Restaurant Carry Law ruled Void!

[Guest grams]

No, it won't.

Unless folks gang up to affect just certain restaurants.

2 or 3 hundred thousand folks, of of over 6 million, even if ALL participated, dispersed across the whole state wouldn't affect any given restaurant or even a whole chain by enough for them to notice.

- OS

Add their families as well and it adds up. Have everyone go into each restaurant that knows them (unarmed) and explain why they will not visit again. This is the problem though, whether it's the economy or this or health care or whatever. The people will not stand up and do anything. Everyone gives up way too easily. Remember also, it often only takes a very vocal 5-10% to make a change. If this is not the solution, then a better one should be proposed.

Edited November 21, 2009 by grams

[I_Like_Pie]

I am just worried about media misinformation that will spill from this...the crap that makes it into the news is embarrassingly wrong 90% of the time.

[Wingshooter]

Add their families as well and it adds up. Have everyone go into each restaurant that knows them (unarmed) and explain why they will not visit again. This is the problem though, whether it's the economy or this or health care or whatever. The people will not stand up and do anything. Everyone gives up way too easily. Remember also, it often only takes a very vocal 5-10% to make a change. If this is not the solution, then a better one should be proposed.

Right after the law allowing us to carry in restaurants took place, I did this with my family of 5 + 2 friends (HCP's) at a posted Applebees. As I was politely explaining to the manager why I would not return, a couple at the table next to us spoke up and said they would not be back either because of the posting. I had never met them before. Needless to say, the manager seemed very concerned over the loss of business. He said he would contact the district manager about it, but I don't know if anything changed because I have never been back. It's pointless to check on this restaurant's posted status now.

In this economy, I don't think a business wants to loose a family of customers. I say speak up and tell them that this court decision will affect the money that you will spend in their place of business - even if it is through an email or phone call. Who knows what effect it may have...

That said, FG has a valid point. The court has ruled, and now the restaurants can just say "it's not my fault that you can't carry here." Even if we hit them in the pocketbook, they cannot change it now anyway. However, I carry all the time. I WILL NOT disarm to go into a restaurant that serves alcohol. I will not break the law, so no $$$ for them! Eating out is highly overrated, IMHO.

[Wingshooter]

Good idea.

Thanks.

I believe I found a hair in my food, and the service sucked. I need to leave a review. Do we still have the 1A?

Nashville, TN Restaurant Reviews and Recommendations by Citysearch

Nashville Restaurants: Read Nashville Restaurant Reviews - TripAdvisor

What restaurants do these guys own?

[tntnixon]

I would like to see the ruling as well, but the main argument was the average person could not know if a place met the requirements to be a restaurant per the law by just looking at the place.

So any law that doesn't require a place to be a restaurant but simply allows carry by HCP holders period, shouldn't be challenged on that.

Another possibility is to require certain places (bar, etc... and however that may be determined, amount of revenue etc..) that legislature would want carry to be prohibited to post a certain sign and or symbol.

The other thing I find interesting about this suit, and ruling, is that it's basic premise is the fact that the liquor by the drink laws are vague and ambiguous. Does that mean that those laws are also unconstitutional?

[Guest HexHead]

Delay, delay.....

j/k

Don't worry, that's going to come again. Wanna bet NOTHING happens in January?

[Guest HexHead]

Another possibility is to require certain places (bar, etc... and however that may be determined, amount of revenue etc..) that legislature would want carry to be prohibited to post a certain sign and or symbol.

That will be fought tooth and nail. Remember, this whole lawsuit was brought because the f*ckers didn't want to just put up a sign in the first place. They had an "out", they just didn't want to use it.

[Guest HexHead]

That said, FG has a valid point. The court has ruled, and now the restaurants can just say "it's not my fault that you can't carry here." Even if we hit them in the pocketbook, they cannot change it now anyway.

There's going to be another battle over this. Time to organize now and start sending the message during the busy holiday time. We have to start being proactive and not reactive at the last minute. Get their attention now and they may be less inclined to support the TN Hospitality Association's position and any future lawsuits in the next go around.

[K191145]

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.

I don't know if anyone's mentioned this yet but if the law was vauge and there's no clear distinction from a restaurant and a bar, seems to me no one under 21 should be allowed in ANY establishment that serves alcohol. I have never been to Chucky Cheese but I've heard they sell beer to adults. They should enforce the 21 year old age limit to include any place that serves any alcohol including restaurants, pizza joints, bowling alleys etc.

[Guest HexHead]

They're not going to let it go...

From today's Nashville City Paper....

Chancellor declares guns in bars unconstitutional

Friday, November 20, 2009 at 12:47pm

By Kyle Swenson

Attorneys behind Friday’s successful bid to strike down the controversial guns in bars law say they’ll fight any appeal the state mounts to counter Chancellor Claudia Bonnyman’s ruling that the statute was unconstitutionally vague.

