HB3125/SB3012 new restaurant carry bill by Todd/Jackson

[Wingshooter]

Placed on sub-committee calender of Financial Ways and Means for 03/24/2010, and the Amendment is finally up on the TN Legislature site.

Cool, thanks! I got wrapped up in Obamacare and lost track of this amendment.

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/106/Amend/HA1068.pdf

Judiciary Committee 1

Amendment No. 1 to HB3125

Coleman

Signature of Sponsor

AMEND S e nate Bill No. 3012* House Bill No. 3125

HA1068

01538971

-1-

by deleting all language after the enacting clause and by substituting instead the following:

SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 39-17-1305, is amended by

deleting the section in its entirety.

SECTION 2. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 39-17-1321, is amended by

adding the following new subsection ( and by redesignating accordingly:

( It is an offense for a person to possess a firearm if the person is both:

(1) Within the confines of an establishment open to the public

where liquor, wine or other alcoholic beverages, as defined in § 57-3-

101(a)(1)(A), or beer, as defined in § 57-6-102(1), are served for

consumption on the premises; and

(2) Consuming any alcoholic beverage listed in subdivision (1) of

this subsection (.

SECTION 3. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 39-17-1359, is amended by

deleting the section in its entirety and substituting instead the following:

(a)

(1) An individual, corporation, business entity or local, state or

federal government entity or agent thereof is authorized to prohibit the

possession of weapons by any person who is at a meeting conducted by,

or on property owned, operated, or managed or under the control of the

individual, corporation, business entity or government entity.

(2) The prohibition in subdivision (1) shall apply to any person

who is authorized to carry a firearm by authority of § 39-17-1351.

(

HA1068

01538971

-2-

(1) Notice of the prohibition permitted by subsection (a) shall be

accomplished by posting notices to be displayed in prominent locations,

including all entrances primarily used by persons entering each building,

or portion of the building or buildings, where weapon possession is

prohibited.

(2) If the possession of weapons is also prohibited on the

premises of the property as well as within the confines of a building

located on the property, the notice shall be posted at all entrances to the

premises that are primarily used by persons entering the property.

(3) The notice required by this section shall be in English, but a

duplicate notice may also be posted in any language used by patrons,

customers or persons who frequent the place where weapon possession

is prohibited. In addition to, but not in lieu of, the sign set out in

subdivision (4), notice may also include the international circle and slash

symbolizing the prohibition of the item within the circle.

(4) The sign shall be of a size that is plainly visible to the average

person entering the building, premises or property and shall contain the

following language:

AS AUTHORIZED BY TCA § 39-17-1359, POSSESSION OF A

WEAPON ON THIS PROPERTY, WITHIN THIS BUILDING, OR

THE POSTED PORTION OF THIS BUILDING IS PROHIBITED.

A VIOLATION IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE PUNISHABLE BY A

FINE OF $500 AND POSSIBLE IMPRISONMENT.

©

(1) It is an offense to possess a weapon in a building or on

property that is properly posted in accordance with this section.

HA1068

01538971

-3-

(2) Possession of a weapon on posted property in violation of this

section is a Class B misdemeanor punishable by fine only of five hundred

dollars ($500).

(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to alter, reduce or eliminate

any civil or criminal liability that a property owner or manager may have for

injuries arising on their property.

(e) The provisions of this section shall not apply to title 70 regarding

wildlife laws, rules and regulations.

(f) This section shall not apply to the grounds of any public park, natural

area, historic park, nature trail, campground, forest, greenway, waterway or other

similar public place that is owned or operated by the state, a county, a

municipality or instrumentality thereof. The carrying of firearms in those areas

shall be governed by § 39-17-1311.

(g) Any notice posted prior to the effective date of this act that is in

substantial compliance with the provisions of this section as it existed prior to the

effective date of this act shall remain valid and in full force and effect until

October 1, 2010. After such date, property must be posted in accordance with

the provisions of this section to prohibit the possession of weapons on the posted

property.

