Restaurant Carry Bill

[Oh Shoot]

...

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.

I honestly don't know if that can be tweaked, or at least tweaked without going back through committee, or what.

- OS

[GKar]

Fallguy - you missed Johnny Shaw's definition of a bar. In his words, a bar is any place that serves booze...

You missed a lot of things that you are probably glad you missed.

[macville]

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.

So basically, it sounds like if a place doesn't post, then it will be allowed carry..no matter what the real % of alcohol served is. I actually do have an issue with having "real" bars here in TN. We have enough issues with DUI, so why are we wanting to encourage it? Seems like these type of places encourage over drinking, and already are breaking two laws by not really being a restaurant and over serving people.

Matthew

[Guest Doc44]

A Restaurant in TN is:

BASIC RESTAURANT REQUIREMENTS (T.C.A. 57-4-102(19)(A))

1.A public place kept, used, maintained, advertised and held out to the public as a place where meals are served and where meals are actually and regularly served.

2. Without sleeping accommodations.

3. Supplied with adequate and sanitary kitchen and dining room equipment.

4. Seating capacity of at least seventy-five (75) at tables.

5. Employing a sufficient number and kind of employees to prepare, cook and serve suitable food.

6. Open at least three (3) days a week with the exception of holidays, vacations, or periods of redecorating.

7. Serving of meals shall be the principal business conducted, each day the restaurant is open.

If a business does not meet these criteria.. IT AIN'T A RESTARTANT.

HOW TO GET AN ALCOHOL LICENSE IN TN:

Anyone who plans to run a business selling alcohol in the state of Tennessee needs to obtain a liquor license. This license must be renewed every year at a cost to the individual and the same person must also pay a fee first. To obtain a liquor license in the state of Tennessee you must meet specific requirements before applying.

Step 1 Determine the type of business you currently own or plan to operate. **There are several types of liquor licenses issued in the state and your license depends on this. For example, you may run a hotel, restaurant or a business that does catering or other types of special events.**

Step 2 Request the forms needed, which include the application form, questionnaires, employee on premise permit forms, price schedule of drinks and several others. These forms are available through the mail or you can request them over the phone. In addition, you can visit the Tennessee Alcohol Beverage Commission website to have the forms sent through email.

Step 3Fill out all the forms and send them to the appropriate location as designated in the instructions. You’ll notice that most of the forms go to different places and that some are sent out of state to different areas such as Pennsylvania.

Step 4 Open your business as you would without serving alcohol on the premises. Once your forms have been returned, the different places will make a decision and inform the Tennessee Alcohol Beverage Commission, which will make a decision regarding your situation.

Step 5 Allow a representative from the Tennessee Alcohol Beverage Commission to visit your establishment during regular business hours. During this visit, the representative will decide if you’ll receive your liquor license or give you a list of changes you need to make to obtain one.

Pigs' feet and peanuts do not a restaurtant make.

Doc44

Edited April 20, 2010 by Doc44

[GKar]

I think this is the language from the amendment:

by deleting subsections (a), (

and © in Section 3 of the bill as amended and substituting

instead the following:

(a)

(1) Except as provided in subdivision (a)(2), 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)

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

federal government entity or agent thereof that operates or manages an

establishment that is open to the public, serves alcohol or beer, and

derives less than fifty percent (50%) of its gross annual revenue from the

sale of food shall prohibit the possession of weapons by any person who

is within the confines of such establishment.

( For purposes of determining whether an establishment derives less

than fifty percent (50%) of its gross annual revenue from the sale of food, such

determination shall be made based on the prior calendar year of operation of

such establishment. If an establishment has not been in existence or sold food

for an entire year, the fifty percent (50%) shall be determined by the initial partial

calendar year in which the establishment has been in existence.

(3) The prohibition in subdivisions (1) and (2) shall apply to any person

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

(

(1) Notice of the prohibition permitted or required 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.

(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).

