Kent Williams wants to wait on our rights

[dunndw]

Tennessee House Speaker Kent Williams wants the legislature to wait until the guns-in-bars law that was struck down by a Nashville judge in November works its way through the courts before trying to re-approve the law.

If the legislature agrees with Williams, Tennessee's 257,000 gun-carry permit holders — and the millions more in other states whose permits are recognized by Tennessee — will have to wait for months before they can legally carry their guns into places serving alcohol in the Volunteer State.

The law that allowed permit holders to go armed in places serving alcohol — unless the owner posts signs banning guns on his property — passed last year. In November, it was struck down as unconstitutionally vague in a ruling on a lawsuit by restaurant owners.

State Attorney General Robert Cooper served notice last month that he will appeal the ruling. Until that's settled, it's illegal to go armed into any restaurant or bar serving alcohol, with a permit or not.

While reaffirming his support for handgun-carry permit holders, Williams, R-Elizabethton, said he'd prefer that the legislature wait and not "spin its wheels" on the issue until the courts make their final ruling.

Legislative sponsors of the bill — Rep. Curry Todd, R-Collierville, and Sen. Doug Jackson, D-Dickson — planned to try to pass a rewritten version of the bill quickly to restore the law before the courts act on the appeal.

[Guest bkelm18]

You're assuming the new bill would have a snowball's chance in hell. Personally I think it wouldn't and we might end up with worse than we had. Personally I would like to see this work out in the courts.

[analog_kidd]

Given the choice between Jackson's "Beer Joint" proposed bill or waiting on the courts, I'd prefer waiting. That bill is horrible.

My gut tells me the courts will rule in our favor, but then again, you never know.

[Guest HexHead]

Okay, I gotta say it.....

DELAY DELAY DELAY

What'd I tell you guys?

You do both and see which one makes it to the finish line first.

[tntnixon]

Okay, I gotta say it.....

DELAY DELAY DELAY

What'd I tell you guys?

You do both and see which one makes it to the finish line first.

Amen, brother. Does anybody here know how long it takes to get a case through the appeals process? IT TAKES YEARS!!!!!!!!! We've been waiting long enough. This, my friends, is a ploy not to vote anything controversial during a election year. So they can speak out of both sides of their mouths.

[Guest 270win]

The appeals process is a long process. I think that the law passed last year was a well written law and easy to understand because the liquor law is totally different than weapons law....so should stand up in appealate court. If it didn't stand up in appeals, then EVERY weapons law could be challenged and struck down as vague, and the courts do not want that.

The simpler way would be to give an exemption to off duty police/prison guards, security guards on duty (whether or not employed by the liquor licensee...someone working on a protection detail or lunch break shouldn't risk a fine), those with handgun carry permits. Maybe even judges to make them happy, since they can presently carry without a permit...that way everyone wins. But simple solutions are often too complicated for those who write the laws....look at how off duty police are supposed to 'notify' the principal when they are carrying on school property!

[macville]

This is why we need to push and push hard for a clean and simple carry bill--anywhere alcohol is served.

I thought of a good point that I am going to push with all the people who voted for the veto. Simply put, it's been illegal to drink while carrying since day one of the handgun permits. If someone with an HCP was going to drink and carry, AKA go into a place that serves alcohol and drink illegally wouldn't they have already done so before it was legal for the few months to carry in a few places? What I am saying is that there's never been a report, that I can find, that had someone with an HCP caught out drinking OR even simply being in a place that served alcohol when it wasn't legal.

Matthew

[ngoeser59]

After much thought on this I have to say I would like to see this get worked out in the Court system. My reasoning for this is the following... It is an Election year and this Bill is a very sensitive issue and controversial. There are many many democrats that of course hate this piece of legislation. There are some republicans that sway to the left a little that will not want to bring it up again. Basically, maybe we should sit on it this year within the Legislature & let the Courts work on it and make for damn sure that the Republicans have the majority once this election is over and then ladies & gentlemen.....we can get it passed through Committee, House & Senate just as smooth as butter. Sure we could try and get it passed again this Session but with all the negative media spinning this Bill (which they will do again) have no doubt, we could end up with the Democrats in the majority. Naifeh does not have control now. So we have to play SMART. This Bill will be passed-It will. But if we risk it and even if it passes this session and it costs Republican seats...then the Democrats will come back in and take it all away from us. The district lines will be re-drawn to suit the Dems and then we won't have a snowballs chance in hell. For the first time in 140 years we can get the right guys in control and have good legislation passed! Patience is a virtue. Believe me, nobody wants this more than ME. But it has to be a strategy. Let's make sure the Republicans have a strong hold and then we can have everything we want the way we want it. Patience. I SAY DELAY!!!

