Kent Williams wants to wait on our rights

[Guest HexHead]

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.

Apparently Bonneyman disagrees with you....(emphases added)

The

25 Court finds that TCA 39-17-1305© does violate

1 the due process rights of the plaintiffs,

2 generally, the plaintiffs, gun permit holders

3 because the language, "the serving of such meals

4 shall be the principle business conducted,"

5 cannot be known to the ordinary citizen.

So changing the wording to "where meals are served" would satisfy her only objection, that we can't know what their principle business is. I've read through her decision several times and that's it. That was the phrase that she based her "vagueness" decision on.

I added "hot" as a preemptive rebuttal to those that would question beer joints that serve pretzels, chips and hard boiled eggs as "meals".

[DaveTN]

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.

You are in Tennessee, and in Tennessee it is a crime to carry a gun anywhere off your property; let alone in a bar. As soon as you make this a 2nd amendment argument; you have lost.

This is about clarifying the law. The legislature needs to do whatever they are going to do.

[DaveTN]

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?

Because the state won’t give them immunity from civil liability. A business owner should not have to spend one single dime to defend themselves against something you do. If the law is going to force business owners to allow you to carry a gun; then they should step up and provide an enforceable civil liability clause.

[tntnixon]

Because the state won’t give them immunity from civil liability. A business owner should not have to spend one single dime to defend themselves against something you do. If the law is going to force business owners to allow you to carry a gun; then they should step up and provide an enforceable civil liability clause.

This arguement just doesn't fly. The law doesn't present the business owners with any new liability that they didn't already have. The business owners are basically asking for immunity even when they are grossly negligent. Guess what, they're not gonna get that.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

What's immunity from civil liability got to do with it? You have the right to keep and bear. You don't have the right to just go in and shoot, but keep and bear shouldn't be

diminished because you may have to defend yourself. Personal accountability is always paramount, unless you wish to become a criminal. I can't see a difference between going in a restaurant and going into a public park. Where is the difference in liability? Law abiding people carry weapons to defend themselves or their property or possibly others. The criminal element should be the focus. Tort reform shouldn't be just a catch word for only healthcare. A business owner shouldn't already have to spend that dime. That's something to be corrected. Did anyone get shot or killed while

the previous law was in effect? That opt out stuff is an infringment, also, and should be corrected. We seem to forget the criminal, all too often, and laws get passed by mistake that can make us all into criminals.

[Guest HexHead]

Because the state won’t give them immunity from civil liability. A business owner should not have to spend one single dime to defend themselves against something you do. If the law is going to force business owners to allow you to carry a gun; then they should step up and provide an enforceable civil liability clause.

Only if by the same token they are fully liable for anything that happens to you if posting is allowed and they choose to post.

I wouldn't have a problem with that. Of course, since most legislators are lawyers, that will never happen. Just like we'll never see tort reform or caps on medical malpractice.

Edited January 18, 2010 by HexHead

[Fallguy]

Apparently Bonneyman disagrees with you....(emphases added)

The

25 Court finds that TCA 39-17-1305© does violate

1 the due process rights of the plaintiffs,

2 generally, the plaintiffs, gun permit holders

3 because the language, "the serving of such meals

4 shall be the principle business conducted,"

5 cannot be known to the ordinary citizen.

So changing the wording to "where meals are served" would satisfy her only objection, that we can't know what their principle business is. I've read through her decision several times and that's it. That was the phrase that she based her "vagueness" decision on.

I added "hot" as a preemptive rebuttal to those that would question beer joints that serve pretzels, chips and hard boiled eggs as "meals".

No, she doesn't. She doesn't say Hot either.

You're right that she has apparently focused on the serving of meals being the "principal business conducted" therefore my argument to remove what the business does (serving meals, bowling, sports, etc...) from the law period. That way you don't have to know what the primary business is as long as they don't post.

