Restaurant Carry Law ruled Void!

[JAB]

Yesterday, we ate at one of the few Mexican restaurants in the area that doesn't serve alchohol. This restaurant does, however, allow people to bring their own and some people had. Therefore, just yesterday evening, I, with my snubnosed .38 Special on my hip, legally sat in a restaurant and ate where others were consuming alchohol. I wasn't consuming nor did the mere presence and close proximity of 'Demon Alchohol' cause me to be overcome with the overwhelming desire to start shooting up the place - so what's the danged difference whether they got the alchohol from the restaurant or from a cooler beside the table? Some laws are just stupid and, I believe - in this case, holdovers from the backward Prohibition mindset.

[Oh Shoot]

...Therefore, just yesterday evening, I, with my snubnosed .38 Special on my hip, legally sat in a restaurant and ate where others were consuming alchohol. ...

If you mean you were open carrying, that's a pretty bold interpretation of the definition of 39-17-1305.

- OS

[dralarms]

If you mean you were open carrying, that's a pretty bold interpretation of the definition of 39-17-1305.

- OS

Well not really. No one was being served booze, they brought it with them.I may be wrong (won't be the first tiem today) but I would think he was legal.

[Oh Shoot]

Well not really. No one was being served booze, they brought it with them.I may be wrong (won't be the first tiem today) but I would think he was legal.

I've been to places where you gave them the booze, like a bottle of wine, and they served it to you, supplying the glasses and/or setups.

I've also been to ...um...shall we say...declasse establishments where you just brought it and swilled any way you wanted, and setups for hard stuff could be purchased.

The statute merely says "where ... beverages are served".

I wouldn't presume to determine whether serving yourself is "served" or not, under the statute.

I suppose one could ask our esteemed state AG.

I certainly wouldn't be comfy open carrying anywhere where booze is being consumed in any fashion, particularly right now.

I'm actually going to make a somewhat WAG that JAB wasn't open carrying, though.

- OS

Edited December 10, 2009 by OhShoot

[dralarms]

OK, I'll buy that.

[JAB]

I've been to places where you gave them the booze, like a bottle of wine, and they served it to you, supplying the glasses and/or setups.

I've also been to ...um...shall we say...declasse establishments where you just brought it and swilled any way you wanted, and setups for hard stuff could be purchased.

The statute merely says "where ... beverages are served".

I wouldn't presume to determine whether serving yourself is "served" or not, under the statute.

I suppose one could ask our esteemed state AG.

I certainly wouldn't be comfy open carrying anywhere where booze is being consumed in any fashion, particularly right now.

I'm actually going to make a somewhat WAG that JAB wasn't open carrying, though.

- OS

Depends on what you consider open carry. It was in a FOBUS holster, OWB on my hip. I was wearing a long-sleeved T-shirt which is long enough that it comes down over the holster. There was a slight buldge but I am a pretty big guy so it wasn't all that obvious. Sometimes, the tail of the shirt might have ridden high enough to expose the very bottom of the holster but I would doubt that anyone even noticed - or probably thought it was a cellphone case, etc. if they did notice. That or a tucked-in shirt with an unbuttoned shirt/open jacket, etc. over it, covering the holster, is about as 'open carry' as I usually get when in public except in very rare instances (at home is a different story) - certainly not right out there for everyone to see but not exactly deep concealment, either.

When we arrived, there were only a couple of other tables in use - and none of them had booze. The people who were consuming alchohol arrived after we did. I certainly felt no obligation - legal or otherwise - to take my firearm out to the vehicle simply because some folks had decided to bring some beer with them. Their beer was in a small cooler which they sat beside their table and from which they were 'serving themselves.' Although 'common sense' and 'gun laws' are two things that don't seem to go together - especially in TN - I really don't think I was in any danger of being hauled off to jail. I already have to make the choice of whether to carry and skip eating at a restaurant that sells alchohol or eat there and not carry. If I am to be expected to make that same choice simply because someone might choose to bring their own then I'd say that the cost of renewing my carry permit in a few years really isn't worth it.

Edited December 11, 2009 by JAB

[Guest benchpresspower]

What is the status of the appeal process on the law?

[Worriedman]

From what I have been able to ascertain, there will be no appeal of the ruling, simply the introduction of new legislation to correct the "vague" portion of the original law.

It is imperative that each of us contact our Legislators to garner their support for the soon to be introduced Bill.

[Guest HexHead]

From what I have been able to ascertain, there will be no appeal of the ruling

Who's surprised? AG Cooper is anti-gun based on some of his idiotic opinions. Plus, the Governor is pleased.

Now we've got another long road ahead of us again, this time perhaps bumpier than the last. Mark my words, even if new legislation does pass, it's not going to be by the overwhelming majorities we had last time.

Thank God only a simple majority of one vote is all that's needed to override a douchebag Governor.

[Oh Shoot]

Depends on what you consider open carry. It was in a FOBUS holster, OWB on my hip. I was wearing a long-sleeved T-shirt which is long enough that it comes down over the holster. There was a slight buldge but I am a pretty big guy so it wasn't all that obvious. ..