[ngoeser59]

and believe me....I understand those right to carry permit holders that would look at this and say....oh I see how it works....it's an election year and now all of a sudden you are gonna change your mind on us. Now seats are more important than public safety and the 2nd Amendment! THAT IS NOT TRUE. It is simply a matter of being a little patient and being smart about it so that we get what we want in the end. I just hope nobody gets hurt or killed like my Ben did while we are being patient. It's tough. I know. I struggle with it. But a good solid Restaurant Carry Law is what we want. I promise ya'....we will get it. But people like us here at TGO need to all understand the game. We all have a stake in this. Let's support our guys at the Legislature. They have us all in mind.

[DavidD]

I hope you are right Nikki. I will try to be patient, but we'll have to work on Hex

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I guess I still don't understand. Legislation still seems to be the expedient and the right course of action with the correct language in it. One judge has already been swayed by politics on this issue. Why not clean up the language and pass a bill, as opposed to

letting another judge play activist? Aren't most of our judges liberals? Do you really expect a different decision from another judge? Can you pick who hears the case? Carry should be permitted everywhere except jails and courtrooms. Maybe one or two

other places but not like this opt out junk. A simple, clean bill would also tell you which politician needs to go out the door quicker. "Bear arms" is the right. If the lawful owner has it he should be able to carry it anyway. The responsibility of how he uses it

is his, also. The regulation just further diminishes his right. A clean, simple bill couldn't be struck down in the future if it was solely based on the 2nd Amendment right. The rest is just politics to me. Simple, just, laws are the hardest to refute.

[Worriedman]

A clean bill, stating that Handgun Carry Permit holders are allowed to carry anywhere alcohol is served is what we need. We will not get it with this legislature. Too many of the sitting members are ignorant of the Constitution, lack the backbone to uphold it if they do understand it, or simply believe that they are above the oath they took to uphold it, and whatever it says is irrelevant.

It is simple really, the Second Amendment says that we have the Right to keep and bear arms, there is no specification stating “except where alcohol is served”. That right is not to be infringed. The Tenth Amendment says if it is not delegated to the Federal Government, it is in the purvey of the States to deal with the wearing of arms. Our Tennessee Constitution in Article 1, Section 26 states that we as Citizens have a Right to bear arms for our defense, however the Legislature has power, by law to restrict the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime. As the law here already says that we can not be in possession of a weapon and be under the influence of any alcohol, there is already a restriction on the mixing of alcohol and guns, for the permit holder. Our State Constitution precludes the Legislature from passing laws relative to the wearing of arms without proving that it would reduce crime. There is sufficient empirical data to prove that the carrying of arms by licensed holders in venues that serve alcohol is not a problem, Senator Jackson alluded to this in his speech prior to the override vote, but due to it being an election year, he is now afraid to stand up for the truth.

The people we elect should uphold the Constitutions, they swore an oath or made an affirmation to do so. There is no section of that oath that says “as long as it suits my political agenda”. I had a City Council member in Union City tell me “the Second Amendment don’t mean what it used to”. As long as We the People allow individuals such as this to occupy the seats of Legislative bodies, we will continue to loose our liberties.

They either need to step up, or step aside, and we are at fault if we do not spend every waking minute to change their actions, or their vocations, if they will not adhere to the law.

Edited January 18, 2010 by Worriedman

[RobD]

Here is my questing for all the lawyers out there. If I as an HCP holder (well as soon as the 2 guys at the print farm get back to work anyway and the other two at the post office decide to deliver it) can't walk into a restaurant, do I now count as having "standing" in a case so that I can sue on behalf of my rights?

As to legislation vs letting this work its way through the courts. I feel that we should be pushing on both fronts. I don't see any reason not to use the same tactics the liberals use when trying to overload the system.

I also think a good overwhelming letters to the editors and other public relations campaigns couldn’t hurt either. Let’s give them a real run for their money when it comes to getting the word out!

[ngoeser59]

Senator Jackson is sponsoring and will carry a new Restaurant Carry Bill. Have no doubt about that. He is one of the strongest 2nd Amendment supporters I have ever met. He is a good man and a great Legislator (even though he's a Democrat). Curry Todd will carry the Bill in the House. I just think it may be a better move to let the Courts deal with this during this election year. We may not want to fuel this flame again until we know for damn sure that the Republicans have CONTROL on that Hill. Then we can get the Restaurant Carry Bill passed with flying colors. It is simply delaying the inevitable and being smart about it. I want it NOW also but you have to look at the big picture. Don't give voters reason to give the Dems control in this election. If they get control then we won't get crap passed and for a very LONG TIME. This Bill is sensitive and it scares alot of people who choose not to research the facts. Most people are ignorant when it comes to this and all they hear from the media is Guns in Bars. Strategy my friends....strategy.

