Restaurant Carry Law ruled Void!

[mcurrier]

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.

Excellent point.

[Fallguy]

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.

The only way to know if a place is violating the law by serving liquor but not meeting the requirements of their restaurant license is by a state audit/inspection.

The average patron is not going to conduct such an inspection prior to entering.

Another thing is there are many places in dry counties that don't serve liquor but still serve alcohol (beer only). Under the law that was ruled unconstitutional it was still illegal to carry in some of these places, but not others just depending. So who determines if they would have to post a sign or not?

It can't be the local beer board....remember the law that allowed LEOs to carry where alcohol is served also had an amendment basically restricting local beer boards from basing any permits issues on the carry of handguns.

So therefore it would have to ether the state (something it doesn't do now) or the business owner himself...with someone probably still having to certify his results.

Those that live in liquor by the drink counties seem to forget that isn't the case statewide. In many counties there is no such thing as a restaurant serving liquor, but they may serve beer (which is still alcohol and covers by 39-17-1305) and are not required to meet any 50% rule by state law.

As mentioned above...remember LEOs can carry in any place that serves alcohol for onsite consumption, there has been no challenge to that law, it just seems that a general exception for HCP holders is the least vague way to go. Not the state requiring a place to post a sign...

[Glock262730]

I think we should maybe bind together and boycott ALL restaurants that serve alcohol. Not just the ones that posted but ALL of them. In this economy we need to put the pressure on the restaurants to see the error of their ways.

If every HCP holder decided this was the time to take a stand and send a message, it will be heard. This was all about these f*ucktards not wanting to lose any money. I say we fight fire with fire if we really give a damn about our rights.

I agree, great idea. Banned ourselves from places that banned us, HCP.

[Glock262730]

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.

Thanks HexHead and Fallguy.

[Guest SouthernSaltine]

Thanks HexHead and Fallguy.

I think Just make it simple-as can be, and say any restaurant or bar that serves alcohol, you are allowed to carry unless otherwise posted.

Make it a simple posting with no long statement or wording, just Have a simple sign of a gun with a X or / across it and be done Posted at every entrance. If the establishment has this posted then YOU CAN NOT CARRY!! SIMPLE!!

[macville]

I think Just make it simple-as can be, and say any restaurant or bar that serves alcohol, you are allowed to carry unless otherwise posted.

Make it a simple posting with no long statement or wording, just Have a simple sign of a gun with a X or / across it and be done Posted at every entrance. If the establishment has this posted then YOU CAN NOT CARRY!! SIMPLE!!

Bad bad bad idea. If someone wants to trample on my rights, then they should have to be accurate on their sign. Not to mention that some places only post those gun buster type signs to please the stupid liberals and know that the signs are not "legal" (although, I'd say 95% of people who post those signs don't have a freakin clue, they just think they have to post some kind of sign.)

[Guest jackdm3]

No way! You would leave us no better than we already are: Letting them all shut us out as they do now.

[Guest SouthernSaltine]

They should really have to post a LARGE sign by the entrance that say NO ONE HERE HAS A GUN, NO GUNS ALLOWED! and see how many customers they get.

[Guest SouthernSaltine]

Bad bad bad idea. If someone wants to trample on my rights, then they should have to be accurate on their sign. Not to mention that some places only post those gun buster type signs to please the stupid liberals and know that the signs are not "legal" (although, I'd say 95% of people who post those signs don't have a freakin clue, they just think they have to post some kind of sign.)

TRUE. There are just so many idiots out there that think people cant understand and even know the correct posting, as the ones posting incorrectly. It leaves law abiding people with CP holding the bag when you carry somewhere that someone has an incorrect posting, and like the article said, its up to the Police to decide who is write or wrong..

ALL IN ALL people are just idiots and need the simplest things spelled out.

Im with you though it is a bad idea.

[Guest HexHead]

As I've suggested before, if they're going to post they should have to get the sign from the State. Only state issued signs should be valid. That will eliminate any confusion and cute crap like Rayburn's.

Since the current law was voided over possible confusion, we should INSIST on this.

[Guest SouthernSaltine]

As I've suggested before, if they're going to post they should have to get the sign from the State. Only state issued signs should be valid. That will eliminate any confusion and cute crap like Rayburn's.

Since the current law was voided over possible confusion, we should INSIST on this.