[Guest HexHead]

What's immunity from civil liability got to do with it? You have the right to keep and bear. You don't have the right to just go in and shoot, but keep and bear shouldn't be

diminished because you may have to defend yourself. Personal accountability is always paramount, unless you wish to become a criminal. I can't see a difference between going in a restaurant and going into a public park. Where is the difference in liability? Law abiding people carry weapons to defend themselves or their property or possibly others. The criminal element should be the focus. Tort reform shouldn't be just a catch word for only healthcare.

Why should restauranteurs be given a different status than other business owners? I don't see Walmart making this argument?

[Fallguy]

On the civil liability issue, I agree a business owner shouldn't be held liable for the actions of HCP holder on his property because he allowed the person to carry.

On the flipside, as long as the law allows the property owner to post, I don't think a HCP holder should be able to hold the property owner liable if the HCP holder chose to disarm and enter the business and something happens.

Therefore if the state did prohibit business owner's from posting, they do need to provide some sort of protection for them.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

They shouldn't!

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Yep. Throw the criminal in jail. Disallow frivolous lawsuits filed by criminal elements that

have waived their rights due to becoming a criminal. It's called justice.

[tntnixon]

On the civil liability issue, I agree a business owner shouldn't be held liable for the actions of HCP holder on his property because he allowed the person to carry.

On the flipside, as long as the law allows the property owner to post, I don't think a HCP holder should be able to hold the property owner liable if the HCP holder chose to disarm and enter the business and something happens.

Therefore if the state did prohibit business owner's from posting, they do need to provide some sort of protection for them.

The business owner is not liable for the actions of the gun owner on his/her property. The business owner is only liable for his/her own actions, such as knowingly and intentionally serving alcohol to someone who is carrying a firearm (yes the fact that the business owner did know would be required proof it it went to trial).

So basically only negligence, as Tennessee law has always been, would cause civil liability. Immunity, would prohibit civil suit even in the above action so that's not likely to be passed and shouldn't be.

[Guest HexHead]

The business owner is not liable for the actions of the gun owner on his/her property. The business owner is only liable for his/her own actions, such as knowingly and intentionally serving alcohol to someone who is carrying a firearm (yes the fact that the business owner did know would be required proof it it went to trial).

So basically only negligence, as Tennessee law has always been, would cause civil liability. Immunity, would prohibit civil suit even in the above action so that's not likely to be passed and shouldn't be.

I gotta admit, this makes more sense. Like I said, we don't give other businesses additional protections in this regard, so why create a special class of business owner?

[Fallguy]

The business owner is not liable for the actions of the gun owner on his/her property. The business owner is only liable for his/her own actions, such as knowingly and intentionally serving alcohol to someone who is carrying a firearm (yes the fact that the business owner did know would be required proof it it went to trial).

So basically only negligence, as Tennessee law has always been, would cause civil liability. Immunity, would prohibit civil suit even in the above action so that's not likely to be passed and shouldn't be.

I personally don't think a business owner is liable for the actions of HCP holder on his/her property either. Also I'm not talking just about places that serve alcohol.

The trouble is that is an argument some business owner's use to prohibit carry, that they could be held liable, by their action of simply allowing the carry of firearms on their property.

If a shooting occurs on their property and let's say an innocent 3rd party is injured, in which case the shooter could be liable, then the property owner may be liable as well for allowing firearms on his property. At least that is the argument a lawyer may make.

Right or wrong the property owner would have defend himself against the suit...and you can be sure he will be named since he is the "deep pockets" of all that are involved.

So as of today if a property owner doesn't wish to take that risk, then they can post. So I'm just saying if you take away their ability to post, then they should be afforded some protection except for it is obvious they some how directly contributed to what happened, such as serving alcohol to knowingly armed person.

Edited January 18, 2010 by Fallguy

[Fallguy]

I gotta admit, this makes more sense. Like I said, we don't give other businesses additional protections in this regard, so why create a special class of business owner?