SECTION 4. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 39-17-1351, is amended by

inserting the following between the fourth and fifth sentences of subsection (e):

Beginning September 1, 2010, and thereafter, a component of the

classroom portion of all department approved handgun safety courses shall be

instruction on alcohol and drugs, the effects of those substances on a person's

reflexes, judgment and ability to safely handle a firearm, and the provisions of §

39-17-1321.

SECTION 5. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 57-3-204, is amended by

deleting subsection (e) in its entirety.

HA1068

01538971

-4-

SECTION 6. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 57-4-203, is amended by

deleting subsection (k) in its entirety.

SECTION 7. This act shall take effect upon becoming a law, the public welfare

requiring it.

[saintsfanbrian]

So you cannot carry in Pizza Hut if they post properly but if they don't go right ahead is how I see it.

[Fallguy]

So you cannot carry in Pizza Hut if they post properly but if they don't go right ahead is how I see it.

Yep...in fact you could carry ANYWHERE that serves alcohol as long as they are not posted (and you're not consuming)....and there will not be any question what a "proper posting" is either.

[Oh Shoot]

Sign says:

"...A VIOLATION IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE PUNISHABLE BY A

FINE OF $500 AND POSSIBLE IMPRISONMENT."

But statute then says:

"(2) Possession of a weapon on posted property in violation of this

section is a Class B misdemeanor punishable by fine only of five hundred

dollars ($500)."

This is final version?

If so, I'm certainly glad to see there is inconsistent language as always.

- OS

[Guest 270win]

Yeah at least we only have to worry at most about a five hundred dollar fine..and no possible day in jail...IF caught over a dumb sign. Thank goodness. Keep it concealed my friends. I guess the jailtime is for the folks without permits...b/c that can be a Class A Misdemeanor when in public.

[Oh Shoot]

... I guess the jailtime is for the folks without permits...b/c that can be a Class A Misdemeanor when in public.

Which is max of a $2500 and/or time.

So if you don't have a permit and get caught past a sign, it's LESS than if there's no sign?

See what I mean about lack of consistency in these things?

- OS

[Guest archerdr1]

Well fellas, I finally got a response from Bo Watson. I think he will do the right thing, however I was not too pleased with his response. Here it is

"I have received and read your e-mail. Thank you for the information on this important piece of legislation. I will retain your thoughts on this issue for reference when we take up this bill. I am not sure when the Senate will take up this bill.

I will be up for re-election this fall. Thanks for your support.

Bo"

way too politically safe if you ask me.

[Fallguy]

Sign says:

"...A VIOLATION IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE PUNISHABLE BY A

FINE OF $500 AND POSSIBLE IMPRISONMENT."

But statute then says:

"(2) Possession of a weapon on posted property in violation of this

section is a Class B misdemeanor punishable by fine only of five hundred

dollars ($500)."

This is final version?

If so, I'm certainly glad to see there is inconsistent language as always.

- OS

I think one reason the sign may say possible imprisonment is because the orginal bill did call for jail time for certain violations.

Maybe one reason they left it in, was "just in case" there was another violation besides 39-17-1359?

But as long as there is the section of the law says $500 fine only....it doesn't bother me what the sign says, as long as it has to have specific wording. Maybe with the possible imprisonment language will keep some business owners from posting thinking they don't want to send anyone to jail.

[waynesan]

OK, so you will be subject to a $500 fine for being in violation of this new law. What about your permit? Can they take that away for the same violation?

[Oh Shoot]

OK, so you will be subject to a $500 fine for being in violation of this new law. What about your permit? Can they take that away for the same violation?

Yes.

39-17-1352. Suspension or revocation of license.

(a) The department shall suspend or revoke a handgun permit upon a showing by its records or other sufficient evidence that the permit holder:

(6) Has violated any other provision of §§ 39-17-1351 — 39-17-1360;

Folks here are overlooking that.

The fine is not the worst part.

- OS

[Fallguy]

Yes.

39-17-1352. Suspension or revocation of license.

(a) The department shall suspend or revoke a handgun permit upon a showing by its records or other sufficient evidence that the permit holder:

(6) Has violated any other provision of §§ 39-17-1351 — 39-17-1360;

Folks here are overlooking that.

