Curry Todd is da man.....

[Guest HexHead]

From today's Nashville City Paper... Make the ABC enforce it's rules! What a concept!...

Last call for alcohol?

Bills before legislature sponsored by 'guns in restaurants' proponent could shut down bars from Lower Broad to Beale Street

02-09-2010 12:33 PM —

A pair of bills introduced in the Tennessee General Assembly could literally shut down historic bars like Tootsie's in Nashville and most every bar on Beale Street in Memphis. The shots fired to stop the shot glasses come from none other than one of the main sponsors of last year's controversial "guns in restaurants" legislation.

State Rep. Curry Todd (R-Collierville), who also serves as chairman of the House State and Local Government Committee, has introduced legislation that would require all establishments that serve alcohol to report their monthly food sales to the Tennessee Alcoholic Beverage Commission. If 50 percent of their revenue doesn't come from the sale of food, they would lose their license to sell alcoholic beverages.

Todd also has introduced a bill that "as introduced, prohibits the sale, distribution, or consumption of alcoholic beverages, wine, or beer between the hours of midnight and 8:00 a.m. at any establishment or facility receiving a license or permit to operate by the state, county, or municipality."

Asked about the legislation, Todd said the bill pertaining to food was submitted to require the Alcoholic Beverage Commission to enforce its own rules. According to the rules of the ABC, "the principal business of a restaurant licensee must be the serving of meals." Currently, the ABC does not have a way to license establishments who admit that the majority of their revenue comes from the sale of alcoholic beverages.

Asked if this legislation was a response to the uproar over a law enacted last year to allow persons to carry firearms into establishments that serve alcoholic beverages, Todd replied that it was. That law, incidentally, was deemed unconstitutional by the courts and is still facing legal challenges.

"The governor has the sole responsibility over the ABC. He appoints them," Todd said. He went on to point out that, according to state law, restaurants are the only establishments that can sell beer, wine, or alcohol and in order to be a restaurant, 50 percent of revenues must come from the sale of food.

"It is in the rules of the ABC, which is under the governor's authority, and they should enforce it," Todd said.

In regard to the bill that would ban the sale of alcoholic beverages after midnight, Todd smiled and said, "Nothing good happens after midnight."

[G27]

Great, increased bureaucracy (read, more tax dollars spent) to enforce and track this stuff, greater expense by the restaurant owners (higher priced food), and more laws limiting our freedoms (no alcohol after midnight).

Thanks, Mr. Todd. If you're trying to come off like a petulant child you're achieving your goals with smashing success.

[Guest HexHead]

Great, increased bureaucracy (read, more tax dollars spent) to enforce and track this stuff, greater expense by the restaurant owners (higher priced food), and more laws limiting our freedoms (no alcohol after midnight).

Thanks, Mr. Todd. If you're trying to come off like a petulant child you're achieving your goals with smashing success.

Sure, let's have our privileges taken away because it's easier than enforcing the current laws. Good plan.

If the ABC had been doing their job all along, we wouldn't have this mess in the first place.

[G27]

Sure, let's have our privileges taken away because it's easier than enforcing the current laws. Good plan.

I never said that.

Adding more laws, layers of bureaucracy and limits on our freedom aren't the answer, either.

Why not just write a new bill that will pass the muster if challenged? Virtually no cost to a cash-strapped state in a poor economy and no further limits on our personal freedoms.

[southernasylum]

.......... That law, incidentally, was deemed unconstitutional by the courts and is still facing legal challenges.........

No, actually it was ruled unconstitutionally vague by a single judge with an agenda.

[Punisher84]

In regard to the bill that would ban the sale of alcoholic beverages after midnight, Todd smiled and said, "Nothing good happens after midnight."

I would LOVE to see that on video. That is pure awesome.

Thanks, Mr. Todd. If you're trying to come off like a petulant child you're achieving your goals with smashing success.

Dude...what?! You and I are gonna have to disagree on this. He is doing exactly what was done to us. Playing the game. All the damn liberal drunks whining about their little bars being invaded by "gun toting Charlie Bronsons" when all we wanted to do was go to ****ing Chili's and eat dinner! Beale street can ****ing burn for all I care and I wouldn't piss on anyone down there to put out the flames.

Buy your beer at 2 in the afternoon like the rest of the law abiding world. I fully hope the legislation passes! Shut the places down at 0000 on the dot! You know how much crime, DUI arrests, and other drunk ass BS will go down?! I work 3rd shift, I see what comes out after drinking til 3am. Nothing good happens on the streets after midnight and that is a god damn fact!

God I am beyond pissed now. I am all for your opinion and we're buds, but dammit. *head wall*

[GKar]

Personally, I have no problems with Todd's efforts - if indeed they accomplish the stated objective of essentially making ABC enforce the laws that are already on the books. Granted, this coming from one who does not drink (but that is my own choice, and really don't give a rat's rear if anyone else drinks or not as long they do so responsibly and do not endanger others with their choice). It then becomes incumbent upon those establishments negatively affected to mount support for sufficient legislative efforts to effect their desired changes in those now-enforced laws. That's the way legislative processes work, oft times.

[G27]

Buy your beer at 2 in the afternoon like the rest of the law abiding world. I fully hope the legislation passes! Shut the places down at 0000 on the dot! You know how much crime, DUI arrests, and other drunk ass BS will go down?! I work 3rd shift, I see what comes out after drinking til 3am. Nothing good happens on the streets after midnight and that is a god damn fact!

It's called decaf, Punisher...

But seriously, everything you just said is exactly what those people who wish to limit our rights say to justify those limitations.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Think about it...

[Punisher84]

It's called decaf, Punisher...

But seriously, everything you just said is exactly what those people who wish to limit our rights say to justify those limitations.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Think about it...

