HB1807/SB0576 going to committee 2/10

[GKar]

Rep West/Sen Jackson originally filed this one last February, and it sat in deference to the legislation that ultimately was passed. This bill is now scheduled for consideration by the House Criminal Practice and Procedure subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee on Feb 10, 2010. The current language of the bill apppears below.

SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 39-17-1305©, is amended by adding the following language as a new, appropriately designated subdivision:

(3) (A) Authorized to carry a firearm pursuant to § 39-17-1351;

( Is not consuming liquor, wine, beer, or other alcoholic

beverages, as defined in this section; and

© Is not otherwise prohibited by the posting provisions of § 39-

17-1359.

Doesn't seem quite as clean as HB 2694, and it goes back down the road of establishing an exemption rather than removing the offense. Thoughts?

[-boatman-]

I can live with that.

[Guest 270win]

I think subsection C can be removed to avoid problems. No need for someone with a permit to be charged with the Class A Misd. alcohol offense b/c of a stupid sign.

Other than that, it creates a decent exemption, just like for off duty LEO's. It is a fairly clean worded statute as in making those with permits an exempt class as long as we are not consuming alcohol....just removing Subsection C and you've got a great bill.

[GKar]

If you deleted subsection ©, you arguably are still subject to the restrictions and penalties described under 1359 even if this bill does not make reference to same. The only way to avoid those would be to recast the bill to specifically exempt HCP holders from those provisions - and, if you place that exemption within this bill, it would only apply when you were in a place that served alcohol, since this section of the code only addresses those locations. Possible too is the argument that if you remove reference here, but 1359 remains effective, you may have again created a "vague" situation for HCP holders when a posting is present.

[Guest HexHead]

Aside from not prohibiting any legal ramifications for posting, it's not a bad bill. I feel very strongly that posting should be prohibited. Period.

And the inevitable cries of "property owners rights" are going to fall on deaf ears here. **** them for the crap they tried pulling on us. They need to lose something too.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I do too

[Wingshooter]

Aside from not prohibiting any legal ramifications for posting, it's not a bad bill. I feel very strongly that posting should be prohibited. Period.

And the inevitable cries of "property owners rights" are going to fall on deaf ears here. **** them for the crap they tried pulling on us. They need to lose something too.

I don't mind if a business is allowed to post. I just wish we had it like KY where you are only guilty of trespassing if you refuse to leave when asked. The current penalty in TN is overboard.

Edited February 5, 2010 by Batman

[waynesan]

I like HB2694 better but I can live with this. And either is certainly better than what Sen. Jackson first proposed back a couple months ago.

[Volzfan]

Aside from not prohibiting any legal ramifications for posting, it's not a bad bill. I feel very strongly that posting should be prohibited. Period.

And the inevitable cries of "property owners rights" are going to fall on deaf ears here. **** them for the crap they tried pulling on us. They need to lose something too.

Agreed!

[Guest HexHead]

I like HB2694 better but I can live with this. And either is certainly better than what Sen. Jackson first proposed back a couple months ago.

+eleventy billion.

I was just reading a review in the Tennessean today of Chipolte, the semi-fast food burrito place. And how they served frosty beers to go with them and was thinking about how this would be another place off limits under Jackson's stupid proposal.

[Wingshooter]

I agree, Jackson's first proposal was stupid.

[analog_kidd]

I agree, Jackson's first proposal was stupid.

So is that first proposal officially off the table? I hadn't heard one way or the other.

[GKar]

It has not yet appeared in any official capacity...

[Guest HexHead]

Hopefully he got so much heat from people like me he rethought the logic of it? There's lots of casual restaurants around that don't serve liquor by the drink, just beer that would have been off-limits. Probably more of them than just the "beer joints" he had in mind.

[Guest 270win]

Yeah there are a lot of pizza or sandwich places that do serve just beer for folks. No point in hassling folks over that.

Yes, I'd like to take the $500 fine out of the sign law. That would be a GREAT change....switch it to just trespass if you refuse to leave.

I'm afraid though if you leave the Subsection C in this bill....and you carry in a place that serves liquor with a 'proper' sign and are caught....it would be my understanding you could be charged with the B Misdemeanor Sign charge, and the A Misdemeanor Liquor charge (because the establishment cannot be properly posted). That is the legal trap of Subsection C. Why add another fine on top of an already 500 fine just because it is a restaurant and has a sign? Yeah i carry concealed, but i want everyone protected and the honest man not to be treated like a crook over a stupid sign at the pizza place that sells cold ones.

[Guest boybarian]

Would it not be easier to change the restaurant laws than to change than gun laws. It seems the vagueness lies in not specifying restaurants and bars. Put it on the owners so that we can decide where not to spend money and so criminals can decide who is safe to rob.

[Fallguy]

Would it not be easier to change the restaurant laws than to change than gun laws. It seems the vagueness lies in not specifying restaurants and bars. Put it on the owners so that we can decide where not to spend money and so criminals can decide who is safe to rob.

No, I think the proposed change to 39-17-1305 is much easier than trying to change the restaurant law. Also it has the benefit of allowing carry in places that are not restaurants, such as bowling alleys, theaters, etc.... that also serve alcohol.

[Worriedman]

No, I think the proposed change to 39-17-1305 is much easier than trying to change the restaurant law. Also it has the benefit of allowing carry in places that are not restaurants, such as bowling alleys, theaters, etc.... that also serve alcohol.

+1

[GKar]

No, I think the proposed change to 39-17-1305 is much easier than trying to change the restaurant law. Also it has the benefit of allowing carry in places that are not restaurants, such as bowling alleys, theaters, etc.... that also serve alcohol.

It certainly has greater benefit for the state's permit holders. That will also likely make it a more difficult sell to some legislators. Personally, I'd like to see Jackson's bill go to table, and see Dennis' move on..but there are those who seem to think Denis' bill may be too much right now. I dunno.

Back to the actual topic of the thread - Jackson's bill did NOT make it onto the committee agenda yesterday (Feb 10). Right now, none of the proposed bills from this or the previous session relative to carry and alcohol (or to carry in parking lots) appear on defined calendars. I guessing/hoping this means that key legislators and their friends are doing the propoer "ground preparation" work necessary so that these seeds may find fertile soil when they are cast...

EDIT - I now see that the Jackson/West bill is calendered to go before the House Criminal Practices subcommittee on Wed, 2/17, along with a host of West's other bills from last session. Let's see what happens there...

Edited February 11, 2010 by GKar
New info

[Guest HexHead]

EDIT - I now see that the Jackson/West bill is calendered to go before the House Criminal Practices subcommittee on Wed, 2/17, along with a host of West's other bills from last session. Let's see what happens there...

Which Jackson/ West bill?

[GKar]

HB1807/SB0576

[ngoeser59]

HB1807 First Restaurant Carry Bill to go before committee. Let's roll!!! That means us....not the Bill. ha. If that Bill rolls a few weeks I am gonna be pissed.

Edited February 14, 2010 by ngoeser59

[Fallguy]

HB1807 First Restaurant Carry Bill to go before committee. Let's roll!!! That means us....not the Bill. ha. If that Bill rolls a few weeks I am gonna be pissed.

I'm afraid it won't be voted on Wednesday though. It seems pretty far down on the calendar and it just strikes me as one of those bills that won't be voted on the first time it is heard. Someone will have a question they want answered from outside source or something before they vote on it.