“The state has a right to appeal and we’ll certainly file a brief of opposition if they do,” said David Randolph Smith, a lead attorney representing Sunset Grill owner Randy Rayburn and a coalition of restaurant industry and permit holder plaintiffs.

Smith and attorneys David Raybin, Will Cheek, and Alan Woods argued Friday morning the guns-in-bars legislation was unconstitutionally vague because of the obscure state guidelines governing whether an establishment was a bar or a restaurant. Because of the fluid classification, permit carriers do not know if they are breaking the law by entering the establishment, the attorneys argued.

What about the very clear and concise definition of a restaurant inside the law?

“In a way, the law is protecting the rights of the Second Amendment of handgun permit holders,” Smith said. “The plaintiffs have stated the lack of clarity in the law necessitated a better definition, because the court ruled, it was fraught with vagueness.”

WTF??? He's doing this to support the 2nd Amendment?

In her ruling, Bonnyman agreed the law was too vague and “does violate the due process rights of the public in general and plaintiff gun permit holders.” The chancellor based her decision on the fact that permit holders cannot determine whether or not they are in violation of the law.

“The principle business being conducted cannot be known to the ordinary citizen,” Bonnyman said. “Inquiry would not be satisfactory or helpful.”

It’s not clear whether or not the Attorney General will appeal the ruling, which effectively eliminated the statute from the law. The legislature is likely to address a new version of the bill in the next session but it is unclear whether or not a guns-in-bar provision will see the same support.

Metro Police Chief Ronal Serpas spoke out in support of Bonnyman’s decision, and said his one concern he had was that the ruling would allow the issue to "again take center stage during the next legislative session instead of the vitally important issue of keeping convicted felons behind bars."

“A couple of things have changed since the decision by the legislature, mainly the MTSU polls where 80 percent of Tennesseans said they were uncomfortable with the idea of guns in bars,” said Rayburn attorney and lobbyist Tom Lee. “Second Amendment rights are important and so are private property rights. This effort, this law, this decision, points out how difficult it is to strike the right balance.”

Serpas also noted the MTSU poll, adding that Tennesseans know alcohol and guns do not mix.

"While I support the Second Amendment and Tennessee’s existing carry permit process, allowing firearms in bars, even with the written stipulation that the gun carrier not drink, is, in my view, a threat to public safety," he said. "We have asked the Metro Legal Department to provide advice on guns in bars enforcement issues in light of today’s court decision.”

Although Second Amendment rights took center stage in the debate over the guns-in-bars law, Lee said the greater issue underlying the controversy was over private property.

“People who own private property should be able to control what happens on their property as much as possible,” Lee said. “Any time the government intends to infringe upon that right, then the legislature and the courts should take a hard look, and that’s what happened today.”

Then why isn't the No Smoking rule unconstitutional as well?

[Guest H0TSH0T]

just make it simple, a hcp holder should be allowed to carry the same places as a police officer, with the exceptions of courts, jails/prisons, fed and state offices, and schools. And should have annual training, and certification by local law enforcement, or certified range masters or licensed instructors, this should be relatively inexpensive and easy to update by a swipe of the card in a computer the same way they can tell if you have a license. This would also make it easy to enforce revocations via restraining orders and domestic violence cases. thus keeping the public safe, and permit holders skilled. and will also make stronger ties with the police and persons in the community's they serve thus removing fear and improved community outreach. Not to mention a possible recruitment tool, for future officers.

[TnEngineer]

Is there anywhere I can email the good "judge" and express my opinion?

[Guest 270win]

There are many vague laws presently on the books that are not unconstitutional. Take a look at Tennessee's whole weapons law that says you can't possess a weapon with 'intent to go armed'. 'Intent to go armed' is very vague and is not defined in the law. The whole no weapons inside schools is vague too because someone may not know that a school function is taking place at say a mall or McDonald's. The goofy sign law in TN is also vague because what is a sign that is easy to see/visible AND what is 'substantially similar'?

This ruling will be appealed to a higher court in Tennessee. It looks like the plaintiffs decided to do a little judge shopping and figured this judge in Davidson County would rule their way....which is the way the system works. It will be interesting to see how that goes when it is at the appeals level.

If the legislators want to rewrite this law it would be easier to just add a section to the 'no firearms in places that serve alcohol' statute and cleanly add those with handgun permits and that's it.....no extra language...add it just like the off duty police exemption was added this year.

In the meantime.......I have carried a handgun in restaurants in many states with no problem. I've never been patted down or gone through a metal detector. I carry a snub WELL CONCEALED and will continue to carry one well concealed...especially in Memphis...wherever I go that is not a felony offense (in TN that would be schools and courtrooms).

