HB3125/SB3012 new restaurant carry bill by Todd/Jackson

[JayC]

Fall,

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one... I can't find the law which states TDOS shall issue you a drivers license... I think we're talking about apples and oranges here personally.

How can it be the intent of the legislature that if you're convicted on a Class A misdemeanor the law requires that TDOS re-instate your permit once you're no longer being 'sentenced', but if you're convicted of a lesser crime, or even if TDOS determines you've violated 1351 - 1360 in a non-criminal way you can loose your permit for life?

As for the judicial review, from my reading you're not allowed to give evidence they only review what the state considered in revoking the permit... Also as an administrative hearing the rules of evidence and what is and isn't adminisble are a lower standard than that of a criminal court.

My argument is that state law requires TDOS to issue you a valid permit within 90 days unless you are prohibited under the law, and the status of a previously issued permit is not listed as one of the reasons to deny the new valid permit. As such I think TDOS would be required to issue even if they revoked your permit for a non-criminal violation under 1351 thru 1360 rule.

I suspect that we will see in short order whether this logic is correct or not... I'll drop this entire line of argument so as not to further hijack the thread.

Did you know that even if you have never applied for a DL but are arrested for DUI, driving with out a DL, etc.... the DOS issues you one with a revoked status? I guarantee you that the person couldn't go apply for a new DL claiming they never have before.

The piece of plastic and the record of it kept in the computer system are intertwined and can not be separated.

I think we all agree the only otherwise non-criminal offense that can get your HCP revoked or suspended is the "Poses a material likelihood of risk of harm to the public." I don't think any judge worth his salt is going to a say a person that has a HCP, but didn't have it in is possession falls into that category. But if he does, then he does. But HE did it...not the DOS. That is why the law allows for Judaical review, so the DOS is not the end all be all of HCP and there is an external review of their actions.

[kb4ns]

I can't find the law which states TDOS shall issue you a drivers license... I think we're talking about apples and oranges here personally.

It's still apples and oranges, but,

TCA 55-50-301((1)

( (1) The department shall, upon payment of the required fee, issue to every applicant qualifying therefor a driver license indicating the type or general class of vehicles the licensee may drive, which license shall bear thereon a distinguishing number assigned to the licensee, the full legal name, date of birth, current residence address including the street address and number or route and box number (or post office box number if the applicant has no bona fide residential street address), a brief description, a color photograph of the licensee, and either a facsimile of the signature of the licensee or a space upon which the licensee shall write the licensee's usual signature with pen and ink. No license shall be valid until it has been so signed by the licensee.

As far as the rest of the debate. You have one HCP. That's it. After it's issued, t's either valid and in your possession or it's suspended / revoked and in the state's possession. The state is only required to issue a permit, meaning one.

Edited March 31, 2010 by kb4ns

[Guest nashvegas]

Back to our regularly scheduled programming...

Please. Thank you.

[kb4ns]

Please. Thank you.

You're absolutely right. My apologies.

[Fallguy]

Okay....if one of the problems with rolling HB3125 two weeks is because it might not leave time to override a veto.... Then isn't there the same problem if the sponsor of HB2694 waits to see if HB3125 gets out of the Budget committee?

Since Sec 1 of both bills do the same thing (repeal 39-17-1305), couldn't HB2694 go ahead and proceed? Because even if HB3125 moves out and it passed, there is no real problem. It would just match HB2694 and do some additional things.

One difference between HB2694 and HB3125 is HB2694 doesn't contain the "no consuming" like HB3125.

Maybe if some think 39-17-1305 is going to be repealed by either bill, they would rather see the one with the "no consuming" pass?

[GLOCKMEISTER]

right now, unless something changes I think we may be dead in the water on both bills. A 2 week roll hurt our chances big time. The only way possible now is to get the 1st one out of comittee and insist on if they leave make them come back in a special session to take care of it. Slim chance but if we all make calls it can happen. We need EVERYONE to call their house rep and make them come back to take care of this if they leave.

[Volzfan]

When is this current session scheduled to end?