I am talking about applying what I've said to ALL business, not any one specific type.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

There still should be something that restricts a lawyer from naming every possible respondent/defendant in the hope of shaking down someone. And why should a

business be liable when complying with a law that allows for carry? If someone else

is injured while another has to use his weapon, where is the business owner liable?

This too much a 'what if' scenario. How many times has a gunfight reared it's head in someone's business? The person behind the trigger is responsible for the gun's action

and that same person is liable for the consequences. So, too, for the criminal. If an

otherwise law abiding citizen tries to defend in a situation that can cause ancillary

damage, he needs to do his job right. Immunity is usually used to protect from injury,

but can sometimes be used to shield from criminal activity, also. No one is giving me immunity from my action or inaction. If the law is worded correctly, the business owner doesn't need it. Who said that about Walmart? Where's the difference?

[Guest HexHead]

Who said that about Walmart? Where's the difference?

That was me. And I don't see any difference. This whole liability question is a straw man argument, and it only serves to give our opponents more ammunition. It's as harmful to us as Voldemort's strolls around Radnor Lake.

[DaveTN]

What's immunity from civil liability got to do with it? You have the right to keep and bear. You don't have the right to just go in and shoot, but keep and bear shouldn't be

diminished because you may have to defend yourself. Personal accountability is always paramount, unless you wish to become a criminal. I can't see a difference between going in a restaurant and going into a public park. Where is the difference in liability? Law abiding people carry weapons to defend themselves or their property or possibly others. The criminal element should be the focus. Tort reform shouldn't be just a catch word for only healthcare. A business owner shouldn't already have to spend that dime. That's something to be corrected. Did anyone get shot or killed while

the previous law was in effect? That opt out stuff is an infringment, also, and should be corrected. We seem to forget the criminal, all too often, and laws get passed by mistake that can make us all into criminals.

As long as people keep stating that they have rights when they don’t; they will never have them. You are in Tennessee. You absolutely do not have a right to bear arms and the SCOTUS has upheld that. THE STATE will decided where and when you can carry, and unless you pay you can’t carry anywhere. That is not a right; that is a privilege just like a driver’s license.

If you feel the need to carry a gun everywhere you go that’s fine, but that doesn’t make it a right. No one is asking you to go anywhere that you feel you are in danger; you do not have to enter.

I feel very strongly about this and I think it is prosperous that someone would make a rights argument that tramples all over the only ones that actually do have rights in this scenario; the business owners. I felt the same way when the state saw fit to trample all over the business owners rights with the smoking ban. A friend of mine lost his bar over the smoking ban, it has happened all over the country. But it is okay because smoking is undesirable to most people. Well guess what, those same people find guns in bars unacceptable.

This movement was started to allow guns in restaurants that serve liquor. But a very small minority wasn’t satisfied with that and it turned into “Guns in Barsâ€. It was predicted by many that there would be problems. Well they are here.

[RobD]

@DaveTN

The founding fathers of this once great country made it very clear that our rights were bestowed upon us by God and not by the government. They also created the bill of rights to ensure that our “God given rights” were not infringed upon by our government. SCOTUS had no business ruling on the issue as it was outside of their constitutional role and therefore not valid under our own constitution.

Now aside from the ideal stated above, based on case law you are correct they have decided, and we the sheeple have chosen to allow the government to strip of us our “God given rights”. Sadly this has gotten us into the sorry state of the union at this time.

It is up to us as citizens of this country and people that wish to remain free to keep up the fight and never give an inch in the struggle to keep all of our rights.

Now this goes both ways. A business owner has the right to run his business on his property any way that person sees fit. It should be the owner’s choice to allow or not allow guns, smoking, drinking ect….

There now I will get off my soapbox!

[Worriedman]

As long as people keep stating that they have rights when they don’t; they will never have them. You are in Tennessee. You absolutely do not have a right to bear arms and the SCOTUS has upheld that. THE STATE will decided where and when you can carry, and unless you pay you can’t carry anywhere. That is not a right; that is a privilege just like a driver’s license.

