd change the wording of the statute to where you can only be asked to leave and if you don't leave THEN get a fine for trespass...a minor thing..I'd make these signs basically mean nothing but a bunch of words with no real penalty..the bed wetters can put them up but the permit holder will not get punished over them....IF you are off duty LEO, permit, or written directive.....It's all very simple.....Make life easy on the law abiding and get those guns that are unsecured out of cars and carried on people where they can't be stolen.

[Guest HexHead]

Preferably I'd change the wording of the statute to where you can only be asked to leave and if you don't leave THEN get a fine for trespass...a minor thing..I'd make these signs basically mean nothing but a bunch of words with no real penalty..the bed wetters can put them up but the permit holder will not get punished over them.

And make them get the signs from the State so they are all uniform. We shouldn't have to deal with this "substantially similar"

No more hand written signs or cutesy like that ass wipe Rayburn's "No Guns Ever, Free Parking Always."

I hope they change the law well enough that mofo has to eat his ****ing sign and chokes on it.

[Glock262730]

Never could carry in 'bars', only restaurants that serve food 5 days a week along with alcohol.

But I do believe that it means we can't carry anywhere alcohol is served for on site consumption again.

I am a new member. Sorry if I am posting this incorrectly. I am confused about "served for on site consumption." I was in a liqour store buying wine. I say the sign that firearm not allow and consider a misermeader. It was not post at the entrance but at the counter wall. I was going to walk out but I need the wine to sleep.

[Guest HexHead]

I am a new member. Sorry if I am posting this incorrectly. I am confused about "served for on site consumption." I was in a liqour store buying wine. I say the sign that firearm not allow and consider a misermeader. It was not post at the entrance but at the counter wall. I was going to walk out but I need the wine to sleep.

That liquor store still had the old sign up from when we couldn't carry in places that sold alcohol for on-premises or off-premises consumption. The law was changed several years ago to allow carry in places that sold for off-premises consumption, such as liquor stores, mini-marts and grocery stores.

[Fallguy]

I am a new member. Sorry if I am posting this incorrectly. I am confused about "served for on site consumption." I was in a liqour store buying wine. I say the sign that firearm not allow and consider a misermeader. It was not post at the entrance but at the counter wall. I was going to walk out but I need the wine to sleep.

That sign is still required by some of the alcohol laws in TN and what it says is applicable to anyone that might carry and doesn't have a HCP.