Kent Williams wants to wait on our rights

[Guest HexHead]

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 was not a problem here while the law was in effect..

There, fixed it for ya.

[Guest HexHead]

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

Uhhh, that's pretty much what Heller decision did say, but it only applied to Washington DC. The current incorporation case will fix that.

[ngoeser59]

I see your point Hex. There is a huge part of me that just says screw it....I want them to move forward with a clean bill and I want it passed! I am just scared the Dems will end up in the majority and then take it away from us. That's all. But I don't want anyone to die waiting for this either. It is gonna end up being a mess this year I feel. You guys know I am all 2A. Uuuhhgg. It's tough. It's gonna be a big fight on the hill.

[Guest HexHead]

It's gonna be a big fight on the hill.

I fear you're right about this Nikki.

[Guest TnRebel]

Why didn't they copy Florida's bill to start with and it would be over and done with .

[Guest HexHead]

Why didn't they copy Florida's bill to start with and it would be over and done with .

Because we've got a legislature that would **** up a two car funeral.

[Fallguy]

Why didn't they copy Florida's bill to start with and it would be over and done with .

What was Florida's bill?

[Worriedman]

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : flsenate.gov

From 790.06.12... any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, which portion of the establishment is primarily devoted to such purpose.

Basically, Florida allows carry in restaurants that serve, but perimt holdrs are not allowed to carry in the "area" i.e. bar area if the restaurant has one. Bars and night clubs are off limits for carry. No carry and consumption.

Compilation of Links and Information for Everything Conceal Carry - Florida Concealed Carry Forums

Possession Restrictions

The following is a list of places where you are restricted from carrying a weapon or firearm even if you have a license. This is only my personal interpretation of what I read in the Chapter. Please note that this is a simplified list with common names. See Section 790.06 (12), Florida Statutes for a complete listing.

• any place of nuisance as defined in s. 823.05 (gambling hall, prostitution, gang related activities or immoral)
  
• any police, sheriff, or highway patrol station
  
• any detention facility, prison, or jail; any courthouse (federal, state and municipal)
  
• any courtroom (federal, state or municipal)
  
• any polling place (voting areas as designated by the supervisor of elections)
  
• any meeting of the governing body of a county, public school district, municipality, or special district
  
• any meeting of the Legislature or a committee thereof
  
• any school, college, or professional athletic event not related to firearms
  
• any school administration building
  
• any bar, night club, or places where alcoholic drinks are the main fare or that portion of a restaurant or other food dispensing business that serves alcoholic beverages as its main function, i.e. – the bar area of Applebee’s, or the bar area of the Olive Garden or other restaurant. Sports bars (Hooters) are a grey area in my opinion since they are more a bar and grill. I would say they are off limits also to be on the safe side
  
• any elementary or secondary school facility
  
• any area technical center or vocational school
  
• any college or university facility
  
• inside the passenger terminal and sterile area of any airport except the terminal if you are checking the firearm as baggage and it is encased for shipment. I would recommend you contact the airline first to find out method of encasing the firearm and securing it prior to transporting it through the airport
  
• any place where the carrying of firearms is prohibited by federal law
  

[Guest TnRebel]

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : flsenate.gov

From 790.06.12... any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, which portion of the establishment is primarily devoted to such purpose.

Basically, Florida allows carry in restaurants that serve, but perimt holdrs are not allowed to carry in the "area" i.e. bar area if the restaurant has one. Bars and night clubs are off limits for carry. No carry and consumption.

Compilation of Links and Information for Everything Conceal Carry - Florida Concealed Carry Forums

Thank you I couldn't get back to it for a death in the family , but it works out great for Florida . But I still love it here in Tn.

[Fallguy]

Goes back to the trouble that there are no "bars" and "nightclubs" in TN. Also if you try to prohibit carry in places "where the main fare" is serving alcoholic beverages, that could be seen just as vague as what was struck down. Although granted I doubt it would be challenged.