[Guest 270win]

That is a really dumb requirement. We'll see what happens in the end. I don't like the idea that I can still be fined for taking my wife to the Orpheum in Memphis to see a play because that place serves alcohol or a pro baseball game because they also serve. Who had the idea for this? The sign deal will go to court again just like before and accomplishes nothing and still makes criminals (though at least just a fine) out of folks trying to protect themselves.

[GKar]

In theory, the language here should avoid the "vagueness" objection posed by Bonnymore. In the former instance, her argument was that the old legislation required the HCP holder to make a determination as to whether the establishment met the qualifying/disqualifying criteria...a determination that an HCP holder may not be able to accurately make without being provided some type of additional information beyond what they could ascertain before/as they entered the establishemnt. This legislation shifts that burden from the HCP holder to the establishment owner, who reasonably has the knowledge to make a correct assessment. It also further removes ambiguity in that it REQUIRES all establishments that fall below the 50% threshold to post, and to post with exact signage at all entrances. Therefore, HCP holders can establish with accuracy prior to entering such establishments whether carry is allowed or not.

As Macville, noted, in one sense it becomes pretty clear - if you have an HCP, you can carry anywhere that's not posted (regardless whether they serve alcohol or not), and cannot carry anywhere that is. And, you cannot consume alcohol if you are carrying.

[GKar]

And, with the latest amendment, suddenly the media perceives it as a guns-in-restaurants bill...

Geezzzzz

[Oh Shoot]

And, with the latest amendment, suddenly the media perceives it as a guns-in-restaurants bill...

Guns-in-restaurants bill advances in House | tennessean.com | The Tennessean

Geezzzzz

There's actually a tidbit of interesting news in there:

"Although Tennessee code does not define bars, there are dozens of restaurants across the state that do not meet the minimum food service requirement. In response, establishments are paying a monthly fine to the state’s Alcoholic Beverage Commission."

I find that interesting.

So rather than shut them down for disobeying the law, they just let them pay monthly fine - sounds very much like monthly protection money for authorities to look the other way, to me. I don't know how much it is, but it's obviously low enough for the owners to pay and still make a profit that they wouldn't if they couldn't sell liquor by the drink.

Sounds like how biz is done in NYC, except (supposedly) the monthly sop isn't going into anyone's individual pocket.

- OS

[macville]

There's actually a tidbit of interesting news in there:

"Although Tennessee code does not define bars, there are dozens of restaurants across the state that do not meet the minimum food service requirement. In response, establishments are paying a monthly fine to the state’s Alcoholic Beverage Commission."

I find that interesting.

So rather than shut them down for disobeying the law, they just let them pay monthly fine - sounds very much like monthly protection money for authorities to look the other way, to me. I don't know how much it is, but it's obviously low enough for the owners to pay and still make a profit that they wouldn't if they couldn't sell liquor by the drink.

Sounds like how biz is done in NYC, except (supposedly) the monthly sop isn't going into anyone's individual pocket.

How about we have the state actually enforce the law! I am sick and tired of places that shouldn't legally have a license continuing to operate basically with the state's "blessing."

So here's the bigger question. Would it be illegal to carry in a place that SHOULD be posted, but isn't? And it still doesn't really make clear about places that aren't restaurants (theaters that serve alcohol, etc) Are they supposed to post? If they don't, what happens? We need to make it very clear to the pro carry reps/senators that the original bill was fine just the way it is. Most of those "bars" would probably post anyway, so let them post, and then ones which don't want to won't have to an will get our business.

Matthew

[Guest 270win]

Macville,

Carry appears to be legal because the bill still deletes the whole alcohol/firearms statute. The only problem now is a stupid max five hundred dollar fine if there is this proper sign. I guess that is better than the alternative max 2500 dollar fine Class A Misdemeanor for all places that serve and open to the public.