The fine is not the worst part.

- OS

Hmmmm Good point.

The $500 fine is the worst the court can do to you, but it does appear the Dept of Safety could suspend or revoke your permit. Well..in fact the language says shall.

[Oh Shoot]

Hmmmm Good point.

The $500 fine is the worst the court can do to you, but it does appear the Dept of Safety could suspend or revoke your permit. Well..in fact the language says shall.

Yeah, assuming TNDOS is notified by the court, I guess, or until another background check at renewal time.

Well, it's been that way all along, as far as carrying in posted biz (..1359), but not for most of the other no no's (park carry, carrying in booze serving restaurant while that was illegal, carrying while under the influence, or in court, or even in school), and still isn't. Although the school thing would be a felony, so that would zap it.

- OS

Edited March 21, 2010 by OhShoot

[JayC]

Yes.

39-17-1352. Suspension or revocation of license.

(a) The department shall suspend or revoke a handgun permit upon a showing by its records or other sufficient evidence that the permit holder:

(6) Has violated any other provision of §§ 39-17-1351 — 39-17-1360;

Folks here are overlooking that.

The fine is not the worst part.

- OS

But would anything stop you from taking the class the next day and re-applying for a permit?

[Oh Shoot]

But would anything stop you from taking the class the next day and re-applying for a permit?

Technically, I cannot find anything to prevent it.

I imagine they could issue and immediately suspend it, though, just to cost you money and teach you a lesson.

Or you could be tagged with a lifetime "..poses a material likelihood of risk of harm to the public"...

That's one reason I took the unpopular stand that Kwik's permit should not be zapped ... after all, he didn't even do anything illegal, and yet in this case "you" did.

- OS

[Fallguy]

But would anything stop you from taking the class the next day and re-applying for a permit?

That's assuming they revoked it...they could just suspend it.

To me it seems 39-17-1352(a)(6) was more to address any false information given or something done wrong in the permit process as §§ 39-17-1351 -- 39-17-1360 were all created as part of the HCP law in 1996.

Other than 39-17-1359 all other off-limits places are earlier in the part 13.

But as we've seen, what the legislature intendes and what ends up happening aren't always the same. :-\

[JayC]

Technically, I cannot find anything to prevent it.

I imagine they could issue and immediately suspend it, though, just to cost you money and teach you a lesson.

Or you could be tagged with a lifetime "..poses a material likelihood of risk of harm to the public"...

That's one reason I took the unpopular stand that Kwik's permit should not be zapped ... after all, he didn't even do anything illegal, and yet in this case "you" did.

- OS

Shoot, you and I are on the same side in the Kwik permit issue... I'm not a fan of the guy, but the zapping of his permit was wrong. Hopefully he'll find a good lawyer and get it re-instated in short order.

As far as revoking or suspending, short of the "poses a material likelihood..." stance, it doesn't seem they could keep you from getting a HCP re-issued for any length of time, since TN is a shall issue state, and violating 1359 under this new law would not be a reason to prevent issuing the permit.

You'll note the law says they can suspend or revoke, doesn't say they can deny a permit

Not that I would personally advocate violating the law, but $500 seems like a small price to pay in the off chance you're caught carrying where you're not supposed to be, instead of needing your firearm and not having it.

[ngoeser59]

HB3125 is in Budget Sub Committee this Wed at 11am. The way that committee is stacked......I pray it makes it out. Naifeh is in there.

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

yea Nikki, it does look like that could be a major hurdle for this bill indeed. Donna Rowland is on that committee as well so that will help. I might be wrong, but here is the way I understand it. Since that is a Budget committee, they are really only supposed to vote yes/no based on the budgetary issues of the bill rather than arguing other angles such as public safety or the constitutionality of the bill etc... Of course, that doesn't mean that Naifeh won't do everything in his power to defeat it in committee. I just hope that the committee chair will keep them on focus and discussing/voting on the budgetary merits of the bill.

[GLOCKMEISTER]

Tennessee Firearms Association, Inc.

