Restaurant Carry Bill

[Oh Shoot]

Under Tindall's amendment - if a place has <50% food sales and doesn't post: does that then open them up to enforcement action by the ABC???

They didn't mention any penalty for the businesses, if they want to lie.

Which many will want to, I'd say, since this might nuke their "restaurant" license down the road, if TN changes the rules on giving out licenses.

Yow, amendment was not tabled.

- OS

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

Under Tindall's amendment - if a place has <50% food sales and doesn't post: does that then open them up to enforcement action by the ABC???

Good point GKar. The more I listen to them discuss it, the less I like it. It creates more confusion and ambiguity which is exactly what stumbled the legislation last year. This amendment needs to be voted down.

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

Interesting - Naifeh called for a vote on the amendment, that must mean that he has an amendment that he wants to get to that will be even more nuts.

[Oh Shoot]

Good point GKar. The more I listen to them discuss it, the less I like it. It creates more confusion and ambiguity which is exactly what stumbled the legislation last year. This amendment needs to be voted down.

Voting on amendment itself now, since Naifeh was able to cut off discussion:

Amendment PASSES.

I think that's bad.

- OS

[GKar]

Tindall's amendment passes 27-4. That's gonna be a problem, downstream if not now.

[Oh Shoot]

Tindall's amendment passes 27-4. That's gonna be a problem, downstream if not now.

Yeah, it will.

Now voting on bill itself, with the amendment in it:

Passes 17/13, one abstain.

Good and bad.

- OS

[GKar]

Now, Naifeh praises a feature of the bill, acting as a real HCP holder. I just lost a good lunch...

[Oh Shoot]

Now, Naifeh praises a feature of the bill, acting as a real HCP holder. I just lost a good lunch...

Yeah, gag me with a backhoe.

NOW, they're talking about enforcement of the business to post if they are a "bar".

Okay, bill goes to Senate floor.

- OS

[GKar]

Ahhh...Odom ask about enforcement. Tindall admits there are no penalties. "Thinks" they'll be told they must put a sign up.

Voting again????

[GKar]

Bill passes 20-6 with 5 abstentions.

[Oh Shoot]

Ahhh...Odom ask about enforcement. Tindall admits there are no penalties. "Thinks" they'll be told they must put a sign up.

Voting again????

To send to floor of Senate.

Done.

They're finished with it in committee.

They COULD have actually passed the bill with amendments and STILL have tabled it, keeping it from being heard in Senate, hence the last vote to send it.

- OS

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

well, that is that. It passed out of committee as amended.

[GKar]

As much as I dislike the amendment, one might wonder if it may pave the way to avoiding a veto...after, it does address what presumably was the major objection.

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

As much as I dislike the amendment, one might wonder if it may pave the way to avoiding a veto...after, it does address what presumably was the major objection.

True. It takes the burden off of the permit holder and puts it onto the business owner more or less as a 'standard business practice'.

[Oh Shoot]

True. It takes the burden off of the permit holder and puts it onto the business owner more or less as a 'standard business practice'.

Wait and see if this doesn't shake up the TN Beverage Control sector, or whatever it's called, down the road. Since all the "liquor bars" now have "restaurant" licenses, apparently in non-compliance with the existing, and not enforced, rules.

- OS

[GKar]

Did anyone catch the little tet-a-tet between Williams and several cmte members? Williams said, somewhat whimsically, he noted that many "former" committee chairs voted against him on this legislation. A male voice retorted that they had noted he voted against many of those who put him there...

[GKar]

Wait and see if this doesn't shake up the TN Beverage Control sector, or whatever it's called, down the road. Since all the "liquor bars" now have "restaurant" licenses, apparently in non-compliance with the existing, and not enforced, rules.

- OS

Good point...and frankly, I hope so. Sometimes, collateral damage is a good thing...

