Restaurant Carry Bill

[Guest cappy]

Indiana also gives out lifetimes as well you can go into a bar and drink

[Oh Shoot]

IIRC, the override votes happened pretty quickly in both chambers - both within three business days of the veto, perhaps? And didn't they both occur in the "message" portion of the floor session (which is much easier to get scheduled)?

May not have the overriding support percentage this time around, though?

- OS

[Guest HexHead]

May not have the overriding support percentage this time around, though?

- OS

IIRC, only a simple one vote majority is required to override the governor's veto.

[Oh Shoot]

IIRC, only a simple one vote majority is required to override the governor's veto.

Ah, thought was 2/3 like US Congress.

Thanks.

- OS

[Guest NotPBFree]

I am new here and this is my first post on TGO. TN law speaks to being under the influence of alcohol, not the consumption of alcohol while in possession of a firearm. That makes sense because presumably a blood alcohol test or something similar would be required to prove the consumption.

39-17-1321. Possession of handgun while under influence — Penalty. —

(a) Notwithstanding whether a person has a permit issued pursuant to § 39-17-1315 or § 39-17-1351, it is an offense for a person to possess a handgun while under the influence of alcohol or any controlled substance.

( A violation of this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

[Fallguy]

Ah, thought was 2/3 like US Congress.

Thanks.

- OS

Nope...Hex is right.

[Worriedman]

Seems to me that the whole discussion by Sen. Marrero and backed by the Senate Attorney and Sen. Jackson was tilted a little shy of the truth. I find it hard to understand how one could be "under the influence" if one had not "consumed".

Say you "toss a few back" as described by Marrero, would you run afoul of TCA 39-17-1321? I can just see trying to convince the nice young man in blue that it was O-tay to have your carry piece on your person with a few shots of Jack in your system, and the evidence on your breath.

[Fallguy]

I am new here and this is my first post on TGO. TN law speaks to being under the influence of alcohol, not the consumption of alcohol while in possession of a firearm. That makes sense because presumably a blood alcohol test or something similar would be required to prove the consumption.

39-17-1321. Possession of handgun while under influence — Penalty. —

(a) Notwithstanding whether a person has a permit issued pursuant to § 39-17-1315 or § 39-17-1351, it is an offense for a person to possess a handgun while under the influence of alcohol or any controlled substance.

( A violation of this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

There is no blood test (or any other test) to determine "under the influence", it is simply the officer's discretion based on his/her observation of you.

HB3125 would make the consumption of alcohol, while in a place that serves alcohol for onsite consumption, illegal...even if you weren't under the influence.

The senate companion bill of HB2694 was defeated because it did not address consumption.

As has been pointed out, many states don't forbid the consumption of alcohol while armed, only the being under the influence (as TN is now) some states have a BAC limit, others not (as in TN). For various reasons the legislature seems to think they need to forbid any consumption while armed to be able to carry in a place that serves alcohol.

[Fallguy]

Seems to me that the whole discussion by Sen. Marrero and backed by the Senate Attorney and Sen. Jackson was tilted a little shy of the truth. I find it hard to understand how one could be "under the influence" if one had not "consumed".

Say you "toss a few back" as described by Marrero, would you run afoul of TCA 39-17-1321? I can just see trying to convince the nice young man in blue that it was O-tay to have your carry piece on your person with a few shots of Jack in your system, and the evidence on your breath.

If the few shots of Jack have not caused an apparent outward affect on your abilities, then IMO you are not "under the influence" and therefore would not be violating 39-17-1321.

The smell of alcohol on your breath is of course a sign of consumption, but not necessarily being under the influence.

[Il Duce]

im so confused lol

[Worriedman]

If the few shots of Jack have not caused an apparent outward affect on your abilities, then IMO you are not "under the influence" and therefore would not be violating 39-17-1321.

The smell of alcohol on your breath is of course a sign of consumption, but not necessarily being under the influence.

It has been explained to me by LE, that any consumption places one under the influence. Hence the "no alcohol and carry" presumption of the officers I have questioned on this. Don't know what the officers take in everyone else's neck of the woods is, but here in Madison County, you are under the influence if you have consumed any, with respect to carry.

I am having a hard time getting my mind around the difference.

[Fallguy]

im so confused lol

LOL....let's see if I can make it worse.

If you are under the influence it is obvious you have consumed at some point, if not still consuming.

But if you have consumed and/or are still consuming it doesn't necessarily mean you are under the influence.

Current TN law prevents carry while under the influence. Currently there is no real need to address consuming while armed in a place that serves alcohol since it was illegal to be armed in there period....consuming or nor, under the influence or not.

But if they (legislators) allow carry in place that serves alcohol, apparently they don't think the current 39-17-1321 (under the influence) is strong enough and want to prevent any consumption at all.

[Il Duce]

i dont drink so im not worried about the drinking laws part

[Fallguy]

It has been explained to me by LE, that any consumption places one under the influence. Hence the "no alcohol and carry" presumption of the officers I have questioned on this. Don't know what the officers take in everyone else's neck of the woods is, but here in Madison County, you are under the influence if you have consumed any, with respect to carry.

I am having a hard time getting my mind around the difference.

Well apparently the legislature doesn't see that way is all I can say.

But granted LE is going to be the one to arrest you.

But if any consumption at all puts you under the influence....why are there so many vehicles parked in front of places that only serve alcohol? There is nothing in the law that defines under the influence in regard to being armed differently than it is for driving or public intoxication.

EDIT:

There is even a place in the TCA where under the influence and consumption is listed as two separate things. The ironic thing is, it is in the part off-duty LEO carry. 39-17-1350©(2) says a LEO can not carry when he/she "is consuming beer or an alcoholic beverage or who is under the influence of beer, an alcoholic beverage, or a controlled substance"

Now and even more ironic part....HB3125 would prevent consumption while armed by HCP holders only while in the confines of building open to the public where alcohol is served, not universally, like for LEOs.

