Reps/Senators to contact about fixing resturant bill

[Fallguy]

I am going to email him back asking for a list of reps/senators who voted for the old law, but wouldn't vote for a blanket carry where alcohol is served. If we get a list we can start targeting those people and hopefully get other reps/senators to help nudge them in the "right" direction.

Matthew

See here..

Bill Votes

Bill Votes

[macville]

One problem though is not every place that serves beer only is a tavern or honky tonk.

I know this is a bit selfish, but considering the county I live in doesn't have liquor by the drink and only about one county within an hours drive of me does, I would rather see all or nothing. Because carrying in liquor only places is not going to help me as much.

I brought that very point up. Here's what I wrote him addressing that very point:

Dear Senator Jackson, I just watched the news report on WSMV's website about you introducing a new "carry where alcohol is served" law for the next session and I wanted to let you that what you described I find FAR more confusing than the struck down law. What you are proposing makes restaurants which are truly "restaurants" in dry liquor counties (like Rhea County) or outside the city limits in a county (like Yea Old Stake House in Knox County or Big Ed's in Oak Ridge which can only serve beer) off limits to those of us with permits when they were not before. I ask you, why should I be able to carry in Applebees, but not Yea Old Stake House or Big Ed's? Because if what you propose goes through, that's exactly what would happen.

In my mind, here's what it boils down to. Alcohol is alcohol, correct? Liquor, wine, and beer are just different flavors of alcohol. If I am not allowed to drink while carrying, why does it matter what flavor of alcohol is served or where it is served? If a permit holder is going to drink while carrying, none of it really matter because it will still have the same exact effect on the person and they will still be breaking the law. If you are going to trust us to not drink in some places, then what is so magical about these other places which serve the same alcohol that would somehow entice us to drink? If you answer anything in this email, I would love to hear you explain that because simply put, if you can trust us in one place, you should be able to trust us any place alcohol is served. This is why I want to see no restrictions on carry where alcohol is served.

John Harris of the Tennessee Firearms Association has come up with great wording for fixing the law. It so simple that anyone who can do all the paperwork/class/etc for an HCP can figure out, not to mention LEO's, AD's, Judges, and owners of businesses that serve alcohol. Simply add to 39-17-1305 section "C" the following, "(3) authorized to carry a weapon pursuant to TCA 39-17-1351." That would allow those of us with permits to legally carry anywhere alcohol is served. Nothing else is needed.

In regards to those restaurant owners, like Austin Ray and Randy Rayburn who sued over the law, you, and the rest of our elected officials, need to tell them that you're not there to wipe their butts. They are adults and can figure out that TN 39-17-1359 allows them to post against legal carry in their restaurants. If they CAN NOT figure that out, then should they really hold a liquor or beer license?

Also, about what you said for stiffing penalties for drinking while carrying. The law needs to be better defined before we start stiffing penalties. Currently, the law only says it's illegal to carry if "under the influence of alcohol." But what does that exactly mean? Under the DUI law, it clearly states that you are only "under the influence" if you have a BAC of .08% or more. Does the law mean if I am at home, drink one beer, and then go out an hour and a half later to the store that I am committing a crime since I possibly could still be "under the influence", even though I was never legally drunk and not even close to it? We let people operate vehicles after drinking up to a certain amount, and there are FAR more people who drive than legally carry a gun. What about someone taking communion at church with wine? If the judge thought the old restaurant law was vague, what does this law mean?

Let me put it this way, if I had a beer and you couldn't smell my breath, could you tell I had been drinking at all? The very definition of "influence" says that it is, "things to be a compelling force on or PRODUCE EFFECTS on the actions, behavior, opinions, etc." If you can't tell through physical or auditory signs that a person has had anything to drink, then are they under the influence? It just strikes me as totally illogical that we will let people drive a device that weighs over 1 ton with a BAC of .08%, but so it seems that having a BAC of even .01% is illegal with a HCP--even if you are walking down a street harming no one. It makes absolutely no logical sense to me. I'm not saying that we should make it legal to drink and carry (although, that's legal in Utah up to BAC .08% and I haven't found a single report of an incident from the entire state), but we should examine what "under the influence" actually means.

Thank you for your time and I look forward to your response.

[Fallguy]

Well written, look forward to his response...

[macville]

See here..

Bill Votes

Bill Votes

I'm not sure how helpful that information is. I can't remember if the law got more restrictive or less as it went through the process. I guess it probably means that the law got "loser" as it went through as these people voted no against it: Ford, Ford, & Stewart and these are the people who simply didn't vote the for the override (probably couldn't make the vote) Bunch, Southerland.

