HB3125/SB3012 new restaurant carry bill by Todd/Jackson

[DavidD]

.....although they will probably wait until it passes the house and just substitute the house bill for theirs.

One can only hope.

[Fallguy]

Hmmm...text of the amendment still not on state's website.

Wish there was some way to see it.

[DavidD]

I can't find anything either.

[Fallguy]

From watching the video it sounded like Rep Todd and the committee members may tweak the amendment a bit more before it presented to the full committee.

After that the text of what is voted on by the full committee is added the webpage.

[Guest bkelm18]

Ugh. This is giving me Deja Vu. Hopefully if this thing rides through, we won't have to wait until July again.

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

Based on Sontani's comments, even if this bill does pass, it could still be tied up in court for a long time. I think that is what part of what the lawyers had in mind when the drug it into the court system.

[DavidD]

Ugh. This is giving me Deja Vu. Hopefully if this thing rides through, we won't have to wait until July again.

In my opinion, there isn't any reason to think that we won't have a repeat of last year.

[GKar]

The committee's attorney indicated that the language of this bill, as amended, would replace the sections of the Code that are under review by the appellate court, thus rendering any decision by that court moot. Later in the discussions, one committee member remarked that he saw the bill as helping to relieve some of the appellate backlog, and that he supported that, too.

Yeah, I think its a given that the whole veto/override mess will replay itself...otherwise, Bredesen would look like an even bigger fool than he already does.

[GKar]

HB 3125 is now posted as on the House Judiciary calendar for 3/16/10.

In a stunning surprise, Reps. Camper and Sontany voted against the bill today...some things never change, eh?

[Fallguy]

Based on Sontani's comments, even if this bill does pass, it could still be tied up in court for a long time. I think that is what part of what the lawyers had in mind when the drug it into the court system.

The only discussion I heard on court was the law that passed last year and her wanting to wait until the court case was resolved until the legislature did anything new.

This bill, when passed, would make any ruling on the old law moot as this bill would make new law. There is nothing obviously vague in the new bill that could be challenged as the last one was.

Edited March 11, 2010 by Fallguy

[Fallguy]

Firearms Law Day in House Judiciary

March 10, 2010, was scheduled as the day of the House Judiciary Committee to take up the firearms bills that would move forward for 2010. The one topic that has clearly garnered the most attention is the one which addresses what would the Legislature's response be to the Davidson County Chancellor who declared unconstitutional the change in the law in 2009.

House Bill 3125 (Todd) / SB 3012 (Jackson) passed out of the House Judiciary by a vote of 4-2 after almost 30 minutes of debate in the scheduled one hour session. There were 43 other bills on notice and less than half of those were then taken up.

It is important to understand that HB3125 was amended on Monday of this week with an amendment that totally rewrites the bill. The version of the bill appearing on the legislative website at present is not what passed. The version that passed has the effect of completely repealing the existing law on possession of firearms where alcohol or beer is served (TCA 39-17-1305). The result of this amendment would be not that it is legal to carry guns in such places. The result would be that the carrying of firearms in these places is now treated no differently than carrying in any other place - its illegal unless you have a carry permit. If you do have a carry permit, it is still illegal under the proposed amended bill if the property is correctly posted (TCA 39-17-1359) and/or if you are "consuming" alcohol or beer (TCA 39-17-1321).

There were many comments made during the discussion about this issue. One of the most noteworthy was by Rep. Eddie Bass. Rep. Bass is from Giles and Marshall counties. He has a long history in law enforcement and was formerly the sheriff of Giles county. He spoke to the claims of Gov. Bredesen, Chief Ronal Serpas, Rep. Jimmy Naifeh and the Chiefs of Police Association which collectively claim that "all" law enforcement oppose this bill. As did Senator Doug Jackson in his veto over-ride speech in 2009, Rep. Bass spoke to the issue of law enforcement on this bill. He emphasized that the law enforcement officers that he knew, as well as himself, are substantially all in favor of this legislation because they know and respect the fact that Tennessee handgun permit holders are good, honorable and law abiding citizens. This is the type of reputation that Tennessee's firearms owners need and deserve but at the same time it is the type of reputation that we must jealously protect by being law abiding and helping to protect and preserve our rights, our cities, our counties and our state.

At this point, the bill must still be voted on by the full House Judiciary as well as by the Senate Judiciary. We should have adequate votes in both but we need you to start contacting these committee members as well as your individual House and Senate members now. It is important to push this bill fast because we must anticipate another effort by those who would deny our rights to defeat this legislation by veto or otherwise.

Several other firearms related bills moved forward and will be updated on the next general status report.

Contact Information is on their individual pages:

Senate Judiciary Committee Officers

• Mae Beavers, Chair
  
• Doug Jackson, Vice-Chair
  
• Doug Overbey, Secretary
  

Members

• Diane Black
  
• Dewayne Bunch
  
• Mike Faulk
  
• Brian Kelsey
  
• Jim Kyle
  
• Beverly Marrero
  

House Judiciary Committee Officers

• Kent Coleman, Chair
  
• Jon Lundberg, Vice-Chair
  
• Janis Sontany, Secretary
  

Members

• Eddie Bass
  
• Karen Camper
  
• Jim Coley
  
• Vance Dennis
  
• Henry Fincher
  
• Judd Matheny
  
• Barrett Rich
  
• Mike Stewart
  
• Eric Watson
  

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

The only discussion I heard on court was the law that passed last year and her wanting to wait until the court case was resolved until the legislature did anything new.

This bill, when passed, would make any ruling on the old law moot as this bill would make new law. There is nothing obviously ague in the new bill that could be challenged as the last one was.

Good point. Thanks.

[Fallguy]

Attached below is the amendment.

