Reps/Senators to contact about fixing resturant bill

[Guest HexHead]

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...

Since he's so worried about honky-tonks, then make the law you can't carry where there's live music. But I can think of at least three of my favorite RESTAURANTS I wouldn't be able to carry in because they only serve beer.

[Worriedman]

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

Factual statement.

It all boils down to money. As long as the liqueur industry pumps more of it into the political arena than the gun lobby does, the winds of favor will blow in their direction, not ours. Results are paid for in contributions.

[eapking]

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?

I watched a video of Doug last week, which prompted my email to him. The video was posted here somewhere. Doug actually thinks that people will walk into a place and ask questions (at the door) about what their liquor license is, or look it up on the internet before going in. How crazy is that? Is this really practical?

What other (Southern) states have better carry laws in this regard, 'cause I may have to move there?

[analog_kidd]

I was thinking that just walking into a beer only joint to ask if they sold liquor would be against the law.

Edited December 27, 2009 by analog_kidd
Typo

[GKar]

Heard from three different local legislators this week...each indicated they would be supporting the "simple exemption", and not Sen. Jackson's approach.

[Fallguy]

Heard from three different local legislators this week...each indicated they would be supporting the "simple exemption", and not Sen. Jackson's approach.

If it came to it, would any of them introduce a bill like that?

[GKar]

Likely so. One indicated that there are already plans to introduce such in both chambers, but he didn't say by whom.

[Fallguy]

Likely so. One indicated that there are already plans to introduce such in both chambers, but he didn't say by whom.

[Guest Overtaker]

What are everyone's thoughts on the constitutionality of the restaurant carry law? Many are vocal of the federal government's seizure of power, but do not forget that the states also have their own constitutions to limit government.

The Tennessee Constitution states, "the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime." Exactly what crimes are being prevented by restricting people who have passed background checks and other requirements from carrying in a restaurant?

Does no carry while under-the-influence prevent crime? Yes.

Does no carry for responsible sober citizens eating a meal prevent crime? Not a chance.

Edited December 28, 2009 by Overtaker

[Fallguy]

What are everyone's thoughts on the constitutionality of the restaurant carry law? Many are vocal of the federal government's seizure of power, but do not forget that the states also have their own constitutions to limit government.

The Tennessee Constitution states, "the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime." Exactly what crimes are being prevented by restricting people who have passed background checks and other requirements from carrying in a restaurant?

Does no carry while under-the-influence prevent crime? Yes.

Does no carry for responsible sober citizens eating a meal prevent crime? Not a chance.

Granted a new law could be challenged again and this judge may have a personal bias against handguns around alcohol, but that was not the reason given as to why it was ruled unconstitutional.

[Guest HexHead]

Does no carry for responsible sober citizens eating a meal prevent crime? Not a chance.

While walking to/ from the restaurant it does.

[Guest Overtaker]

Granted a new law could be challenged again and this judge may have a personal bias against handguns around alcohol, but that was not the reason given as to why it was ruled unconstitutional.

Perhaps I should clarify. The legislature may only restrict the carrying of firearms if doing so will prevent crime. All the studies have shown that allowing citizens to carry reduces crime. Has there ever been a case where a legislature has restricted carry for permit holders and it resulted in a reduced crime rate? I'm not aware of any, and permit holders have already proven themselves through background checks that they are not criminals.

The media thought that restricting permit holders from restaurants reduced crime. They thought that permit holders would drink and cause trouble with their firearms when allowed to carry. If that had actually happened, the restriction on restaurant carry would be constitutional because without it, crime increased. However (as it always is) the facts spoke otherwise and there were no shootouts in restaurants, or cases of permit holders robbing the restaurant.

Clearly restricting carry in restaurants has been shown to not prevent crime and therefore it is unconstitutional.

[mcurrier]

Originally Posted by Overtaker

Does no carry for responsible sober citizens eating a meal prevent crime? Not a chance.

While walking to/ from the restaurant it does.

Dude, you mis-read or mis-answered. Either way, we knew what you meant.

[Fallguy]

Perhaps I should clarify. The legislature may only restrict the carrying of firearms if doing so will prevent crime. All the studies have shown that allowing citizens to carry reduces crime. Has there ever been a case where a legislature has restricted carry for permit holders and it resulted in a reduced crime rate? I'm not aware of any, and permit holders have already proven themselves through background checks that they are not criminals.

The media thought that restricting permit holders from restaurants reduced crime. They thought that permit holders would drink and cause trouble with their firearms when allowed to carry. If that had actually happened, the restriction on restaurant carry would be constitutional because without it, crime increased. However (as it always is) the facts spoke otherwise and there were no shootouts in restaurants, or cases of permit holders robbing the restaurant.

Clearly restricting carry in restaurants has been shown to not prevent crime and therefore it is unconstitutional.

I agree....

On my interpretation of Section I, Article 26 of the TN constitution there out to be very, very few restrictions on firearms. Pretty much if you can legally buy it you should be able to legally carry it without any interference from the state.