Certainly that is not open carry.

- OS

[Guest benchpresspower]

Who's surprised? AG Cooper is anti-gun based on some of his idiotic opinions. Plus, the Governor is pleased.

Now we've got another long road ahead of us again, this time perhaps bumpier than the last. Mark my words, even if new legislation does pass, it's not going to be by the overwhelming majorities we had last time.

Thank God only a simple majority of one vote is all that's needed to override a douchebag Governor.

Guess it might be safe to say we're looking at July next year before we can carry in restaurants again.

IF and WHEN Bredesen does veto the new legislation wouldn't that be political suicide on his part?

[Guest HexHead]

Guess it might be safe to say we're looking at July next year before we can carry in restaurants again.

IF and WHEN Bredesen does veto the new legislation wouldn't that be political suicide on his part?

What political suicide? He's finishing up his 2nd term and not eligible for another. He's done with State politics. If he's looking for a position in 0bama's administration, vetoing gun bills is a badge of honor. If he lost his mind and ran for the Senate against Alexander, he'd probably win. Even I'd vote for him I'm so fed up with Lamar.

So there's no IF about it. He's gonna veto it, he's as much as said so already. Even July's not a safe bet if they go back to playing nice about it and we get DELAY DELAY DELAY again like we did last summer. We got it done last summer literally on the last day of the session. If there's any holdup this time around, we'll have to wait until after the election and they'll probably be a new Speaker and possibly a new Senate leader. ****, Naifeh could be back in charge again. Then where will we be??

I hope to hell I'm wrong, but I think it's going to be a much tougher road this time, after all the negative publicity last summer.

[volshayes]

My State Senator emailed me last Monday (12/7) and said that they are appealing this court ruling. If the appeal is negative they have legislation prepared that they believe they have the support to pass. This post is not meant to debate the possible outcome of an appeal, but merely to give an update on the plans of the legislature, as told by the State Senator representing my area.

[Worriedman]

My State Senator emailed me last Monday (12/7) and said that they are appealing this court ruling. If the appeal is negative they have legislation prepared that they believe they have the support to pass. This post is not meant to debate the possible outcome of an appeal, but merely to give an update on the plans of the legislature, as told by the State Senator representing my area.

Sure wish you would share that e-mail!

[macville]

My State Senator emailed me last Monday (12/7) and said that they are appealing this court ruling. If the appeal is negative they have legislation prepared that they believe they have the support to pass. This post is not meant to debate the possible outcome of an appeal, but merely to give an update on the plans of the legislature, as told by the State Senator representing my area.

You should email him back and tell him he's wasting his time and someone's money appealing. Simply rewrite the law come Jan and by the end of the month pass it and have a better law in place that allows carry anywhere alcohol is served.

Matthew

[RinTN]

You should email him back and tell him he's wasting his time and someone's money appealing. Simply rewrite the law come Jan and by the end of the month pass it and have a better law in place that allows carry anywhere alcohol is served.

Matthew

Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not convinced that an appeal is a bad idea.

If there's a new law in January, doesn't it run the same risk as the old did with another suit and some judge shopping? I really don't want to have to watch a suit against the new law end up in her court again next year.

It would seem that the worst thing that could happen if there was an appeal would be that the original decision gets upheld - which really doesn't change things for us. Then we'd still have the legislative mechanism to try. But, getting Bonnyman's opinion overturned would save us from the challenges of getting a new law passed - more biased press, another veto, coming up short on votes, or the like.

[Fallguy]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not convinced that an appeal is a bad idea.

If there's a new law in January, doesn't it run the same risk as the old did with another suit and some judge shopping? I really don't want to have to watch a suit against the new law end up in her court again next year.

It would seem that the worst thing that could happen if there was an appeal would be that the original decision gets upheld - which really doesn't change things for us. Then we'd still have the legislative mechanism to try. But, getting Bonnyman's opinion overturned would save us from the challenges of getting a new law passed - more biased press, another veto, coming up short on votes, or the like.

Not if the new law simply makes an exception for HCP holder's with no restrictions on the place being a restaurant.

The lawsuit prevailed because the judge felt the average person could not tell if a place met all the requirements to be a restaurant per the law. Not just because she doesn't like guns around booze. So if there is no requirement that the place be a restuarant...then it removes that vagueness.

[Guest HexHead]

You should email him back and tell him he's wasting his time and someone's money appealing. Simply rewrite the law come Jan and by the end of the month pass it and have a better law in place that allows carry anywhere alcohol is served.

Matthew

Last year the current "unconstitutional" law was submitted IIRC in Feb. and didn't get passed until the legislature's last day of business in June. The process isn't nearly as easy as you seem to think it is. Let me recap for you....

First, once the bill is submitted it has to go to committee and pass muster with at least one or two subcommittee's in each chamber of the legislature. IF it's approved by the subcommittee(s) and then it goes to the full committee for approval to be sent to the respective chambers for a vote.