[macville]

just make it simple, a hcp holder should be allowed to carry the same places as a police officer, with the exceptions of courts, jails/prisons, fed and state offices, and schools. And should have annual training, and certification by local law enforcement, or certified range masters or licensed instructors, this should be relatively inexpensive and easy to update by a swipe of the card in a computer the same way they can tell if you have a license. This would also make it easy to enforce revocations via restraining orders and domestic violence cases. thus keeping the public safe, and permit holders skilled. and will also make stronger ties with the police and persons in the community's they serve thus removing fear and improved community outreach. Not to mention a possible recruitment tool, for future officers.

First the Constitution doesn't say I have to do ANY crap to bear arms. It simply says I have the right to bear arms. Second, if they were to require that crap, then I should be able to carry in all those places because if I can't be trusted in those places with yearly training, then I can't be trusted ANYWHERE.

Maybe we can get a new law passed in Jan that will allow us to carry ANYWHERE booze is served. There are a lot of places that are not "bars" that are also not restaurants (such as concert venus, banquet halls, etc.) that should not be off limits. Heck, I believe that bars shouldn't be off limits because surely there are people there who don't drink...otherwise we have people drinking and driving, right?

Matthew

[Guest HexHead]

just make it simple, a hcp holder should be allowed to carry the same places as a police officer, with the exceptions of courts, jails/prisons, fed and state offices, and schools. And should have annual training, and certification by local law enforcement, or certified range masters or licensed instructors, this should be relatively inexpensive and easy to update by a swipe of the card in a computer the same way they can tell if you have a license. This would also make it easy to enforce revocations via restraining orders and domestic violence cases. thus keeping the public safe, and permit holders skilled. and will also make stronger ties with the police and persons in the community's they serve thus removing fear and improved community outreach. Not to mention a possible recruitment tool, for future officers.

Wow, I'm against just about EVERYTHING in your proposal. We'll just leave it at that.

[Guest HexHead]

Is there anywhere I can email the good "judge" and express my opinion?

I just checked the court's website and it looks like you'll need to use snail mail...

Chancery Court, Parts 1, 2, 3, 4

Metro Courthouse

1 Public Square

Nashville, TN 37201

[Guest Arko]

First the Constitution doesn't say I have to do ANY crap to bear arms. It simply says I have the right to bear arms. Second, if they were to require that crap, then I should be able to carry in all those places because if I can't be trusted in those places with yearly training, then I can't be trusted ANYWHERE.

Maybe we can get a new law passed in Jan that will allow us to carry ANYWHERE booze is served. There are a lot of places that are not "bars" that are also not restaurants (such as concert venus, banquet halls, etc.) that should not be off limits. Heck, I believe that bars shouldn't be off limits because surely there are people there who don't drink...otherwise we have people drinking and driving, right?

Matthew

plus one.

[Guest HexHead]

I just sent this email to my State Rep and to Sen. Jackson (My Senator is a worthless waste of air.)....

HB 0962 being struck down as unconstitutional

Okay, so what's the contingency plan? Now that one liberal judge has ripped this State law to shreds, what's the plan to restore our rights?

I'm really concerned that many in both houses aren't going to have the stomach to take up this fight again, nor have to override the inevitible Governor's veto again. The plaintiff's attorneys are already stating they intend to challenge anything the legislature does to try and circumvent the Chancellor's decision and if they keep going back to her courtroom, I just see more of the same outcome.

Clearly, the option of posting didn't work out (any better than the "opt out" provison for local parks did.)

Is the will there to give us a carry anywhere, other than schools, courthouses and police stations, without a posting option? Are the legislators angry enough that a single judge has circumvented their wisdom and authority to make law? How can she use an obscure law that the ABC uses as a guideline to issue liquor licenses in the first place when a) that law isn't even enforced by the ABC and the handgun bill contained a concise description of what a "restaurant" is for the purposes of the law.

I don't feel we can count on Attorney General Cooper to be an ally on this. Two recent opinions of his concern me greatly, one that city parks don't have to post signs regarding handgun carry, regardless of the law's precise requirement right down to the sign's size (BTW, I've yet to see a required sign at any Metro park or greenway in West Nashville) or his opinion that landlords can ban guns from their tenents property, even if they have an HCP. In addition, here was a lawsuit regarding the constitutionality of a very high profile State law, and it wasn't important enough for him to handle personally, instead sending underlings to handle it. It doesn't appear their objections were even considered. From the news articles, they might as well not even been there representing us.

So again I ask you, what's the plan?