[Fallguy]

Senator Jackson is sponsoring and will carry a new Restaurant Carry Bill. Have no doubt about that. He is one of the strongest 2nd Amendment supporters I have ever met. He is a good man and a great Legislator (even though he's a Democrat). Curry Todd will carry the Bill in the House. I just think it may be a better move to let the Courts deal with this during this election year. We may not want to fuel this flame again until we know for damn sure that the Republicans have CONTROL on that Hill. Then we can get the Restaurant Carry Bill passed with flying colors. It is simply delaying the inevitable and being smart about it. I want it NOW also but you have to look at the big picture. Don't give voters reason to give the Dems control in this election. If they get control then we won't get crap passed and for a very LONG TIME. This Bill is sensitive and it scares alot of people who choose not to research the facts. Most people are ignorant when it comes to this and all they hear from the media is Guns in Bars. Strategy my friends....strategy.

With all due respect to Sen Jackson, his new bill that would only allow carry in places that have a restaurant liquor license is more confusing and complicated than the bill/law that was struck down.

Maybe the best plan, although probably the most time consuming, is to follow up on the appeal. Hope that the ruling is reversed, then in the 2011-2012 legislative session (where hopefully there is more prominent Pro-2A majority), introduce a bill that simple removes the part about restaurants.

[DavidD]

With all due respect to Sen Jackson, his new bill that would only allow carry in places that have a restaurant liquor license is more confusing and complicated than the bill/law that was struck down.

I'm with you there Fallguy. When I first heard about this new bill Senator Jackson was proposing I was left scratching my head. How is this any less confusing? My thoughts, why not keep the bill as is and just mandate that any establishment that does not meet the criteria defined in 39-17-1305 (3) ( must post per 39-17-1359. This puts the responsibility on the establishment who would know for sure whether or not they are a restaurant or bar.

[Fallguy]

I'm with you there Fallguy. When I first heard about this new bill Senator Jackson was proposing I was left scratching my head. How is this any less confusing? My thoughts, why not keep the bill as is and just mandate that any establishment that does not meet the criteria defined in 39-17-1305 (3) ( must post per 39-17-1359. This puts the responsibility on the establishment who would know for sure whether or not they are a restaurant or bar.

Well there are sort of two problems with that....

I don't think any owner's like being required to do anything.

...and I think 39-17-1359 using "substantially similar" is more vague than any other firearms law out there.

I had wondered if all the discussion about posting generated from the restaurant carry bill would help address issues about 39-17-1359, but it doesn't appear so.

[DavidD]

.....

It is simple really, the Second Amendment says that we have the Right to keep and bear arms, there is no specification stating “except where alcohol is servedâ€. That right is not to be infringed......

I understand where you are coming from but we are back to the same old argument, what is Infringed and what is regulated? SCOTUS affirmed in Heller that States could in fact regulate the 2A within reason. Take a felon, his 2A rights are in fact infringed. We cannot carry guns onto School Property of into a courthouse during legal proceeding. Are these examples regulated or infringed? Right or wrong, SCOTUS believes they fall under reasonable regulations.

What we have to do is keep fighting the good fight and hope that nut jobs like Kwik stay out of the picture.

[Guest HexHead]

Senator Jackson is sponsoring and will carry a new Restaurant Carry Bill. Have no doubt about that. He is one of the strongest 2nd Amendment supporters I have ever met. He is a good man and a great Legislator (even though he's a Democrat). Curry Todd will carry the Bill in the House. I just think it may be a better move to let the Courts deal with this during this election year. We may not want to fuel this flame again until we know for damn sure that the Republicans have CONTROL on that Hill. Then we can get the Restaurant Carry Bill passed with flying colors. It is simply delaying the inevitable and being smart about it. I want it NOW also but you have to look at the big picture. Don't give voters reason to give the Dems control in this election. If they get control then we won't get crap passed and for a very LONG TIME. This Bill is sensitive and it scares alot of people who choose not to research the facts. Most people are ignorant when it comes to this and all they hear from the media is Guns in Bars. Strategy my friends....strategy.

With all due respect to Sen Jackson, his new bill that would only allow carry in places that have a restaurant liquor license is more confusing and complicated than the bill/law that was struck down.