As for the reps none that voted for HB0962 on May 7th switched their votes. The extra votes that were added against the override seem to be votes of people who simply where not at the original vote, and that's true for both sides as we GAINED a few votes for the law.

Here's the thing, the vote before doesn't tell me if they would support such a wide carry law. Jackson may be right that some of these people would not support such a law. That's why I think, to be frank, that we are going to have to ask everyone who supported the override if they would support such a change. If they don't, then we target them heavy and don't waste our time on people who are already on our side.

Matthew

[Fallguy]

I'm not sure how helpful that information is. I can't remember if the law got more restrictive or less as it went through the process. I guess it probably means that the law got "loser" as it went through as these people voted no against it: Ford, Ford, & Stewart and these are the people who simply didn't vote the for the override (probably couldn't make the vote) Bunch, Southerland.

As for the reps none that voted for HB0962 on May 7th switched their votes. The extra votes that were added against the override seem to be votes of people who simply where not at the original vote, and that's true for both sides as we GAINED a few votes for the law.

Here's the thing, the vote before doesn't tell me if they would support such a wide carry law. Jackson may be right that some of these people would not support such a law. That's why I think, to be frank, that we are going to have to ask everyone who supported the override if they would support such a change. If they don't, then we target them heavy and don't waste our time on people who are already on our side.

Matthew

The final bill was less restrictive than what was introduced. The first bill had a curfew and age limit...at least the house version did.

Also some of the votes on the whether to send it to conference and to override the veto were more political than how they truly felt about the bill.

The final vote alone doesn't tell you who would support a 100% clean bill or not, but it does give you those that were in favor of the old bill and one could contact them to see if they would support a clean bill. I'm not sure Sen Jackson would individual contact each person and most likely for sure not members of the House.

I just thought this could be a starting point.

[Guest HexHead]

Well written, look forward to his response...

So would I. I sent him this on the 17th and haven't gotten a response yet, and he's usually pretty good about responding to my emails. Maybe he's adjusting his thinking on the bill?

I finally got to watch the WSMV video from the other night where you were describing the logic of the newly proposed bill, to counter Chancellor Bonneyman's decision. I was distressed at the "if they only serve beer, you can't carry" part. Not because I like going to beer joints, but because I like going to restaurants like Baja Fresh at the Green Hills Mall. They have a little ice cooler between the registers on the counter with maybe a half dozen bottles of beer along with the bottled water. It's ludicrous that I wouldn't be able to carry there, in what is clearly a restaurant.

Clearly, there has to be a better alternative. You may recall at one point I suggested changing the six words the Chancellor had a problem with, "who's principal business is serving meals", to just "where meals are served".

In an ideal world, changing the bill to just allow carry anywhere alcohol is served or anywhere not prohibited by statute period would be better, but I understand the political realities of getting something like that passed. I'd also prefer restaurants not be able to post, as there's lots of other things they are required to do where the business owner has no discretion, and I think this should be one of them.

I do applaude your proposal for stiffer penalties for drinking while carrying. I think that's a good idea and may better satisfy some of the anti-gun naysayers complaint about the previous effort. I also applaud your mentioning in an earlier email that any signage will have to be precise to comply with the law. But I think just carrying in a posted location should be decriminalized to where they can only ask you to leave, and if you don't comply, then you're in trouble for tresspassing. A person shouldn't face jail or a large fine because they didn't feel the parking lot was a safe place to leave their handgun.

Thanks again for your efforts,

[macville]

Well written, look forward to his response...

Your talking about my writing? Not sure anyone (especially my wife) has ever said that before!

I posted above what I got back from him the first time. Here's my response to his response and then his very last email as of this morning.

Senator Jackson, thank you for taking the time to write me back. I truly appreciate your effort in getting the original law passed, and what you are doing to try and get the law reinstated.

What exactly do you think will come up in the committee that will be a concern for blocking unrestricted carry? Do you have, or be willing to write up a list of people who voted for the original restaurant law but who you think wouldn't vote for an all encompassing carry law? If you don't feel like that wise for you to do, I totally understand, just let me know and I will contact each person who voted for the law and ask them personally if they would vote for such a clear law. I know that the talk at tngunowners.com and tfaonline.org has been that every rep & senator who has been asked about such a law said they would support it as written. So you might be surprised at the support you might get for such a law.