HOnestly these politicians made things confusing by making the sign statute very long and lengthy. If that whole statute had been deleted or the penalty reduced to just maybe a infraction like a 50 dollar civil ticket...that would be much better. Talk about cleaning up the books!...Just making it all messy in a different way.

[RobD]

thats what happens when you elect Lawyers, they are used to getting paid by the word....

[mcurrier]

The responsibility is on the business owner, not the permit holder.

Poor Rayburn ought to just love that!

Edited April 21, 2010 by mcurrier

[Guest faust921]

I see this debate and become increasingly motivated to run of elected office. Some of these people who "don't understand" the legislation should learn how to read it before they come into committee.

Now would be a good time to impose a tax on "restaurants" so ALL TN restaurant customers can pay to underwrite the hour of "alcohol and drug education" that will preempt the one of the hours in the current firearm training and classwork in the HCP class. There were people in my HCP class that almost needed to learn where the bullet comes out more than a high school driving school sequel on the effect of alcohol on judgment and reflexes. Naifah can sponsor it and spend the proceeds can go towards reducing the cost of the HCP license to the applicant by 1/8th and the rest can be spent on an "up to date video" that he's so adamant about. (like hot chicks shooting guns while saying "don't drink and shoot!). Coleman can get a international sign of a d-bag tattooed on his forehead.

[Guest faust921]

That is a really dumb requirement. We'll see what happens in the end. I don't like the idea that I can still be fined for taking my wife to the Orpheum in Memphis to see a play because that place serves alcohol or a pro baseball game because they also serve. Who had the idea for this? The sign deal will go to court again just like before and accomplishes nothing and still makes criminals (though at least just a fine) out of folks trying to protect themselves.

I agree completely. What about outdoor events like a street fest, or rally where beer is served and some cheap food too. How do you measure the percentage?

[Oh Shoot]

I agree completely. What about outdoor events like a street fest, or rally where beer is served and some cheap food too. How do you measure the percentage?

You don't have to.

You only have to look for exactly compliant signs.

- OS

[Guest 270win]

I'm assuming a street fest or rally where there is just a beer stand is legal because you are not within the confines of a building open to the public. Kind of like downtown Memphis where there are beer stands that sell to folks walking down the street or if it happened here in TN...New Orleans.

[Oh Shoot]

I'm assuming a street fest or rally where there is just a beer stand is legal because you are not within the confines of a building open to the public. Kind of like downtown Memphis where there are beer stands that sell to folks walking down the street or if it happened here in TN...New Orleans.

Yeah, according to law, you can even drink while carrying in that situation.

You just can't get "under the influence", however whoever in authority might define that.

- OS

[Guest Tygarys]

And, with the latest amendment, suddenly the media perceives it as a guns-in-restaurants bill...

Guns-in-restaurants bill advances in House | tennessean.com | The Tennessean

Geezzzzz

Whats up with this amendment in the article, and why do we need it? Just lift the restriction and let them post or not, problem solved.

If this 50% thing is included, we will just be in the same situation we have now, nothing will change. Just stick a sign on the door and be done with it is much easier then figuring out their alcohol/food ratio.

With this 50% rule BS, we might as well just stick with what we have now...

[Oh Shoot]

...Just stick a sign on the door and be done with it is much easier then figuring out their alcohol/food ratio. ..

YOU don't have to figure out anything, except how to look for a standardized sign.

The reason they did it is because the legislature has continually expressed a desire that we only carry in restaurants that primarily sell food, and not bars, joints, taverns, dives, pubs, saloons, or speakeasies that primarily serve booze.

Just another perceived (and misguided) moral high road.

- OS

[Guest Doc44]

There's actually a tidbit of interesting news in there:

"Although Tennessee code does not define bars, there are dozens of restaurants across the state that do not meet the minimum food service requirement. In response, establishments are paying a monthly fine to the state’s Alcoholic Beverage Commission."

I find that interesting.