[macville]

So what exactly did they add? a 50% rule? Isn't that what supposedly got us in trouble the first time? What about carrying in places that aren't restaurants, but have liquor license like "clubs" or civic centers?

Matthew

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

So HB3125 is head to Calendar committee in both House and Senate to be scheduled for a full vote right? That means at best case it gets a full vote in House and Senate within the next couple of weeks - yeah?

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

So what exactly did they add? a 50% rule? Isn't that what supposedly got us in trouble the first time? What about carrying in places that aren't restaurants, but have liquor license like "clubs" or civic centers?

Matthew

Macville, the added the 50% amendment, but it is up to the bar owner to determine his percentage and post accordingly. The responsibility is on the business owner, not the permit holder.

[Guest Doc44]

Wait and see if this doesn't shake up the TN Beverage Control sector, or whatever it's called, down the road. Since all the "liquor bars" now have "restaurant" licenses, apparently in non-compliance with the existing, and not enforced, rules.

- OS

This what I said last year... and there in lies the political "who's in my pocket" problem. There is a state definition of a bar and a restaurant. Many actual bars are operating on a restaurant licenses... pigs' feet and peanuts do not a restaurant make. Some of these bars operating on a restaurant liscense would probably not be zoned legal if they were a bar. Just follow the money and find the underlying problem with guns in restaurants.

The solution is so simple.... put up a sign "THIS IS A RESTAURANT" or "THIS IS A BAR.... NO FIREARMS ALLOWED".... duh

I think even a judge can understand that.

Doc44.

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

I am not a drinker or a person that hangs out in bars so I can say this without pain. Maybe this bill will also 'clean up' our state a bit in weeding out some dive bars that are not necessarily in compliance with their status as a 'restaurant'. That wouldn't bother me a bit.

[Fallguy]

This what I said last year... and there in lies the political "who's in my pocket" problem. There is a state definition of a bar and a restaurant. Many actual bars are operating on a restaurant licenses... pigs' feet and peanuts do not a restaurant make. Some of these bars operating on a restaurant liscense would probably not be zoned legal if they were a bar. Just follow the money and find the underlying problem with guns in restaurants.

The solution is so simple.... put up a sign "THIS IS A RESTAURANT" or "THIS IS A BAR.... NO FIREARMS ALLOWED".... duh

I think even a judge can understand that.

Doc44.

There are restaurant and other than restaurant or "special" licenses from the ABC, but I don't think there is actual BAR license.

..and again...ABC only controls liquor, not beer. There are thousands of places that serve only beer and not liquor, some serving food...some not, so the ABC wouldn't have anything to do with them either.

While we all know what a bar is, there is no legal definition in TN.

I was out and missed the actual video of the committee, but it sounds as if it will be up to business owner to determine if he has to post a sign or not. So as far as we go...it is still if there is no sign, legal...if there is...it's not.

One question though....could this amendment be removed on the floor? Seems like last year there were several amendments that were introduced on the floor....so this could be cleared up or removed still I assume.

[Oh Shoot]

...

The solution is so simple.... put up a sign "THIS IS A RESTAURANT" or "THIS IS A BAR.... NO FIREARMS ALLOWED".... duh...

Well, this sort of does that.

ALL "less than 50% food sales" places that sell liquor, wine, or beer, will have to post the exactly defined sign.

While it also allows ANY other "more than 50% food sales" to also post the exactly defined sign.

Matter of fact, the new sign will be mandated for ALL businesses, not just those that sell booze, as it amends the "certain meetings" statute also, as I understand it.

- OS

[GKar]

Similar to PWS, the amendment won't affect me directly...but I just get this sneaking feeling that there's more to it than appears at the moment, and that it may eventually fall into the old trap of "the more complicated you make the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain." So, the telling question may be - if an HCP holder carries into a place that is NOT properly posted yet falls below the 50% food sales threshold AND something occurs to highlight the situation, can the HCP holder be charged with a crime under the new legislation as amended?