Assuming it passes both chambers, the separate bills will generally probably contain different language from each other, especially on a contentious bill like this one, so it has to go to a conference committee where either one chamber has to accept the other chamber's bill or they hammer out a compromise. Then the bill goes back to both chambers again to be approved.

Once that happens, it will go to the Governor's desk, where he will let it sit for 28 days or so to try and run out the clock before vetoing the bill.

Then it goes back to both chambers again where the governor's veto has to be overridden with yet another majority vote. Then, and only then if it's successful, it sits around waiting to take effect.

Throughout all these steps, throw in a healthy dose of DELAY DELAY DELAY waiting for just the right political timing to proceed to the next step.

If a new bill passes, and I'm not sure I'd make book on that, if we're able to carry again before mid-July like last time, I'll be pleasantly surprised.

I'm really getting tired of all this .

[Guest HexHead]

Not if the new law simply makes an exception for HCP holder's with no restrictions on the place being a restaurant.

The lawsuit prevailed because the judge felt the average person could not tell if a place met all the requirements to be a restaurant per the law. Not just because she doesn't like guns around booze. So if there is no requirement that the place be a restuarant...then it removes that vagueness.

While I'd love to see that, I don't know if that's the avenue they plan to take?

The part of this whole mess that really sticks in my craw, is that it wasn't Rayburn and the other restauranteur plaintiffs that carried the day in getting the law declared unconstitutional, it was the four HCP holders that were plaintiffs. Rayburn el al's complaints were all dismissed out of hand by her.

[RinTN]

Not if the new law simply makes an exception for HCP holder's with no restrictions on the place being a restaurant.

While that may "fix" the current "problem", do you really think that those opposing RTC will simply attack the law on other grounds?

The lawsuit prevailed because the judge felt the average person could not tell if a place met all the requirements to be a restaurant per the law. Not just because she doesn't like guns around booze. ...

Do you really believe it's the case that there wasn't a personal bias at play? If so, then I'll simply have to disagree.

[Guest HexHead]

While that may "fix" the current "problem", do you really think that those opposing RTC will simply attack the law on other grounds?

Well. considering Rayburn's attorney Smith went on record just moments after the decision that they intend to be right back there to fight whatever the legislature does, I'd say yeah.

Do you really believe it's the case that there wasn't a personal bias at play? If so, then I'll simply have to disagree.

Well, since she basically threw out all of Rayburn's attorney's original arguments, it could be that she was being impartial.

HAHAHAHAHA... sometimes I really crack myself up.

[Fallguy]

While that may "fix" the current "problem", do you really think that those opposing RTC will simply attack the law on other grounds?

While anyone can file a lawsuit for just about any reason (as we've seen) I'm not sure what grounds a lawsuit could be filed on if there is simply a general exception.

Based on what the judge said at the first hearing she didn't really seem to lend weight to any argument other than it being vague, so if it is not vague then I'm not sure what else they have.

Do you really believe it's the case that there wasn't a personal bias at play? If so, then I'll simply have to disagree.

There may have been, but and the end of the day her ruling is her ruling. There is a check and balance between the executive, legislative and judicial branches. If the judicial rules a law unconstitutional, it must give a reason (other than the judge just doesn't like it) that the legislative branch can use as a guide to correct the problem.

In this cause the ruling was it was vague, the solution is to remove any vaugness....

[analog_kidd]

Despite it's "vagueness" does the law allowing carry still remain on the books?

My thought is if legislators try to get a clean bill passed, and it fails, maybe instead we just try another easier to stomach (for the sheeple) law, that fixes the one we already have. For instance, a law gets passed that requires bars to place a sign at the door. This way it clears it up for us dimwit permit holders who can't tell what a restaurant is, and mixed with the law we got last summer we can start carrying again.

[Fallguy]

Despite it's "vagueness" does the law allowing carry still remain on the books?

My thought is if legislators try to get a clean bill passed, and it fails, maybe instead we just try another easier to stomach (for the sheeple) law, that fixes the one we already have. For instance, a law gets passed that requires bars to place a sign at the door. This way it clears it up for us dimwit permit holders who can't tell what a restaurant is, and mixed with the law we got last summer we can start carrying again.

The trouble is there is no legal definition of a bar. So the only way to determine which places should have to place a sign saying it is a bar is to have to do some accounting work. Then the places argue it puts an undue burden on them........

[JayC]

The trouble is there is no legal definition of a bar. So the only way to determine which places should have to place a sign saying it is a bar is to have to do some accounting work. Then the places argue it puts an undue burden on them........

More importantly under state law, bars that serve liquor are against the law... The instance you place that sign up, they fine you and threaten to take away your liquor license if you don't get food sales up above 50%.

That is the entire fallacy of this ruling, IF the business wasn't legal to carry in because of being a 'bar' the 'bar' owner is violating the law already (in the case of liquor licenses) and yet instead of THEM being the ones to have to become legal, they're allowed to continue to operate and we're not allowed to carry because the law is too "vague". All the examples being used start off with a business who is already in violation of state law.

Edited December 15, 2009 by JayC