HB3125/SB3012 new restaurant carry bill by Todd/Jackson

[Fallguy]

The penalty for consuming they were talking about would only be while you were in a place that was open to the public that served alcohol. Otherwise the other sub-section of "being under the influence" would apply.

Guess you could sort of think of it like the "open container" law on driving.

Not counting any city ordnances....it is not illegal to stand out side and drink...as long as you don't get to the point of violating the public intoxication law.

But if you are behind the wheel of a car, you can not even have an open container of alcohol, let along drink it.

So with this law (as of last version I saw) in general, just consuming while armed wouldn't necessarily violate the law, unless you consumed to the point you were "under the influence"

But if you are within the confines of a place open to the public that serves alcohol you can't even consume a drop.

Guess we'll just have to see what they finally come up with.

[E4 No More]

Yes, drunk drivers kill more people than handguns - and actually, medical malpractice kills more people than anything else in this country every year - and yes, there should be very stiff penalties for carrying while intoxicated, but what's the difference between having the gun on you when you have a couple of beers and getting back into your vehicle where you left your weapon after the same amount of alcohol? Why should the physical location of your control over the weapon matter?

[E4 No More]

The penalty for consuming they were talking about would only be while you were in a place that was open to the public that served alcohol. Otherwise the other sub-section of "being under the influence" would apply.

Guess you could sort of think of it like the "open container" law on driving.

Not counting any city ordnances....it is not illegal to stand out side and drink...as long as you don't get to the point of violating the public intoxication law.

But if you are behind the wheel of a car, you can not even have an open container of alcohol, let along drink it.

So with this law (as of last version I saw) in general, just consuming while armed wouldn't necessarily violate the law, unless you consumed to the point you were "under the influence"

But if you are within the confines of a place open to the public that serves alcohol you can't even consume a drop.

Guess we'll just have to see what they finally come up with.

In the spirit of "What if's"...let's say the waitress picks-up a rum and coke rather than the plain coke that you ordered. You take a drink and discover the alcohol. You just broke the law. Someone sees that you are printing and "drinking" and reports you to the police. Guess what? You're screwed!

[Fallguy]

In the spirit of "What if's"...let's say the waitress picks-up a rum and coke rather than the plain coke that you ordered. You take a drink and discover the alcohol. You just broke the law. Someone sees that you are printing and "drinking" and reports you to the police. Guess what? You're screwed!

Yep....guess you may need someone else to take a sip on any beverages you order before you consume them.

But can't say I have ever accidentally got an alcoholic drink in any restaurant....lol

Most of the time don't alcoholic and non-alcoholic come in different type glasses?

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

In the spirit of "What if's"...let's say the waitress picks-up a rum and coke rather than the plain coke that you ordered. You take a drink and discover the alcohol. You just broke the law. Someone sees that you are printing and "drinking" and reports you to the police. Guess what? You're screwed!

that situation would be easily defensible I would think. all parties involved could be easily questioned on site or on a witness stand. the wait staff, the bartender, the busy body snitch..uh I mean witness.

[E4 No More]

Yep....guess you may need someone else to take a sip on any beverages you order before you consume them.

But can't say I have ever accidentally got an alcoholic drink in any restaurant....lol

Most of the time don't alcoholic and non-alcoholic come in different type glasses?

The last bar I was in there was no difference in containers. There were several in my group, and some were ordering cokes, and some were ordering alcoholic drinks. The glasses were the same.

But do you really want to spend the money to defend yourself if you're the unlucky schmuck to land yourself in that scenario? I prefer that the law was written to prevent an innocent person from getting screwed because he doesn't have the money to defend himself.

[Fallguy]

The last bar I was in there was no difference in containers. There were several in my group, and some were ordering cokes, and some were ordering alcoholic drinks. The glasses were the same.

But do you really want to spend the money to defend yourself if you're the unlucky schmuck to land yourself in that scenario? I prefer that the law was written to prevent an innocent person from getting screwed because he doesn't have the money to defend himself.

As long as you don't keep consuming, I really don't see a charge and/or prosecution but anything is possible I guess.

The law is not going to pass if any type of consuming is allowed...so how would you like to see it changed to protect innocent people?

[Fallguy]

Video is up

[Fallguy]

I see Chief Serpas in the crowd....can hardly wait to hear what he has to say....

[E4 No More]

As long as you don't keep consuming, I really don't see a charge and/or prosecution but anything is possible I guess.

The law is not going to pass if any type of consuming is allowed...so how would you like to see it changed to protect innocent people?

Add the words, "Knowingly consumes alcoholic beverage...." That puts the burdon of proof on the prosecution.

[Fallguy]

Add the words, "Knowingly consumes alcoholic beverage...." That puts the burdon of proof on the prosecution.

Hmmm....not bad, but probably too late to change now....

[Fallguy]

Committee Chairman made a "quick list" of bills he felt would not have any or much discussion and going to those first.

As you might guess...HB3125 not on that list.....

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

Well dang, this is not moving along as quickly as I had hoped - gonna have to go pick up the kids.

[DavidD]

What's up with Coleman on HB2718, is he an idiot or what? What does dress have to do with this? Here goes the UT mouth piece....

[Fallguy]

What's up with Coleman on HB2718, is he an idiot or what? What does dress have to do with this? Here goes the UT mouth piece....

Discussion on other bills besides HB3125 being done here http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/tennessee-politics-legislation/36951-bills-being-heard-today-3-16-10-a.html

[Worriedman]

Been traveling today, did HB 3125 get out of committee?

[Fallguy]

Hasn't come up yet

[GLOCKMEISTER]

John Harris just sent me the latest rough draft, I dont think were going to have anything to worry about. So far I like it. With the exception of me haveing to spend time in class talking about why guns and boose dont mix... at least more then we already do. I think that part is silly.

[Fallguy]

John Harris just sent me the latest rough draft, I dont think were going to have anything to worry about. So far I like it. With the exception of me haveing to spend time in class talking about why guns and boose dont mix... at least more then we already do. I think that part is silly.

Check PM

[Fallguy]

Finally...here we go....hold on boys and girls....

[DavidD]

Here we go.

[Fallguy]

Amendment introduced by Coleman

To allow slash and gun only instead of sign.

Motion to tabled by a vote of 7-6

[DavidD]

We must have overloaded their server again, the video keeps coming and going.

[Fallguy]

We must have overloaded their server again, the video keeps coming and going.

No problems for me... Fingers crossed

[DavidD]

No problems for me... Fingers crossed

What was Sontany's (SP?) motion?