Sections 3-6 are basically the same as in the OP

The changes were in Sections 1 and 2

Sec 1 Repeals 39-17-1305

Sec 2 Creates a new sub-section to 39-17-1321 which says it is illegal to carry a firearm with the confines of building open to the public that serves alcohol for onsite consumption and at the same time to be consuming alcohol.

Sec 1 is a definite improvement!!

Sec 2 is what I'm sure they will address further on the increasing the penalty for. However it would seem that by adding a new subsection, "consuming" would only be illegal if you are within in the confines of a place open to the public that serves alcohol. The "under the influence" part would still apply elsewhere.

I have to say I think this is a very good bill!!

Edited March 11, 2010 by Fallguy

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Looks good to me.

[Guest eyescream]

I'm just glad there's finally a requirement for certain text and at least some sort of guideline for size and placement. I hate looking for a revolver with a circle around it that's the size of a half-dollar coin like I've almost missed on I dunno how many stores.

[Guest 270win]

You haven't had to look for a revolver with a circle now. That doesn't hold water under the current law.

The nice thing about this law is it basically deletes the silly alcohol statute. I do not agree that someone should face a misdemeanor charge for having A DRINK while carrying a handgun...just have to do that at home!....but sometimes we must compromise....it is a much better bill than the original...where we could have risked bigger problems.

[macville]

It also looks like they won't be able to ban just firearms which can kinda be banned right now. Since it has to contain the language which is in the code, and that language says "weapon" and not just firearm, it will mean that all knives will also be banned. That's gonna be hard for some places to post because it would drive away all your business, because let's be honest...you can kill someone with a swiss army knife just like with a gun. Of course, the only thing that may matter here is what is defined as a weapon? Under the current law even the smallest of pocket knives are a no go, or will it drop to the 4" and under knives being legal?

Matthew

[Guest 270win]

Macville,

The sign deal to me is complicated and stupid and unnecessary. It should be eliminated entirely. If someone wants to put up anything that says "NO GUNS"...more power to them......but the state of TN should not have a law that says someone with a permit can be FINED 500 bucks over a DUMB SIGN. What is the point of getting a permit??? It is to carry a gun?...why should the state give a sign power to make our permit worthless??? That's stupid. A property owner can ask someone to leave without the state getting involved with a weapons offense fine...there's already something called trespassing.

[macville]

Macville,

The sign deal to me is complicated and stupid and unnecessary. It should be eliminated entirely. If someone wants to put up anything that says "NO GUNS"...more power to them......but the state of TN should not have a law that says someone with a permit can be FINED 500 bucks over a DUMB SIGN. What is the point of getting a permit??? It is to carry a gun?...why should the state give a sign power to make our permit worthless??? That's stupid. A property owner can ask someone to leave without the state getting involved with a weapons offense fine...there's already something called trespassing.

I agree. But here's what I think. Personally, I am first and foremost for property rights. While I think it's horrible, I think property owners should be able to ban anyone for any reason (race, creed, whatever) from their property. It's their property and should only have to allow whoever they want on it. That said, since that's not the case and forced to allow all people all, then they should be forced to allow us with our firearms on to their property. It needs to be one way or another.

Really, the only place I don't think people should be allowed to carry a firearm is in a jail/prison (almost more for your own safety) and in a courtroom (although, being allowed may lower the amount of people we'd have to jail because a loved one may shoot the perp and then probably wouldn't get much jail time for that because it was done out of "grief").

Matthew

[Fallguy]

I don't think a knife with a blade of 4" or less is a weapon.

As far as banning weapons instead of just handguns, most people can't carry any type of weapon anyway except handguns by us and batons by those with certificates of training.

[Guest uofmeet]

I'm for that bill. Looks good to me.

I guess i will have to E-mail Rep Cooley and Sen Kelsey

Edited March 11, 2010 by uofmeet

[Guest 270win]

If the sign is being changed to say 'possible imprisonment' but those with permits are only max subject to a $500 fine, who is subject to imprisonment(actually jail time) with the revision of 39-17-1359? I'm assuming those who are carrying without permits are subject to jail time?

[Fallguy]

If the sign is being changed to say 'possible imprisonment' but those with permits are only max subject to a $500 fine, who is subject to imprisonment(actually jail time) with the revision of 39-17-1359? I'm assuming those who are carrying without permits are subject to jail time?

I think it has jail time because if you carry past a 39-17-1359 sign (when they get it all worked out) in a place that serves alcohol you could go to jail.

[Guest 270win]

So if you have a permit, and you are not drinking, and you walk past one of these signs at a place that serves, THEN you could go to jail? That is not the right direction this should go. I can see leaving the fine in place, though I do not like it, but if not drinking, and you have a permit, you should not go to jail...that is pretty stiff over a silly sign...that is very very dumb...people don't do jail time over DWI and that is more of a crime than carrying a gun..not drinking..and walking past a sign at a restaurant.

[Fallguy]

So if you have a permit, and you are not drinking, and you walk past one of these signs at a place that serves, THEN you could go to jail? That is not the right direction this should go. I can see leaving the fine in place, though I do not like it, but if not drinking, and you have a permit, you should not go to jail...that is pretty stiff over a silly sign...that is very very dumb...people don't do jail time over DWI and that is more of a crime than carrying a gun..not drinking..and walking past a sign at a restaurant.

I'm not really sure....

In the text of the amendment it says that a violation of 39-17-1359 is the $500 fine only.

I think they were trying to come up with a sign that would give your warning of the penalty for violation of 39-17-1359 anda violation of what would be the new 39-17-1321 by being in place that serves alcohol and consuming.

Long story short...there is obvisouly some more stuff to work out.

I'm sure what I posted is not the final version of what will be in front of the committee next week.