Legislative Action Committee

Developments Tuesday night and Wednesday morning suggest a manuever by "hospitality" interests designed to kill the bill to fix the restaurant court decision entirely. (HB3125)

The plan seems to be for that interest group (which likely includes Rayburn) to ask the House Finance Ways and Means to seek a 2 week roll on the bill in order to offer amendment(s) that would modify existing licensing laws so that a "bar" or something similar would be a new category that could be idenitified in the firearms laws as an off limits location. This appears to be a delay maneuver since it has never been offered in the last 14 years as an amendment. Its a delay because April is upon us, the legislature will likely be in session only a few more weeks and if the bill is passed and vetoed at this point there is a good chance that it would not be overriden because the legislative session will run out of available days and, in an election year, there will be too many excuses not to come back.

It is critical to call and contact your legislators as well as these committee members and demand that the bill be approved and sent to the floor today. We cannot accept a delay designed to kill rather than improve a bill. Its already a close vote but a 2 week roll could turn out to be lethal.

Wednesday, March 24, the House Finance, Ways, and Means Budget Sub-Committee will hear House Bill 3125.

Speaker Kent Williams (R-4)

(615) 741-7450

speaker.kent.williams@capitol.tn.gov

State Representative Harry Tindell(D-13), Chair

(615) 741-2031

rep.harry.tindell@capitol.tn.gov

State Representative Charles Sargent (R-61), Vice Chair

(615) 741-6808

rep.charles.sargent@capitol.tn.gov

State Representative Joe Armstrong (D-15)

(615) 741-0768

rep.joe.armstrong@capitol.tn.gov

State Representative Lois DeBerry (D-91)

(615) 741-3830

rep.lois.deberry@capitol.tn.gov

State Representative Craig Fitzhugh (D-82)

(615) 741-2134

rep.craig.fitzhugh@capitol.tn.gov

State Representative Michael Harrison (R-9)

(615) 741-7480

rep.mike.harrison@capitol.tn.gov

State Representative Steve McDaniel (R-72)

(615) 741-0750

rep.steve.mcdaniel@capitol.tn.gov

State Representative Richard Montgomery (R-12)

(615) 741-5981

rep.richard.montgomery@capitol.tn.gov

State Representative Jason Mumpower (R-3)

(615) 741-2050

rep.jason.mumpower@capitol.tn.gov

State Representative Jimmy Naifeh (D-81)

(615) 741-3774

spk.eme.jimmy.naifeh@capitol.tn.gov

State Representative Gary Odom (D-55)

(615) 741-4410

rep.gary.odom@capitol.tn.gov

State Representative Dennis Roach (R-35)

(615) 741-2534

rep.dennis.roach@capitol.tn.gov

State Representative Donna Rowland (R-34)

(615) 741-2804

rep.donna.rowland@capitol.tn.gov

State Representative Johnny Shaw (D-80)

(615) 741-4538

rep.johnny.shaw@capitol.tn.gov

[Fallguy]

HB3125 by was taken upon in the House Finance Ways and Means committee. It is one of the "evenly divided" House committees as established by Speaker Williams.

Calls were made to all known favorable Representatives including Speaker Williams who has the right to vote on the bill to appear and vote the bill to the full committee. The bill, as amended, has no fiscal note impact.

An announcement was made by Rep. Steve McDaniel that Rep. Todd, the sponsor, had requested the bill to be rolled two (2) weeks. This move is one of significant concern given the expected course of this legislation.

[Guest TNReb]

Does anyone know why Rep. Todd asked to roll the bill two weeks?

[GLOCKMEISTER]

not good

[waynesan]

Could it be the Pro Gun Legislators have decided to get behind HB2694 instead of HB3125? It seems like a better bill and everyone seemed to be all for it when it was discussed here a month or so ago.

[DavidD]

We can only hope that there is more going on than meets they eye since Todd asked that the bill be rolled.....

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

Both of Todd's bill were rolled 2 weeks, kinda makes me think that just maybe he had some emergency come up and he is going to be out of commission for 2 weeks and can't work etc...???