HB3125/SB3012 new restaurant carry bill by Todd/Jackson

[Motasyco]

I am wondering, when all is said and done, that if and WHEN dolts like Randy Rayburn and Adam Dread rear their head once again will they actually have a leg to stand on? It turns my stomach to see Rayburn on tv, he is a business man and nothing more. God forbid he lose a penny over this. He could care less about us and his customers it is all about the mighty dollar and nothing else.

I suspect he actually couldn't care less.

[VolunteerGuns]

Mailed my Rep, Henry Fincher-

Edited March 15, 2010 by adamween

[VolunteerGuns]

Hope everyone takes a minute to contact their reps before the vote on this issue.

Here is the response I received from Henry-

Dear Mr. XXXXXX,

Thank you for contacting me about this important issue! I agree with you, and I am a co-sponsor on this bill. I will vote for it next week and when it comes to the House floor.

I am a handgun carry permit holder and state-certified HCP course instructor. Like you, I understand that drawing arbitrary lines barring HCP holders creates dangerous zones where criminals can prey on us, and I see no reason to trust HCP holders up to the doors of restaurants but not letting them go in. As long as the HCP holder isn't drinking, there's no difference between O'Charley's and Shoneys, where we have been allowed to carry for years.

I thank you for contacting me, and if I can ever be of any help to you or your family, please do not hesitate to call on me.

Sincerely yours,

Rep. Henry Fincher

[Guest benchpresspower]

I suspect he actually couldn't care less.

grammar was never my strong point lol

[macville]

I suspect he actually couldn't care less.

I actually think he COULD care less. We are lucky has he has cared as much as he has...since he's getting us a much better carry law:)

Matthew

[Guest 270win]

Yeah that is kind of the way I see it. It is kind of funny that all of his griping and complaining and running to court may actually benefit us.

[DavidD]

Yeah that is kind of the way I see it. It is kind of funny that all of his griping and complaining and running to court may actually benefit us.

I was thinking the same thing. Their whole premise initially was that they didn't want to have to handguns in any restaurants period. Then they chose the whole un-Constitutional route (which I must agree was a valid argument IMO) as a way to defeat the bill and now it is a good possibility hat we will end up with a much better, if not clearer law.

Edited March 15, 2010 by DavidD

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

DavidD - educate me please. What about the bill was unconstitutional? Its an honest question, not trying to pick a fight with you at all. I never found anything in it that seemed unconstitutional to me, but I am not very good at reading the legal wording of bills/laws.

[DavidD]

DavidD - educate me please. What about the bill was unconstitutional? Its an honest question, not trying to pick a fight with you at all. I never found anything in it that seemed unconstitutional to me, but I am not very good at reading the legal wording of bills/laws.

Believe me, I'm not siding with them however there was a gray area about which places had what percentage of their sales from food verses alcohol. It may have been hard for a person with a HCP to determine in some instances thus exposing them to violating the law.

Edit: And Vague would have been more appropriate than Un-Constitutional in my opinion as well.

Edited March 15, 2010 by DavidD

[Guest 270win]

Yeah what I like about it is instead of just a 'restaurant', I can will be legal on any property that serves alcohol that is open to the public. That is nice. I don't have to worry when I go to say the Orpheum Theater in Memphis with the wife because they have a little bar area to the side. I didn't know if I was legal or not, and it concealed as usual...but a lot of theaters/shows/concerts serve beer, wine, and mixed drinks.

It is nice for the state to not make us feel like lawbreakers for just having a gun in our pocket in a place that serves liquor and we're just minding our own business.

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

Believe me, I'm not siding with them however there was a gray area about which places had what percentage of their sales from food verses alcohol. It may have been hard for a person with a HCP to determine in some instances thus exposing them to violating the law.

Edit: And Vague would have been more appropriate than Un-Constitutional in my opinion as well.

Vague I can agree with. I still miss how their unconstitutional argument worked for them. Oh well, at least we appear to be on the right track to get it worked out.

[Fallguy]

Believe me, I'm not siding with them however there was a gray area about which places had what percentage of their sales from food verses alcohol. It may have been hard for a person with a HCP to determine in some instances thus exposing them to violating the law.

Edit: And Vague would have been more appropriate than Un-Constitutional in my opinion as well.

I think it was actually the whole list of criteria that a place had to meet to be considered a restaurant that judge though an average person couldn't know if a place met all those criteria.

Vague I can agree with. I still miss how their unconstitutional argument worked for them. Oh well, at least we appear to be on the right track to get it worked out.

The way it works...if a law is determined to be vague...then it is unconstitutional.