Maybe the best plan, although probably the most time consuming, is to follow up on the appeal. Hope that the ruling is reversed, then in the 2011-2012 legislative session (where hopefully there is more prominent Pro-2A majority), introduce a bill that simple removes the part about restaurants.

I gotta disagree here. We know we have a majority in the House now, after the election, ??? The Dems only have to pick up 1-2 seats to swing back to power, and one of those could likely be Speaker Williams seat after his stunt last year. We could very easily end up with Naifeh or someone worse as Speaker again. I think waiting can really come back to bite us in the butt.

Considering if a bill to fix the restaurant law was submitted tomorrow, it would likely take the rest of the session to maneuver the same path it took last year. Don't forget, it will be vetoed again by Bredesen. The smart approach would be to hedge our bets and start the legislative action concurrently with the appeal, and if the appeal is in our favor just pull the bill. If not, we're not starting from scratch behind the 8-ball. If successful legislation is passed, the appeal gets pulled. The first one to the finish line wins!

As for Jackson's bill, I don't think the problem with it is the confusion it's likely to cause, but the fact that many, many casual restaurants will suddenly become off-limits to us. This won't be the "guns in bars" bill anymore, it will be the "guns in Pizza Hut" bill.

[Guest HexHead]

Well there are sort of two problems with that....

I don't think any owner's like being required to do anything.

...and I think 39-17-1359 using "substantially similar" is more vague than any other firearms law out there.

I had wondered if all the discussion about posting generated from the restaurant carry bill would help address issues about 39-17-1359, but it doesn't appear so.

We haven't seen any of the proposed legislation, but in an email I received from Sen Jackson (back when he was still corresponding with me), he said that the new bill would require signage with specific language and do away with the "substantially similar" loophole.

And I don't get your aversion to business owners being required to do anything? They're forced to do stuff by regulations all the time. Why should we be any different? Why should we be the group that consistently gets thrown under the bus?

[Fallguy]

Oh I agree the best option is a new "clean" bill that simply exempts HCP holders.

I just haven't seen any legislators talking about introducing such a bill.

Also I'm concerned if Sen Jackson introduces his new bill it would make it even more difficult for a clean bill to move through the process.

EDIT: I don't have an aversion to business owners' being required to post, I'm saying they would and that is something that could be a problem in getting something passed.

[Guest HexHead]

Oh I agree the best option is a new "clean" bill that simply exempts HCP holders.

I just haven't seen any legislators talking about introducing such a bill.

Also I'm concerned if Sen Jackson introduces his new bill it would make it even more difficult for a clean bill to move through the process.

No, the best and easiest option is to just change the single sentence Bonneyman found vague to "places that serve [hot] meals". Anything else is reinventing the wheel and starting from scratch again.

It'll be a lot easier to get that other stuff passed once we've gone a couple of years relatively incident free, just like when the law was relaxed to allow us to carry in places that sold alcohol for off-premises consumption.

People are afraid to even address the existing law and you want to push for a new, looser, clean bill?

[Guest HexHead]

EDIT: I don't have an aversion to business owners' being required to post, I'm saying they would and that is something that could be a problem in getting something passed.

I much prefer NOT giving them the option to post, period. There's lots of other states that do that. At least certainly where the sign has any force of law.

They aren't given a choice about smokers, or whether they want to make their place ADA compliant, why should they be given a choice regarding licensed HCP holders acting in a lawful manner?

[Fallguy]

No, the best and easiest option is to just change the single sentence Bonneyman found vague to "places that serve [hot] meals". Anything else is reinventing the wheel and starting from scratch again.

It'll be a lot easier to get that other stuff passed once we've gone a couple of years relatively incident free, just like when the law was relaxed to allow us to carry in places that sold alcohol for off-premises consumption.

People are afraid to even address the existing law and you want to push for a new, looser, clean bill?

I really don't think it is just the "places that serve hot meals" that makes it vague. Besides the serving of "hot" meals is not in the law.

I'm saying how are you supposed to know if a place has a adequate and sanitary kitchen, if it employs sufficient staff and the such when you are in the parking lot or approaching the door?

...and yes, I'd rather push for a new clean bill or let the current law go through the courts instead of introducing another, still confusing, bill.

[Fallguy]

I much prefer NOT giving them the option to post, period. There's lots of other states that do that. At least certainly where the sign has any force of law.

They aren't given a choice about smokers, or whether they want to make their place ADA compliant, why should they be given a choice regarding licensed HCP holders acting in a lawful manner?

100% agree