Restaurant Carry Law ruled Void!

[Guest Gun Geek]

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.

+1 I was waiting for someone to say that.

And correct me here but if my memory serves me correctly from Intro to Law. A state court cannot rule a law unconstitutional. When question of Constitutionality arises the case must be heard in a federal court. The only way that I could think this would be possible is if they were talking about the state constitution.

[pitt2magic]

While we may disagree with the ruling, that's part of the system of checks and balances. The legislature can pass a law. The executive (governor) can veto, and can in turn be over-ridden. The judicial branch reviews a law and determines whether it meets constitutional muster. If it doesn't then the legislative branch gets to start over and try to pass a law that does meet the constitution. That's how the system works.

Not quite to way it works. Checks and balances work between the different legislative branches, not just one member of one branch. I think if the state house and senate put it into place that it should take the state supreme court to over rule. Not just one judge with an agenda. One judge does not make up the judicial branch.

[ngoeser59]

Yesterday was a setback but I believe our Legislators will get this fixed. It's frustrating for all of us who worked so hard for this Law. This is far from over. We just have to keep pushing. We can't become too discouraged. This just means we have to talk to more Lawmakers and talk to the public and educate those that don't understand. Word of mouth is very very powerful. Use it.

http://www.fox17.com/newsroom/top_stori ... 2043.shtml

[Guest redbarron06]

Ok without going to 13+ pages of posts here is my question. OK the Judge said it was unconstitutional, so what. That does not take it off of the books. How many judges ruled DCs gun ban unconstitutional before SCOTUS did and DC did not change the LAW and what was on the books remianed in effect until SCOTUS told them they had to change it and then there was a change made.

So there is a ruling, SO WHAT. The law is still on the books. Until it is repealed or ammended by the legislature and Govenor it is sill the law, correct? If I carry tonight into my local corner mexican place and drink tea while my wife has a margeritta, what are they going to charge me with? Obeying the law??

[cadillacdude1975]

all bars sell alcohol on a liquor license. go figure.

[Guest HexHead]

Ok without going to 13+ pages of posts here is my question. OK the Judge said it was unconstitutional, so what. That does not take it off of the books. How many judges ruled DCs gun ban unconstitutional before SCOTUS did and DC did not change the LAW and what was on the books remianed in effect until SCOTUS told them they had to change it and then there was a change made.

So there is a ruling, SO WHAT. The law is still on the books. Until it is repealed or ammended by the legislature and Govenor it is sill the law, correct? If I carry tonight into my local corner mexican place and drink tea while my wife has a margeritta, what are they going to charge me with? Obeying the law??

Surpas is asking the Metro Law Dept. that same question, on how to enforce the ruling?

[Guest .45]

wow... "sigh"...

unbelievable, but sadly enough, not really shocking news...

two things:

1) has there been a SINGLE documented case of a gun crime being committed in a bar/restaurant by an HCP holder since the law went into effect? betcha there hasn't...

2) the NRA better get involved in this, or I'm never sending them another red cent of my $$$....

.45

[Guest redbarron06]

Surpas is asking the Metro Law Dept. that same question, on how to enforce the ruling?

Just my point. until the actuall law is changed the way I see it I am still legal carrying. I am sure there is a flaw here somewhere in my thinking but I would like somebody to tell me where it is.

[Wingshooter]

Ok without going to 13+ pages of posts here is my question. OK the Judge said it was unconstitutional, so what. That does not take it off of the books. How many judges ruled DCs gun ban unconstitutional before SCOTUS did and DC did not change the LAW and what was on the books remianed in effect until SCOTUS told them they had to change it and then there was a change made.

So there is a ruling, SO WHAT. The law is still on the books. Until it is repealed or ammended by the legislature and Govenor it is sill the law, correct? If I carry tonight into my local corner mexican place and drink tea while my wife has a margeritta, what are they going to charge me with? Obeying the law??

I was thinking about the same thing; however, I found this on TN's web site:

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.

Handgun Carry Permits

[Wingshooter]

The irony in this ruling is amazing. So a constitutional right is unconstitutional?

I know the ruling is more about vague wording rather than the right to bear arms, but I am not sure this ruling would stand the test of the Supreme Court.