So rather than shut them down for disobeying the law, they just let them pay monthly fine - sounds very much like monthly protection money for authorities to look the other way, to me. I don't know how much it is, but it's obviously low enough for the owners to pay and still make a profit that they wouldn't if they couldn't sell liquor by the drink.

Sounds like how biz is done in NYC, except (supposedly) the monthly sop isn't going into anyone's individual pocket.

- OS

There is the problem Rayburn had with last years bill. "Guns in Bars" passing would eventually shine a light on the crooked payolla "tradition" and some of his restaurants selling booze would no longer be licensed as a restaurant because it was NOT A RESTAURANT. Seems like one of the TN TV investigative reporters would have a field day with this. Get to visit a bunch of "restaurants" and maybe get free food, booze, company and who knows what kind of "offers" just to leave.

If it is a law/rule it needs to be enforced, changed or deleted all together. It should not be kept status quo because the money paid in fines for not complying is an important source of revenue to SOMEONE for SOME REASON.

Doc44

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

I can't believe I am saying this but I did agree with Naifeh on one point he made in yesterdays FW&M session. The HCP 'training video' does indeed need to be updated. As it stands now, it is almost too comical to take seriously and gain any valuable information from.

[Fallguy]

Fallguy - you missed Johnny Shaw's definition of a bar. In his words, a bar is any place that serves booze...

You missed a lot of things that you are probably glad you missed.

I'm sure you're right.

While I hate the $500 fine for a violation of 39-17-1359, AFAIK that has never been up for change this year, so no reason hating this bill because of that.

I do like that it has specific wording requirements for 39-17-1359, no more wondering if a sign is "substantially similar"

As far as the 50% rule, as OS said, it is up to the business owner to determine his percentage and if need be post a compliant sign. It is not up to the HCP holder to determine, but only look for the sign.

Best I can tell, if a place should post a sign by the law, but doesn't, it is the business owner that has broken the law, not the HCP holder if he carries in the place. The bill technically doesn't make it illegal to carry in such a place, only places that are posted, and requires the owner to post in certain situations.

The one thing I don't like.....is if they are going to have this requirement, I would rather see it be if a business has 50% of revenue or more from alcohol than 50% or less from food.

As some have pointed out, there are places that serve alcohol, but alcohol is not their main purposes, but neither is serving food. So it is unlikely that those places will have 50% or more of revenue from food.

While I would have rather seen it pass as is, this is still not a bad bill. If the 50% can't be removed or tweaked on the floor, perhaps it can be in future years.

[Guest HexHead]

From today's Tennessean...

Nashville restaurateur Randy Rayburn — who took a previous guns-in-bars bill to court, where it was killed — says he isn't likely to challenge the amended bill, with a couple of other changes.

Restaurant owners still could ban guns by posting signs. Rayburn said those signs — and the signs on bars — should have simple language and be a smaller, standard size. He favors a 4-inch-by-4-inch square showing a gun inside a circle with a line through it, copying the universal "not allowed" symbol.

Sen. Doug Jackson, a Dickson Democrat, has proposed an amendment to the guns bill in the Senate that would address Rayburn's concerns about the signs.

"If the signage issue is addressed, and the issue of beer taverns is addressed, then I will not personally challenge the constitutionality of this bill," Rayburn said.

Sen. Jackson is turning into one huge disappointment on this bill. Now he's going to let Rayburn dictate the terms and the bill needs to be amended and crafted to Rayburn's standards? The proposed 4"x4" circle/ slash with no verbiage on it will only cause confusion if it doesn't plainly state what the law and fine is. Also, Rayburn's proposing this so the sign can be placed as discretely as possible, and it will be easy to miss when entering a restaurant. This new proposed sign will bring up the vagueness issue again and make this law unconstitutional again.

[Guest HexHead]

While I would have rather seen it pass as is, this is still not a bad bill. If the 50% can't be removed or tweaked on the floor, perhaps it can be in future years.

Better to pass HB 2694, this bill has been a cluster phuck from the start. And Jackson's looking to make it even worse.