To add to that,... if it is issued by the state, then they should create a database open to the public of these places that have applied for a NO CARRY permit.

[RinTN]

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.

Sorry, that was a typo. What you said was my exact point. Which is one of the reasons that an appeal may be better than a new law.

[GKar]

At least one legislator in this region has indicated that he is going to explore the route of placing a simple exception statement into subsection © of TCA 39-17-1305 (Sale of alcoholic beverages; premises; possession of firearms) [subsection © lists exceptions to the general ban stated in subsection (a) such as for LEOs]. Can't be found to be vague (it's identical to the exception for LEOs), doesn't need any additional language RE postings, penalties, etc cause those are covered in other sections of the code already. Simple legislative solution.

[Fallguy]

At least one legislator in this region has indicated that he is going to explore the route of placing a simple exception statement into subsection © of TCA 39-17-1305 (Sale of alcoholic beverages; premises; possession of firearms) [subsection © lists exceptions to the general ban stated in subsection (a) such as for LEOs]. Can't be found to be vague (it's identical to the exception for LEOs), doesn't need any additional language RE postings, penalties, etc cause those are covered in other sections of the code already. Simple legislative solution.

Really think that is the best way to go.....although it may not be the easiest to get passed.....

[JayC]

At least one legislator in this region has indicated that he is going to explore the route of placing a simple exception statement into subsection © of TCA 39-17-1305 (Sale of alcoholic beverages; premises; possession of firearms) [subsection © lists exceptions to the general ban stated in subsection (a) such as for LEOs]. Can't be found to be vague (it's identical to the exception for LEOs), doesn't need any additional language RE postings, penalties, etc cause those are covered in other sections of the code already. Simple legislative solution.

Also if I read the law correctly, that exception would not be covered by 1359? Fallguy do you agree?

[Fallguy]

Also if I read the law correctly, that exception would not be covered by 1359? Fallguy do you agree?

Hmmmm, not sure. To be honest I even thought with an exception the property owner could still ban someone by posting a 39-17-1359 sign.

The exception would just mean it is not a violation of 39-17-1305 for a HCP holder to be in there, but a I think a proper posting would still ban carry just like any other property owner.

But I admit not 100% sure.

[Guest HexHead]

Well, it would have to be a "perfect" sign then. I've gotten indications that they plan on doing away with 'substantially similar" language, that signs will have to have "exact" language to post. No more just "intent' signs.

[Fallguy]

Well, it would have to be a "perfect" sign then. I've gotten indications that they plan on doing away with 'substantially similar" language, that signs will have to have "exact" language to post. No more just "intent' signs.

That is a change I'd like to see as well. Including a minimum size of the sign as well.

[macville]

Well, it would have to be a "perfect" sign then. I've gotten indications that they plan on doing away with 'substantially similar" language, that signs will have to have "exact" language to post. No more just "intent' signs.

How how I would LOVE to see that. However, how many of these places that already don't post properly do you think will actually post properly? Do you think A. they will be too lazy to change their signs? B. Too stupid to realize they need real signs. C. Actually change signs?

Matthew

[JayC]

That is a change I'd like to see as well. Including a minimum size of the sign as well.

Require it to be nice and big, say like the parks signs, 14" by 6"....

[volshayes]

Sure wish you would share that e-mail!

I had already deleted the email before I made this post.

[Guest jackdm3]

I'd like to see all signs placed above the door. I hate when a place is busy with people blocking all signs, I park, get through the masses, see the sign and retreat to the vehicle. Don't make me get out. Make the signs embarassingly large, too.

[Fallguy]

Require it to be nice and big, say like the parks signs, 14" by 6"....

With an orange background.....

[Guest Jcochran88]

To bad we aren't the ones rewriting this! Then it would actually make sense.

[Guest HexHead]

How how I would LOVE to see that. However, how many of these places that already don't post properly do you think will actually post properly? Do you think A. they will be too lazy to change their signs? B. Too stupid to realize they need real signs. C. Actually change signs?

Matthew

If it's not the correctly EXACT wording sign, it won't mean squat. After all, we can't have them being vague now can we?

I've also noticed that some of the places that had posted properly must have taken the sign down as soon as the law was declared void. I was going to take a pic of one of the signs with "blood dripping" from the circle to send to my respected source on this issue, but it was gone.