Joe's crab shack..... Posted

[Fallguy]

The reason I had asked if places serving beer only were included is TN does not treat beer like liquor. You can't buy beer in a liquor store and beer is not subject to the 15% liquor tax like wine is. Of course beer has alcohol in it. Places can serve beer where liquor by the drink is not available. The laws are very different for beer vs liquor in this state so the question was not as outrageous as it sounded. Most references made to liquor in the liquor laws pertain to liquor only.

Well you are indeed correct. In almost all other aspects of the law Beer and Liquor are controlled under different parts and may have separate laws.

In fact there is an AG opinion from about 10 years ago (00-31) that says beer with a alcohol content of less than 5% was not an "alcoholic beverage" for the purposes of 39-17-1305. Of course the law has changed then to include beer with any alcohol content.

I guess those of us that have followed the law and lawsuit closely just assumed all would know that it applied to any alcoholic beverage, but you are right that based on history and other laws, it was not as far fetched as first perceived.

[JAB]

Well you are indeed correct. In almost all other aspects of the law Beer and Liquor are controlled under different parts and may have separate laws.

In fact there is an AG opinion from about 10 years ago (00-31) that says beer with a alcohol content of less than 5% was not an "alcoholic beverage" for the purposes of 39-17-1305. Of course the law has changed then to include beer with any alcohol content.

I guess those of us that have followed the law and lawsuit closely just assumed all would know that it applied to any alcoholic beverage, but you are right that based on history and other laws, it was not as far fetched as first perceived.

I think the real problem is that I don't ever recall seeing the 'MISDEMEANOR' sign posted at any restaurant that doesn't have an actual bar area and serves beer but not liquor or wine - you know, the places where it isn't obvious that they serve - and I have actively looked for them. That, coupled with the fact that liquor and beer are treated so differently in this state, can make it appear to a reasonable person that restaurants that serve beer but not liquor are okay for carry. There is also the 'common sense' factor (which we should obviously never count on when considering matters of the law - especially TN gun laws) which says that a Sonny's Barbecue or Pizza Hut that offers beer as a beverage choice is obviously a different setting than a beer joint or even a restaurant that has a bar and serves liquor. I had to do a good bit of research when I first started carrying to figure that one out, myself and - although I know it is the law - it still makes no sense, to me.

Personally, I think that since the law applies to any place that serves even beer then they should all be required to prominently post the 'MISDEMEANOR' sign. Not only would that make things more clear but would also avoid innocent violations of the law. By innocent violations, I mean what if - hypothetically speaking, of course - an HCP holder was carrying a firearm, say, a Kel Tec P3AT in a pocket holster. Let's say our theoretical HCP holder then went into a restaurant with which he wasn't very familiar. Let's say this hypothetical restaurant didn't have up any signs nor any table placards advertising beer and no one was drinking beer when the HCP holder entered and was seated. Imagine how surprised the HCP holder would be to then learn, after looking at the menu, that the restaurant did, indeed, serve beer - especially when a very large table between his position and the door was occupied by a hypothetical group of LEOs on their meal break, meaning that he'd have to walk right past them to take his firearm to the car and they would likely see him disarming (or he could choose to sit still, keep his mouth shut, eat his meal and leave.) Ummm...all hypothetically speaking, of course.

Edited February 17, 2010 by JAB

[Fallguy]

Well all-in-all I'd rather see us allowed to carry and the Title 57 signs no longer required.

[Guest nosnos]

...an HCP holder was carrying a firearm, say, a Kel Tec P3AT in a pocket holster. Let's say our theoretical HCP holder then went into a restaurant with which he wasn't very familiar. Let's say this hypothetical restaurant didn't have up any signs nor any table placards advertising beer and no one was drinking beer when the HCP holder entered and was seated. Imagine how surprised the HCP holder would be to then learn, after looking at the menu, that the restaurant did, indeed, serve beer - especially when a very large table between his position and the door was occupied by a hypothetical group of LEOs on their meal break...

You make a good argument for pocket carrying a P3AT.