They originally had other arguments when they first filed the lawsuit, it was only afterwards that someone came up with the vague idea....and it did work for them.......and maybe for us soon enough...

[ngoeser59]

Rep. Bass is a good good man. He's one of the few Democrats that I think the world of. Great guy.

[Fallguy]

Wish there was a way to see what, if any, "tweaking" was done to the amendment before it comes up in the committee tomorrow.....

[macville]

I talked with Rep Henry Fincher to let him know that I would really love to see the the new part about tougher penalties for carrying past a proper sign removed since it's absurd that drunk drivers actually commit a dangerous crime and have less of a penalty. His response: "I'll look into it - hopefully something can be done about that, too!"

Matthew

[eapking]

Yeah I think the penalty far outweighs the crime, especially when you consider that some states actually allow a legal consumption limit while carrying. That must be the bone they thought they had to throw.

Not that I condone drinking while carrying, I don't. I would not do it no matter how legal it was. I just think that penalty is way out of line.

[macville]

Yeah I think the penalty far outweighs the crime, especially when you consider that some states actually allow a legal consumption limit while carrying. That must be the bone they thought they had to throw.

Not that I condone drinking while carrying, I don't. I would not do it no matter how legal it was. I just think that penalty is way out of line.

I'm not talking about drinking while carrying. I'm talking about how hard they want to nail you for walking past a properly posted sign. Or maybe I am remembering the proposed law incorrectly. Drinking and carrying should carry the same penalty as drinking and driving (the same BAC should apply.) Walking past a sign and refusing the leave should be trespassing, but that's it.

Matthew

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

I think it was actually the whole list of criteria that a place had to meet to be considered a restaurant that judge though an average person couldn't know if a place met all those criteria.

The way it works...if a law is determined to be vague...then it is unconstitutional.

They originally had other arguments when they first filed the lawsuit, it was only afterwards that someone came up with the vague idea....and it did work for them.......and maybe for us soon enough...

ah hah! that explains it. thanks Fallguy.

[GLOCKMEISTER]

I dont want there to be any penalty but i can handle it being tresspassing but only if you refuse to leave, and a small fine, but you shouldnt loose your carry permit or be charged criminally.

It should be no more then a parking ticket, and considered a civil matter.

Now drinking while carrying, that a whole other issue.

[Fallguy]

Not sure what will be before the committee today, but on what was before the sub-committee last week...(See post 63)

The penalty for violating 39-17-1359 was still a $500 fine only, no change.

The penalty for being in a place open to the public that serves alcohol while consuming was the same as the current 39-17-1321 since it was a violation of the above was added as new sub section of 39-17-1321. A class A misdemeanor.

From the debate on the bill, sounded like the wanted a stronger penalty for being in a place open to the public that serves alcohol while consuming.

Right now, conviction of a Class A misdemeanor, suspends you HCP for the duration of any sentence, but you can get it backed. To me it sounded like they wanted to revoke you HCP for being in a place open to the public that serves alcohol while consuming.

Now whether they did that by making it a felony or just adding revocation as part of the TCA is unknown.

[Fallguy]

Just a reminder....

The Judicary Committee meeting is scheduled for 3:30 pm (CDT)

HB3125 is number 9 on the calendar.

Watch here

[Guest 270win]

A felony is way overboard. I cannot support a felony charge for someone having a drink, whether they have a permit or no permit while in possession of a handgun in a restaurant or bar. It sickens me that there is even support for it to be a misdemeanor charge of a sip...but a FELONY????? What are people thinking...that's crazy??? People can get in the car after having two or three drinks and be legal but a SIP and a felony charge just for carrying a handgun? No that is overboard.....not fit for the crime.

[Fallguy]

A felony is way overboard. I cannot support a felony charge for someone having a drink, whether they have a permit or no permit while in possession of a handgun in a restaurant or bar. It sickens me that there is even support for it to be a misdemeanor charge of a sip...but a FELONY????? What are people thinking...that's crazy??? People can get in the car after having two or three drinks and be legal but a SIP and a felony charge just for carrying a handgun? No that is overboard.....not fit for the crime.

Well to clarify, I don't remember ever hearing the word felony mentioned, but considering that currently it is a Class A Misdemeanor, felony is the only way to increase the penalty as far as jail time/fine but perhaps they simply meant/want revocation of the HCP

[Guest uofmeet]

i bet drunk drivers kill more than HCP holders. Although i don't plan on drinking while carrying, one beer, or a sip should not be a felony.

[Capbyrd]

Actually, I disagree. But I feel very strongly about both drinking and shooting (carrying) and drinking and driving. It wouldnt bother me if both were made felonies.