If you feel the need to carry a gun everywhere you go that’s fine, but that doesn’t make it a right. No one is asking you to go anywhere that you feel you are in danger; you do not have to enter.

I feel very strongly about this and I think it is prosperous that someone would make a rights argument that tramples all over the only ones that actually do have rights in this scenario; the business owners. I felt the same way when the state saw fit to trample all over the business owners rights with the smoking ban. A friend of mine lost his bar over the smoking ban, it has happened all over the country. But it is okay because smoking is undesirable to most people. Well guess what, those same people find guns in bars unacceptable.

This movement was started to allow guns in restaurants that serve liquor. But a very small minority wasn’t satisfied with that and it turned into “Guns in Barsâ€. It was predicted by many that there would be problems. Well they are here.

A "Right" is simply a promise about an explicit situation by the framers of both the US and Tennessee Constitutions against government action. It is on us that we have not forced the government to leave our "Rights" alone. We are sheep, and it is only going to get worse. It will soon be speech that will be restricted, and in the end, freedom to worship as one sees fit.

Over 30 other States allow guns in bars, restaurants or whatever you want to call them. It is not a problem in those locations, it would not be a problem here.

As long as we refuse to grow a set and demand our "Rights" as intended by the Founders, we will have what we deserve.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

As long as people keep stating that they have rights when they don’t; they will never have them. You are in Tennessee. You absolutely do not have a right to bear arms and the SCOTUS has upheld that. THE STATE will decided where and when you can carry, and unless you pay you can’t carry anywhere. That is not a right; that is a privilege just like a driver’s license.

If you feel the need to carry a gun everywhere you go that’s fine, but that doesn’t make it a right. No one is asking you to go anywhere that you feel you are in danger; you do not have to enter.

I feel very strongly about this and I think it is prosperous that someone would make a rights argument that tramples all over the only ones that actually do have rights in this scenario; the business owners. I felt the same way when the state saw fit to trample all over the business owners rights with the smoking ban. A friend of mine lost his bar over the smoking ban, it has happened all over the country. But it is okay because smoking is undesirable to most people. Well guess what, those same people find guns in bars unacceptable.

This movement was started to allow guns in restaurants that serve liquor. But a very small minority wasn’t satisfied with that and it turned into “Guns in Barsâ€. It was predicted by many that there would be problems. Well they are here.

I doubt it's the same people as the anti smoking crowd, but I could be wrong. Anyway, I understand that there are conditions that allow smoking in bars. I thought it was the media that call it "Guns in Bars". Minorities

trample on majority views a lot of times, whether good or bad. If laws are to be just they have to be consistent.

One can't have more rights than another. That's what causes laws to be challenged. For what it's worth to you,

I am as pro business as anyone. That's not an issue to me. The issue to me is to see legislation applied with consistency. Immunity doesn't do that. A sign in the window doesn't do that, either. Putting criminals behind bars and leaving us alone will prove itself out. It already has to a degree with the current law that was overturned. Our carry law has flaws, restrictions and fees

that should be corrected. We have come a long way to let a judge set us back. The crowd that has caused the problems with our "Right" or privilege, if you will, needs to be challenged. I still say it is a right and will say it until it is restored. I don't think it will be a cold day in !@#$ when that happens. I respect the business owners,

but precedents have already been set, and if I can defend myself in one place and not in another, that isn't very consistent. It needs to be changed. It is not justice.

[tntnixon]

You absolutely do not have a right to bear arms and the SCOTUS has upheld that.

Have you read the Heller decision in it's entirety? Because that is not the majority opinion at all. As a matter of fact, Scalia wrote only about "sensitive places such as schools and government buildings" being places that were appropriately resticted in one's right to carry. The question that the court is facing now is incorporation, or whether or not the states and local governments are bound by the same Constitutional restrictions that Congress is, with regards to the 2nd Amendment (all other bill of rights incorporations have been upheld by SCOTUS). My suspicion is that the SCOTUS will incorporate 2A. At that point, all your arguements will become moot.