I understand what you are trying to do with the law, but I, and every single person I've talked to, think if it's written as you described in the report, it will be even more confusing than before. Therefore, because it seems to be more confusing, it has great chance struck down just like the old law. Just for kicks and giggles I looked up the Knoxville Civic Center the other night before I went to a hockey game to see if carry would be allowed to carry there if your bill got passed. It took me quite a while to find liquor licenses on the state website (that would have to be fixed), but low and behold, it seems like it would be legal to carry there because they operate under a liquor license--even though they only sell beer at the games. To me, that's pretty confusing considering what you said. Now granted, I haven't see the wording of what you are proposing, so that technically may not be covered, but right now at face value it seems very confusing. But I think that's why people are riled up about. Both our Federal gov along with our State gov are shrouded in secrecy and confusion. To be honest, I think if you actually released the wording you are proposing, you might actually help us get a ground campaign going to get a truly "clean" law ultimately passed.

The mood among all the other permit holders I've talked to right now is go for broke. We feel that almost all the dems and repubs who voted for the original law can be talked into voting for such a law if it will get up for a vote. But again, as I said above, we need to know exactly what the concerns are in committee so we can hammer away on those point.

Civic centers and sports arenas are issued liquor licenses under a separate statutory provision and are not covered by the proposed bill or the previous restaurant carry law.

Issues and concerns of many members and the public are numerous and obvious. I advised John Harris to discuss it with Speakers Ramsey and Williams.

Unrestricted carry would be an unattainable political goal at this time.......but then again, what do I know?

So while he's more certainly on our side, he's not going to push the issue far enough. It seems silly to not push at least for all the way and then if it absolutely will not get passed, then settle for what he's proposing. What he's doing now, I'm afraid will get us absolutely nothing. It seems strange to me that technically we got a clean bill last time even though amendments were added then removed (the time restrictions taken off, etc.)and he doesn't think we can get a clean bill through this time. That's why it's VERY important that we find out where people stand on a clean bill. They may all think like Jackson that it will never get passed--not realizing that they have plenty of support for it.

Matthew

[Guest HexHead]

It seems strange to me that technically we got a clean bill last time even though amendments were added then removed (the time restrictions taken off, etc.)and he doesn't think we can get a clean bill through this time. That's why it's VERY important that we find out where people stand on a clean bill. They may all think like Jackson that it will never get passed--not realizing that they have plenty of support for it.

Matthew

I've been saying since Bonneyman's decision it was likely to be a lot harder to take the legislative path this time. While we will likely maintain the votes of the fervent supporters, but to get the kind of majority numbers we got last time, a lot of "fence sitters" came out on our side. With all the horrible press the last bill got, I'm not so sure we can count on their support this time around. I'd say Sen Jackson is probably right that an unrestricted bill is probably politically unfeasible at this time. He doesn't do this for a hobby and knows all the players.

Personally, I think the path of least resistance is to just change the wording of the one sentence Bonneyman had a problem with, but nobody that counts is listening to me.

I'm really disappointed, though not surprised, that the AG has seen fit not to appeal the ruling. That should have been going on concurrent with the legislative actions and one or the other could have been pulled upon a successful outcome.

I'm beginning to feel like we've been sold out and got to enjoy our brief time in the sun.

[Worriedman]

From the Western side of the State, Johnny Shaw is my Rep., no chance he would support this, he voted with Naifeh against it at every chance.

Still trying to contact Sen. Lowe Finney, he was on the Conference Committee that nixed the age restriction and curfew, voted for final passage and override, but so far have not been able to get him on the phone.

Here is his response to my original e-mail:

Richard,

I am glad to talk with you about this issue any time. Please call me in my Jackson office at your convenience.

Lowe

I have called and left messages several times, without result so far.

[Fallguy]

It is looking like Sen Jackson would not even introduce a simple exemption bill, so then that brings up the question...would anyone else be willing to introduce such a bill? If so would Jackson still introduce his?

If two bills are introduced I feel the clean bill may not get much traction, because in comparison it would be considered more radical and Jackson may have better contacts.

So I think if we can't convince Sen Jackson to introduce a simple exemption bill, it may be over before it begins.

Has anyone talked with Rep Todd about any of this?

[RinTN]

...

I'm really disappointed, though not surprised, that the AG has seen fit not to appeal the ruling. That should have been going on concurrent with the legislative actions and one or the other could have been pulled upon a successful outcome.

I'm beginning to feel like we've been sold out and got to enjoy our brief time in the sun.

I agree on both parts. I've not heard a single good reason for the lack of an appeal. Sure, there's no way to know if it would work or not. But, the same is true for new legislation.

[Worriedman]

Absolutely no chance the AG is going to file an appeal, this is what his string pullers wanted in the first place. The Administration vetoed the Bill, why on earth would they turn around an file an appeal?

[Oh Shoot]

... I've not heard a single good reason for the lack of an appeal.