Edited November 21, 2009 by HexHead

[Fallguy]

The other thing I find interesting about this suit, and ruling, is that it's basic premise is the fact that the liquor by the drink laws are vague and ambiguous. Does that mean that those laws are also unconstitutional?

Even though the restaurant carry law defined a restaurant almost exactly (5 days, instead of 4) the same as liquor laws, the liquor law only has to do with getting a permit to serve and it also requires a state inspection.

The argument on the restaurant carry law was if you are standing outside in the parking lot looking at the place that there is no way you could know if the place meets the requirements of the law.

I also have to say I really hate the Asst AG's statement about "just ask", we all know what the answer is 99.9% of the time when you ask a place about carry.

[Fallguy]

I don't know if anyone's mentioned this yet but if the law was vauge and there's no clear distinction from a restaurant and a bar, seems to me no one under 21 should be allowed in ANY establishment that serves alcohol. I have never been to Chucky Cheese but I've heard they sell beer to adults. They should enforce the 21 year old age limit to include any place that serves any alcohol including restaurants, pizza joints, bowling alleys etc.

I think prohibiting entrance to those under 21 into any place that serves alcohol is going way too far......

As has been said...legally there are no bars in TN.

When you say enforce the 21 year old age limit, not sure what you're speaking of. AFAIK, there is no law that prevents those under 21 from being in a place that serves alcohol. If there is...it is violated all the time all over the state.

[TGO David]

It seems to me that there is an easy fix to this mess...

1. Define what constitutes an establishment being a "bar". There presently is no such thing in Tennessee, per law.

2. Make it so that firearms may not legally be carried inside of a "bar" by a HCP holder.

3. Remove any ability for a restaurant to prohibit carry. This alleviates the restaurant owner's concerns of being made liable because they did not choose to post. If you don't have the option, you cannot be liable for it. This works great in Kentucky and similar states.

[Guest don_m]

As a former, and likely future, Tennessean, I'm astonished that the Bradys and VPC folks can gain so much traction in an otherwise reasonable state. The same tired old arguments about the Wild West (Dodge City was actually safer than NYC in those days) and "blood in the streets" along with their grossly misleading and easily countered "statistics" come out and fools like Rayburn swallow it hook, line, and sinker.

Most states have had this (and more) in place for years and what has happened? Nothing. For the past eleven years I've lived in New Hampshire and Pennsylvania. Neither has any carry restrictions on restaurants or even bars. And the topic has never come up, even among the liberal politicians in Philly. Why? Because no law-abiding gun owner has abused the privilege so there's no political advantage to going there. Even the people's republics like New York (you actually can get a permit in most upstate counties that's good everywhere but NYC) and New Jersey (theoretically possible, but fahgeddaboudit) have none of these restrictions.

Most of the clueless think we should just leave our guns in the car. I do that rarely here (mostly just the post office when in have to go there) and hardly consider it a safe maneuver, not to mention the theft potential.

[Guest HexHead]

When you say enforce the 21 year old age limit, not sure what you're speaking of. AFAIK, there is no law that prevents those under 21 from being in a place that serves alcohol. If there is...it is violated all the time all over the state.

There is, but it only applies to the 21-over places that allow smoking. God forbid they get exposed to 2nd hand smoke from across the room.

I still don't think restaurants should be allowed to seat families with small children in bar areas though.

[Guest HexHead]

It seems to me that there is an easy fix to this mess...

1. Define what constitutes an establishment being a "bar". There presently is no such thing in Tennessee, per law.

2. Make it so that firearms may not legally be carried inside of a "bar" by a HCP holder.

3. Remove any ability for a restaurant to prohibit carry. This alleviates the restaurant owner's concerns of being made liable because they did not choose to post. If you don't have the option, you cannot be liable for it. This works great in Kentucky and similar states.

Just for the record, I agree with you on all these points David. But getting that to happen will be harder than getting wine into the supermarkets. It's been mentioned before that bars have to pay higher insurance rates than restaurants do, and that's the only logical reason the law is the way it is now. I can hear the inevitable whining already. The argument will be "why should we have to pay higher costs, just so you can carry a gun into my establishment? All we have to do is keep guns out and we don't have to change anything."

Wanna bet?

[K191145]

I think prohibiting entrance to those under 21 into any place that serves alcohol is going way too far......

As has been said...legally there are no bars in TN.

When you say enforce the 21 year old age limit, not sure what you're speaking of. AFAIK, there is no law that prevents those under 21 from being in a place that serves alcohol. If there is...it is violated all the time all over the state.

Perhaps I am wrong but I thought there were certain establishments that only served alcohol (a bar, pub, etc.) that law states an age requirment of 21, the legal age for drinking. If the courts can't determine the difference between a bar, pub or restaurant then the age requirment law if there is one should apply to everyplace that serves acohol.