Besides, if vague wording is unconstitutional then I guess we have nothing to worry about with this government health care plan.

[Guest redbarron06]

I was thinking about the same thing; however, I found this on TN's web site:

I dont put all my trust into TNs official web site. If you look at the site for DNR it also says that SBRs and suppressors are illegal in the state there for illegal to hunt with but there is no law saying so and SBRs and cans are legal if you have the tax stamp. I would also bring up the question that basicly this is a change in the law and just like we had to wait 30 days for it to take effect it would also take 30 days for this to take effect.

I have heard from some folks that a stay has been granted for 30 days for the senate and house to fix the wording of the law but have not found a reference for it.

We should all contact our reps and have this fixed right away. My idea would be strike the phrase 51% of food sales and in that place put "any establishment that has a state issued liquer, wine, or food serving license". That makes it very clear. Not vague at all. in order to get the permit they have to sell 51%. If they arent they are breaking the law not us.

I still ask the question "What are they going to charge me with?" If I pull out a copy of the TCA the verbage that allows me to carry is still there.

[Guest cjr]

They havent sent me anything in the mail about this,I know they have my address because Im an HCP holder.

[Wingshooter]

I dont put all my trust into TNs official web site. If you look at the site for DNR it also says that SBRs and suppressors are illegal in the state there for illegal to hunt with but there is no law saying so and SBRs and cans are legal if you have the tax stamp. I would also bring up the question that basicly this is a change in the law and just like we had to wait 30 days for it to take effect it would also take 30 days for this to take effect.

I have heard from some folks that a stay has been granted for 30 days for the senate and house to fix the wording of the law but have not found a reference for it.

We should all contact our reps and have this fixed right away. My idea would be strike the phrase 51% of food sales and in that place put "any establishment that has a state issued liquer, wine, or food serving license". That makes it very clear. Not vague at all. in order to get the permit they have to sell 51%. If they arent they are breaking the law not us.

I still ask the question "What are they going to charge me with?" If I pull out a copy of the TCA the verbage that allows me to carry is still there.

You could be right. I won't test it, but it seems a little unconstitutional for a lower court to trump the legislature and knock it back to square one.

I just re-read the article. It is encouraging that Sen. Jackson mentioned introducing legislation next week to fix it. I'm hopeful but not holding my breath...

Sen. Doug Jackson, D-Dickson and the chief Senate sponsor, said he expects the law to be restored either through appeals or through legislation.

"I anticipate the first of next week you're going to see legislation filed and we'll establish a clear standard," he said.

[Guest redbarron06]

You could be right. I won't test it, but it seems a little unconstitutional for a lower court to trump the legislature and knock it back to square one.

I just re-read the article. It is encouraging that Sen. Jackson mentioned introducing legislation next week to fix it. I'm hopeful but not holding my breath...

I am sure it will be introduced right away but I am also sure it will have to go through committy, debate, the house, the senate, Bredisons office where it will sit and be held until the last day for another veto, then back through both the senate and house again to have the veto overturned and then another 30 days until it goes into effect.

the bright side is that when arguments start all over again agaist it that we will have the ability to say look and see what did not happen while it was in effect.

[Oh Shoot]

...

I have heard from some folks that a stay has been granted for 30 days for the senate and house to fix the wording of the law but have not found a reference for it.

We should all contact our reps and have this fixed right away.

Umm...the legislature doesn't re-convene until 1st of the year.

You think they'd all come to Nashville earlier just to "fix" this?

Right.

And of course, if they DO allow a clean statue for carry in alcohol serving establishments, Bredesen will veto it, and whether there are enough votes this time around to override, dunno. Whatever happens, it won't be quick, and it won't happen till first of the year, unless I'm really missing the boat on something.

Maybe a higher court could override it before then, IF the state appeals it.

- OS

[TMMT]

Bar Owners React to Strike Against Guns in Bars

A Chancery Court judge ruled Friday that Tennessee's law allowing permitted handgun carriers to bring their guns into certain bars is unconstitutional. It was a huge victory for restaurant owners who took aim at the law as soon as state legislators passed it.

Attorney David Randolph Smith says, "The great thing about our system is that a judge can declare something unconstitutional to protect the constitutional right and in effect have a judicial review of legislative action."