I know bad night and alot of stuff is pissing me off right now, but I guess I'll see Curry Todd in Hell then because I fully support this. I'm an ends justify the means kinda guy.

[Guest Straight Shooter]

Punisher84......YOU ROCK!

Well said sir,well said.

[G27]

I know bad night and alot of stuff is pissing me off right now, but I guess I'll see Curry Todd in Hell then because I fully support this. I'm an ends justify the means kinda guy.

Well, that's my point - so are the folks who wish to take away your gun rights.

People need to realize that true liberty is an ugly thing sometimes - if people are free to live as they want, lots of things will happen that are nasty, that are offensive, that step on people's toes. That's the balance of being free.

Personally, I'll take freedom (with the associated risks) over limitations on my rights any day of the week.

I know you've had a rough time at work lately and it's probably influencing your state of mind, but limitations of freedoms based on what a small percentage of 'bad apples' do is NEVER the right thing.

[E4 No More]

It's simply a retaliatory shut the up bill. It's telling the people who opposed the restaurant carry law that they are vulnerable to legal retaliation for their actions. IMHO the card should have been played when they filed suit against the law. That would have made those A-holes step back a moment and analyze the situation before proceeding. Well, too late for that now, so now they have to stop and say, "Oh ! They're really coming after me now! Maybe I ought to keep my mouth shut if I want to stay in business?"

[Punisher84]

Well, that's my point - so are the folks who wish to take away your gun rights.

People need to realize that true liberty is an ugly thing sometimes - if people are free to live as they want, lots of things will happen that are nasty, that are offensive, that step on people's toes. That's the balance of being free.

Personally, I'll take freedom (with the associated risks) over limitations on my rights any day of the week.

I know you've had a rough time at work lately and it's probably influencing your state of mind, but limitations of freedoms based on what a small percentage of 'bad apples' do is NEVER the right thing.

I agree with that and it's not really work or anything else it's that I'm tired of a portion of people telling the other portion how to live and using BS tactics to do it. I say that and realize that's not gonna change so what do you do? Burn their playhouse down too. Then when we're all pissed and have had enough maybe we can rebuild out of the ashes.

[Guest HexHead]

It's simply a retaliatory shut the up bill. It's telling the people who opposed the restaurant carry law that they are vulnerable to legal retaliation for their actions. IMHO the card should have been played when they filed suit against the law. That would have made those A-holes step back a moment and analyze the situation before proceeding. Well, too late for that now, so now they have to stop and say, "Oh ! They're really coming after me now! Maybe I ought to keep my mouth shut if I want to stay in business?"

They couldn't, the lawsuit was timed for when the legislature was out of session. Payback's a bitch.

I don't think this is necessarily "retaliatory". The whole premise of the legal challenge was based on a law that wasn't being enforced. Not even a little bit.

If you're going to get other laws declared unconstitutional based on an existing law, well then THAT law should at least be enforced. Or are we going to settle for only "unpopular" laws being enforced? If so, then laws mean nothing.

[-boatman-]

I don't see a problem with it. In fact I'm all for it. What is wrong with making them enforce a law already on the books? If it had been enforced we would not have had the restaurant carry overturned.

Is there any chance of this passing? There is a possible closing of business and tax revenue and you know money talks.

[E4 No More]

They couldn't, the lawsuit was timed for when the legislature was out of session. Payback's a bitch.

I don't think this is necessarily "retaliatory". The whole premise of the legal challenge was based on a law that wasn't being enforced. Not even a little bit.

If you're going to get other laws declared unconstitutional based on an existing law, well then THAT law should at least be enforced. Or are we going to settle for only "unpopular" laws being enforced? If so, then laws mean nothing.

You misunderstand when I say when they should have played the card sooner. I didn't mean initiate the bill at the time, rather, threaten the bill earlier. And Curry essentially said it was retaliatory when he was asked if it was in response to the restaurant carry bill being challenged.

[Bigiron]

I agree with that and it's not really work or anything else it's that I'm tired of a portion of people telling the other portion how to live and using BS tactics to do it. I say that and realize that's not gonna change so what do you do? Burn their playhouse down too. Then when we're all pissed and have had enough maybe we can rebuild out of the ashes.

[Guest HexHead]

You misunderstand when I say when they should have played the card sooner. I didn't mean initiate the bill at the time, rather, threaten the bill earlier. And Curry essentially said it was retaliatory when he was asked if it was in response to the restaurant carry bill being challenged.

Personally I like the concept of it being retaliatory. F uck them and the horse they rode in on. They should have been following the existing law all along, or we wouldn't have the mess we have now.

You're a former Marine, I'm sure you're familiar with the concept of responding with overwhelming force. :D:D

[gnmwilliams]

[Guest HexHead]

Well, I've written to my State Rep strongly urging him to support at least the bill requiring the ABC law to be enforced.

[E4 No More]

Personally I like the concept of it being retaliatory. F uck them and the horse they rode in on. They should have been following the existing law all along, or we wouldn't have the mess we have now.

You're a former Marine, I'm sure you're familiar with the concept of responding with overwhelming force. :D:D

I sure don't play to lose!

[raydog1]

Everything has a cost. I bet they didn't see this comming. Use shady tactics to help defeat restaurant carry. . . fine! But prepare to pay.

I'm 100% loving this.

[DavidD]

I like the approach. Hopefully, it will cause the ABC to define a bar and differentiate it from a restaurant. Then, the current law would not be un-constitutional since the responsibility would be on the Bar/restaurant and the ABC and not on HCP holders. Hope it works. Plus, it is a nice slap in the face to the "coalition of Dread" that brought about the suit.

[BrasilNuts]

YouTube - they drew first blood not me

[trblmkr13]

I would love to see the Sunset Grill lose their Liquor License