[Worriedman]

My contention is the problem with clarity is not with the Law as written, but rather the ambiguity is in the Alcoholic Beverage Commission's management of the definitions of Bars and Restaurants. That is why a "Clean Bill" is so necessary. I personally, and most thinking people, know that the amount of money that is passed around by the liqueur lobby is so large as to preclude an even playing field that deals in the facts, and that the "Hospitality" group can and does fund a strike force against us that is going to be very hard to surmount.

In speaking to an employee of the ABC this weekend, his statement that he is in the direct employment of the "Liqueur Lobby' while probably factual, is very troubling.

[Guest Sgt. Joe]

This has been one interesting read and I must admit I did not read every word as I just saw this thread.

But have been today reading elsewhere on similar issues, the cases going currently before SCOTUS which are McDonald v City of Chicago (certiorari has been granted, they WILL hear it) and another NRA v City of Chicago. The cases were combined for appeal but I dont know if that means they will both be heard by SCOTUS. They are after the same thing but in slightly different ways.

Here is a link to a very excellent article explaining that and concerning Incorporating the 2nd to the states, which was the purpose of the 14th. Some of the amendments HAVE been Incorporated (forced) on the states while the 2nd has not as of YET.

It is a long read but well worth your time if you are intersted......the author supports incorporation (forcing the states into the "shall not be infringed" part) This is what I believe should be done and would expect most of you would agree. I believe it would solve a lot of problems. And probably the one we are facing now with the restaurant/bar whatever bill.

Personally I still dont understand how both houses can approve something, have the Gov. veto it and then both houses override his veto, only to then have ONE Judge strike the whole thing. But I guess that is how things worked. Must be legal but sure dont meet the logic requirements in this ole brain.

"Shall not be infringed" is NOT currently part of the TN Constitution and only partially of the Fl one as things are....

The link.... Incorporating the 2nd Amendment : America's Right

TN constitution.....

§ 26. Weapons; right to bear arms

That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.

FL consitution.....

SECTION 8. Right to bear arms.–

(a) The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law.

Are not regulations infringement?

Now from the state of Maine's Consitution....

CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF MAINE

Article I. Declaration of Rights.

Section 16. To keep and bear arms.

Every citizen has a right to

keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.

I am not going to move to Maine but I sure like the wording better, Incorporation of the 2nd to the states would be a huge step and may well would prevent the type problems we are having now.

This is a huge SCOTUS case that could bode very well for all of us if they rule in favor of incorporation.

How many would bet the crime rate in CHI-town would go down if they were forced let the GG's have protection tools? How PO'ed would the political hacks there be...

At any rate I agree with Hex that we should go at them BOTH ways, if the first works drop the second, if not continue to march.

[tntnixon]

Sgt. Joe,

When cases are combined before the SCOTUS, it usually means the original petitioner, that has been granted cert., has ceded part of their time to another case because they feel they can add something to the arguement that helps their cause. So No and Yes to your question about whether or not they will "both" be heard. They are both being heard, but they are being combined into one arguement time, usually 30minutes of actual arguement but it's the Justice's perogative to grant more time if it so pleases them.

The bad thing for the lawyers argueing before the court is they never actually get to make the presentation that they prepared. The Justices constantly interupt them with questions, so they may or may not actually get to present their case. Fortunately, the briefs generally make the actual arguements and the Justices' questions are usually to clear up any questions they have about them (the SCOTUS Justices are many times more prepared than the attorneys argueing before them).

[DaveTN]

"Shall not be infringed" is NOT currently part of the TN Constitution and only partially of the Fl one as things are....

Are not regulations infringement?

I am not going to move to Maine but I sure like the wording better, Incorporation of the 2nd to the states would be a huge step and may well would prevent the type problems we are having now.

This is a huge SCOTUS case that could bode very well for all of us if they rule in favor of incorporation.

They can rule how they like on McDonald but that still won’t allow citizens to carry in Illinois.