- Robert Cooper (AG) is appointed by State Supreme Court

- Phil Bredesen has installed 4 of the 5 current Supreme Court judges

- Phil Bredesen is against "Guns in Bars" vetoed the passed bill

- Robert Cooper has issued opinions that support handgun carry statutes in the absolute narrowest interpretation possible

- Would you assume that Robert Cooper would be real hot to try to overturn the ban against the statute by filing an appeal?

- OS

[Oh Shoot]

oops, double tap

[Guest HexHead]

Holy Crap! I can't believe it!!!

State appeals guns-in-restaurants ruling

Davidson County court overturned law last month

BY MICHAEL CASS • THE TENNESSEAN • DECEMBER 22, 2009

The state attorney general's office is appealing a recent court ruling that overturned a law allowing licensed handgun owners to take their weapons into restaurants that serve alcohol.

Attorney General Robert E. Cooper's office filed notice to the Tennessee Court of Appeals today. Davidson County Chancellor Claudia Bonnyman ruled on Nov. 20 that the law, passed by the General Assembly last spring over Gov. Phil Bredesen's veto, was unconstitutionally vague.

The law, which was in effect for about four months, allowed handgun carry permit holders to take their guns into restaurants and bars that served alcohol as long as they didn't drink and the establishments' owners didn't post signs prohibiting them. State Sen. Doug Jackson, a lead sponsor, recently said he's working on new legislation to allow guns into places that serve liquor by the drink.

"The state is wasting more of our taxpayer dollars on this ridiculous law," said Will Cheek, an attorney for the plaintiffs who sued to overturn the law.

[Worriedman]

Will wonders never cease?

How do we find out the content of the filing?

[Oh Shoot]

Well hush my mouth!!!!

I'm glad nobody offered me a bet. I would have given odds, too!

- OS

[Worriedman]

Wish I was smart enough to see where the trap door to that Trojan Horse is!

[Guest HexHead]

Somebody on Capitol Hill must read TGO.

[RinTN]

- Robert Cooper (AG) is appointed by State Supreme Court

- Phil Bredesen has installed 4 of the 5 current Supreme Court judges

- Phil Bredesen is against "Guns in Bars" vetoed the passed bill

- Robert Cooper has issued opinions that support handgun carry statutes in the absolute narrowest interpretation possible

- Would you assume that Robert Cooper would be real hot to try to overturn the ban against the statute by filing an appeal?

- OS

While I assume that these all are true, I wouldn't say that any are a *good* reason. The only way we'll know if an appeal is a good thing is to have one. But, none of these puts us in any worse position if the appeal fails.

[Oh Shoot]

While I assume that these all are true, I wouldn't say that any are a *good* reason. The only way we'll know if an appeal is a good thing is to have one. But, none of these puts us in any worse position if the appeal fails.

All moot now, since AG actually HAS appealed, and I'm really amazed by that.

Can only assume that he is seeing something in the wind to his advantage to do so, looking past Bredesen.

- OS

Edited December 23, 2009 by OhShoot

[Worriedman]

Personally think it is an effort to get the populace to back off the lynch mob mentality with the Legislature. Then the appeal fails and we are back to square one.

[eapking]

Somebody on Capitol Hill must read TGO.

Hex, I wrote Doug an email late last week. He took a few days to reply. He was just on NRA (Cam & Co.) tonight. You can tell he's irritated at those of us who've written criticizing the new legislation he's proposing. I thought my email was fairly tame, and short. I just questioned the need to distinguish between a "beer only place" and one that serves liquor. In his reply he said that allowing carry in a "honky-tonk" is never going to fly politically. I think he'll get back to you. We'll see where this goes.

[Guest HexHead]

Hex, I wrote Doug an email late last week. He took a few days to reply. He was just on NRA (Cam & Co.) tonight. You can tell he's irritated at those of us who've written criticizing the new legislation he's proposing. I thought my email was fairly tame, and short. I just questioned the need to distinguish between a "beer only place" and one that serves liquor. In his reply he said that allowing carry in a "honky-tonk" is never going to fly politically. I think he'll get back to you. We'll see where this goes.

Well, he needs to get over it then.

Just tonight I was commenting to my wife over dinner about how stupid his proposal is. We went to Neely's for BBQ. I was telling her how under that proposal we could carry into Jim & Nick's for dinner, but not Neely's. It's just dumb and I can't believe that's the best they can come up with?

[Fallguy]

I have to agree.....a bill allowing carry in places that serve liquor by the drink is pretty much the same as the one that was ruled vauge.

I mean other than the days of the week they had to be open the definition of a restaurant in 39-17-1305 was the same as what it is to get a restaurant liquor by the drink license. Except the void law would allow carry in places that served beer only if they still met the definition.

Why is it ok to carry around liquor, but not beer?

As much as the firearms laws are screwed up in TN, the alcohol laws aren't much better...