[DaveTN]

Have you read the Heller decision in it's entirety? Because that is not the majority opinion at all. As a matter of fact, Scalia wrote only about "sensitive places such as schools and government buildings" being places that were appropriately resticted in one's right to carry. The question that the court is facing now is incorporation, or whether or not the states and local governments are bound by the same Constitutional restrictions that Congress is, with regards to the 2nd Amendment (all other bill of rights incorporations have been upheld by SCOTUS). My suspicion is that the SCOTUS will incorporate 2A. At that point, all your arguements will become moot.

The SCOTUS will never rule that citizens have a right to bear arms; States will refuse to comply.

I wish they would, I would like to see every citizen that wants to carry to be able to do so. But I’m also a realist. I was handcuffed and thrown in jail for no crime other than having a gun in my car in Illinois. Being a foolish young man I thought I could fight the charge based on the 2nd amendment. I found that all the state courts and the, 7th Federal District had already ruled that I do not have a right to bear arms and that the SCOTUS probably would not hear my case if I had the money to get it there. Tennessee is no different than Illinois, they do not recognize that you have any right to bear arms and neither does the 6th Federal District. The difference in Tennessee and Illinois is that Tennessee allows those of us that are lucky enough to be able to afford to “Rent a right†the ability to carry.

Now don’t get me wrong; I’m happy that I have the privileges that my Legislators in Tennessee allow me to buy; I am part of the 5% that is a “Special Groupâ€. But please, don’t give me a speech about rights.

This whole restaurant carry issue might be a big deal if it applied to all the people; but it does not. It applies to a “special group†that is a very small percentage of the population.

The legislature needs to deal with it now. They need to clear up their language; they need to make clear the intent. It’s ridiculous to waste any money sending this through the court any further when the legislature will ultimately address the issue.

[tntnixon]

The SCOTUS will never rule that citizens have a right to bear arms; States will refuse to comply.

Actually, they already have (read the Heller decision in it's entirety, as I already said) http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf . They just haven't incorporated it, yet.

As far as the states refusal to comply, the SCOTUS has a long history of sending down rulings on things that the states would "never stand for". Ever heard of Brown v. Board of Education or Roe v. Wade (the court incorporated an implicit right as opposed to an explicit right as outline in 2A).

As far as your experience goes, in Illinois, the court system is more like a Crock Pot as opposed to a microwave. There have to be conflicting rulings by the Courts of Appeals, in order to get the SCOTUS to grant certiorari. There also must be a suit filed by someone or some group that has standing before the court (an injured party). You must also have a littigant that is willing to pay whatever money is required and take whatever punishment is required to keep them in standing before the court (stay in jail until the ruling), otherwise the case will be ruled as moot.

The truth is, you may have actually had standing and may have very well gotten a hearing, but you were unwilling to go through the process because the process sucks (this is not an indictment against you, I probably would not have been willing either, but you never know).

Edited January 19, 2010 by tntnixon

[tntnixon]

Now don’t get me wrong; I’m happy that I have the privileges that my Legislators in Tennessee allow me to buy; I am part of the 5% that is a “Special Groupâ€. But please, don’t give me a speech about rights.

This whole restaurant carry issue might be a big deal if it applied to all the people; but it does not. It applies to a “special group†that is a very small percentage of the population. [QUOTE]

One other side note on this issue, Scalia, in the majority's decision, left open the possibility of the court taking up the matter of liscensing at a later date . Unfortunately, Heller conceded to liscensing in his arguements, so that point was ruled as not germane to this particular case. He also addressed more sophisticated weaponry being needed in order to fulfill the framers original intent, but likewise this was not germane to this particular case.