However, some restaurant owners aren't happy about the change.

John Chaffin, owner of Chaffin's Barn says the law improved his restaurant's security.

Chaffin says, "When somebody comes into my restaurant to rob the place and i have been robbed. They see a sign that says anybody in there can be carrying a gun they have to think twice about whether or not the guy sitting next to them is actually toting."

Chaffin wants state lawmakers to craft a new law next year that will stand up in court.

John Chaffin says, "I certainly hope it gets overturned in January... but we're going to heaer a lot more about it."

Though Roberts Western World and surrounding downtown Nashville honky tonks don't fit the requirements that would've allowed guns inside, owner Jesse Lee Jones doesn't believe this ruling makes much of a difference for troublemakers.

Jesse Lee Jones says, "The criminals are not going to need a permit. and they're not going to ask my permission to walk into Roberts or anywhere else and carry the weapon."

Smith says the problem is all bars in Tennessee serve food.

The controversial law said: as long the majority of a bar's income came from food sales and not alcohol sales, Tennessees 257-thousand-plus permitted handgun carriers could bring their weapons inside.

Smith pointed out in court that people don't alwyas know how much food a bar serves and therefore could never really tell if they were breaking the law.

WZTV FOX 17/Nashville

[TMMT]

Welcome To Chaffin's Barn

[strickj]

wow... "sigh"...

unbelievable, but sadly enough, not really shocking news...

two things:

1) has there been a SINGLE documented case of a gun crime being committed in a bar/restaurant by an HCP holder since the law went into effect? betcha there hasn't...

2) the NRA better get involved in this, or I'm never sending them another red cent of my $$$....

.45

1) Yes,and no.

Not since it went into effect(as long as thats been ) but before,yes.

2) That's the spirit!

Edited November 22, 2009 by strickj

[Guest bkelm18]

1) Yes,and no.

Not since it went into affect(as long as thats been ) but before,yes.

2) That's the spirit!

You're use of denotes sarcasm.

[jtluttrell]

A poll in the Times Free Press sunday: Do you think the guns in bars law is unconstitutional? Yes:25% No:75%

[Guest HexHead]

It is encouraging that Sen. Jackson mentioned introducing legislation next week to fix it. I'm hopeful but not holding my breath...

He emailed me yesterday and said he'd be filing legislation on Monday (23rd) that will include a very clear and concise defining a restaurant. I'm anxious to see the wording.

[Guest redbarron06]

He emailed me yesterday and said he'd be filing legislation on Monday (23rd) that will include a very clear and concise defining a restaurant. I'm anxious to see the wording.

Good deal We need to get this done and put to bed quickly.

[Guest HexHead]

the bright side is that when arguments start all over again agaist it that we will have the ability to say look and see what did not happen while it was in effect.

Liberals don't let FACT get in the way of their wild imaginations and projecting.

[Guest HexHead]

Good deal We need to get this done and put to bed quickly.

Yes, but like you said....

I am sure it will be introduced right away but I am also sure it will have to go through committy, debate, the house, the senate, Bredisons office where it will sit and be held until the last day for another veto, then back through both the senate and house again to have the veto overturned and then another 30 days until it goes into effect.

And that's a best case scenario. Also, as pointed out, the legislature doesn't reconvene until January. I don't see a special session over the holiday for this, but at least the legislation will be filed and at the top of the list when they reconvene.

As I've said before though, while Jackson and Curry are on board, I just don't know about the rest of the "AYE" votes we got last time? Unless the Legislature feel like they were "disrespected" by Bonneyman, I think it's going to be a tougher road this time around. They may not be as willing to spend the time on it this time knowing it'll immediately be challenged in court again. In Chancery court again.

[ngoeser59]

The Attorney General wants to review the transcript and decide. He did say the court erred. But it may have to go back through the Legislative process for a fix. Either way, this will become Law. It's frustrating but it is soooo worth fighting for. This Law is very important to me on a personal level. Let's get ready to R-U-M-B-L-E!!! Use your anger as a tool to educate those that don't understand this Law. Do it in a postive way. The more you talk about this and have your friends and family talk about this....the better it will be for us all. Start talking....everywhere.