It will have no effect on the kind of problems we are having in Tennessee. No federal Court and no arm of the federal government is ever going to force a state to allow its citizens to carry anywhere.

You have 2nd amendments rights or you don’t; there is no middle ground. We don’t have 2nd amendment rights in most states. The Chicago case will not change that. They court may rule that the city can’t outlaw handgun ownership in their own home, but they sure aren’t going to rule on carry.

We have never fought a war over the 2nd amendment and never would. We have fought a war over States Rights.

How many would bet the crime rate in CHI-town would go down if they were forced let the GG's have protection tools? How PO'ed would the political hacks there be....

I’ll take that bet on the crime rate. It won’t go down any and I’ll hold up Memphis as an example.

[Guest HexHead]

Well, I guess we were all lied to? When Bonneyman threw out the old law, we heard proclamations that this would get fixed as soon as the legislature got back in session in January. Well, it's February now, and so far, I haven't seen jack**** getting done.

[GKar]

The first two weeks of the January sesson (which didn't start until the middle of January) were a special called session dealing solely with Governor's education proposals...not possible to do much of anything else. So beginning around Jan 21st or so, new bill introduction began...including at least one possible remedy to the situaion. Sen Jackson has not yet seen fit to introduce his bill...perhaps he has reconsidered, we don't know...or maybe he has "lied" to some folks....I dunno, you'd hafta ask him. But various legislators have indicated that there have been and will continue to be a number of meetings and consultations by the folks in Nashville, including with representatives from NRA, on ways to resolve this. They also seem genuinely determined to do so. Just cause you ain't seen it (or seen evidence that to your satisfaction indicates it) doesn't necessarily mean it hasn't happened. And if it hasn't happened at your desired pace...well, maybe a run for office should be in your future so you can try your hand at matters diplomatic.

[Guest HexHead]

Well, there was this from Monday, Nov. 23, 2009...

State Sen. Doug Jackson, who sponsored the Senate bill permitting guns in bars, said the law's problems revolve around semantics, not the public policy, and he could propose a new bill as early as next week for the legislature to consider when it reconvenes in January.

And this from Nov. 24th...

Rep. Curry Todd, a main sponsor of the measure, said he hadn't seen the ruling but said he will ask the state to appeal. The Collierville Republican said he plans to "re-pass" legislation in January to fix any legal problems.

Then I found this from Jan. 12, 2010...

Meanwhile, sponsors of the bill are studying possible amendments to the law and passing it again this upcoming session. In the meantime, a tax on gun permits is being discussed as a revenue measure.

Now some legislators, angry about the ruling, are being urged by gun rights advocates to pass a Vermont “carry†law. In Vermont, if you are not a felon and you are over 16 years of age, you can carry a gun and no permit is required. No expensive class, no permit fee, no state records. You just carry a gun wherever you want.

Cooler heads are expected to prevail and a revision of the existing law is more likely.

Yeah, like the "Vermont" thing's going to happen. Look for monkeys flying out of my ass first.

[Alpha7]

I sent him an email complaining about it. According to the read receipt he deleted it without reading it.

[Guest HexHead]

I sent him an email complaining about it. According to the read receipt he deleted it without reading it.

Which "he" are you referring to?

[GKar]

If using certain versions of Outlook to manage email, you can have a pane open where you can see the contents of an email without officially "opening" it. I use this configuration at work, and get questions all the time about "why didn't you read this?" when they get the exact message Alpha7 got after I delete it. I did read it....I just did it my way and not yours.

[Alpha7]

Which "he" are you referring to?

Kent williams

[Alpha7]

I realize that you can view it in preview pain. However, my read receipt came back that says this message was deleted from the computer without being read. If they view it in preview pain it comes back and says this message has been displayed on the customers computer but there are no guarantees it was read.

[GKar]

Well, getting a read receipt is no guarantee its been read, either...only opened. And even then, likely by a staffer

[Alpha7]

Yeah,

I would say none of them read em. Why should they? Who cares about us?