But I grant...if a LEO know he can't carry even while consuming...he is probably not going to think it is ok for you to.

Edited April 28, 2010 by Fallguy

[Guest faust921]

i dont drink so im not worried about the drinking laws part

I understand, as I don't even have a beer after going to the range until the guns are cleaned and safely secured, no matter how appealing a cold, tasty bottle or two of beer might be while pulling a bore snake - that's my deal. I'm sure as hell not going to carry and drink, but this misses the point.

1. We had a law and it passed and some judge took a crap on us. We have not been made whole from her mistake.

2. Hundreds of thousands of us are put upon so a few individuals can more easily make a buck at our safety and expense.

3. I don't have to have a permit for my 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th...ect. rights. Why is my 2nd amendment right requiring us to fight tooth and nail in perpetuity?

4. So the goal should be "no permit" like VT and AK. If the antigun crowd doesn't have any faith in HCP training, why bother. Every time they take a swipe at us, we hit them back twice as hard with more bills, (parking lot bill, civil immunity from criminals, restaurant carry, domestic manufacture, and enforcement of ABC regs, and other bills that indirectly support our agenda) There are relentless forces trying to undermine the social foundations of our country at every turn via legislation and the courts, when does our voice count?

5. It is time we let the responsible legislators know that 3125 is a failure and they will be held accountable at the polls. Amendment #7 is the litmus test.

Edited April 28, 2010 by faust921

[Guest nashvegas]

I don't have to have a permit for my 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th...ect. rights. Why is my 2nd amendment right requiring us to fight tooth and nail in perpetuity?

Amen

[Guest TNReb]

Email I sent today to my senator, Bill Ketron:

Senator Ketron:

It was my pleasure to support you in your election to the Senate and to have you serve in that capacity. I write you now to urge that you vote to pass SB3012 to allow licensed permit holders to carry in restaurants where alcohol is served. This bill comes to the floor for a vote on Thursday, April 29th. As I have supported you, I hope that you will support me and the hundreds of thousands of permit holders who look to you for leadership.

Contrary to what has been presented in the media and by opponents, this bill has nothing to do with “guns in bars†or “mixing guns and alcohol.†What is does do is protect the rights of all parties involved. Permit holders would be allowed to carry, with criminal sanctions if they consume any alcohol while doing so. Property and business owners would be able to post their premises against carrying. I would note, however, that the bill should be passed in its original form, and without the two amendments, SA1236 and SA1281, which were added in committee. Please do everything you can to pass the original bill without these amendments.

Although opponents and the media will never say so, this is a good bill which protects the rights of all concerned. And what we are really talking about here is allowing honest, law-abiding citizens to exercise the rights already granted them. Criminals will not care what is done since they don’t follow the law anyway. Being forced to choose between protection of ourselves and our loved ones, in addition to innocent victims of criminals, and violating the law ourselves, is unfair. This law will correct that problem without forcing anyone to allow weapons on their property. Please support and help pass this much-needed law. Many thousands will be watching, and we will know who stands for us, and who stands against us. I know we can count on you to stand on the side of freedom.

Sincerely,

[Guest HexHead]

I don't know when Coleman added an amendment to 3125 to amend the Senate amendment with the sign issues, but it's a good amendment.

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

We need to get the Senate to just adopt the House version and we'll get a decent bill. Hopefully the egos of certain senators won't prevent that from occurring.

[Guest HexHead]

3. I don't have to have a permit for my 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th...ect. rights. Why is my 2nd amendment right requiring us to fight tooth and nail in perpetuity?

Because we both allow and empower them to do so. We have the "high road" crowd that thinks we should all wear kid gloves and try to "educate" them. We, as a group, are afraid of our own shadows at the prospect of upsetting the apple cart. One of these days we'll wake up and remember that we're the ones with the guns and tell the liberals to go sit in the corner and STFU.

[G27]

If the few shots of Jack have not caused an apparent outward affect on your abilities, then IMO you are not "under the influence" and therefore would not be violating 39-17-1321.

The smell of alcohol on your breath is of course a sign of consumption, but not necessarily being under the influence.

A very fine line / gray area. Like most here, I'd not even have one drink if I were carrying - not only because of the discretionary aspect of the law, but should a worst-case scenario happen and a blood test be administered...

[G27]

Because we both allow and empower them to do so. We have the "high road" crowd that thinks we should all wear kid gloves and try to "educate" them. We, as a group, are afraid of our own shadows at the prospect of upsetting the apple cart. One of these days we'll wake up and remember that we're the ones with the guns and tell the liberals to go sit in the corner and STFU.

Well, the reality is the rest of the BoR don't include rights that, if abused, can immediately impinge upon others' rights (or even kill). I'm 100% against gun control and agree that being a law-abiding citizen of the US should be all I need to carry, but acting as if there's NO logical reason to feel otherwise is either short-sighted or disingenuous, imo.

(added for my son)

[Guest HexHead]

Well, the reality is the rest of the BoR don't include rights that, if abused, can immediately impinge upon others' rights (or even kill). I'm 100% against gun control and agree that being a law-abiding citizen of the US should be all I need to carry, but acting as if there's NO logical reason to feel otherwise is either short-sighted or disingenuous, imo.

(added for my son)

First amendment does.

We should be giving the liberals as much crap about their precious 1st Amendment as they give us about the 2nd.

[G27]

First amendment does.

We should be giving the liberals as much crap about their precious 1st Amendment as they give us about the 2nd.

First Amendment abuse will not *directly* cause you harm. To compare the two is specious at best.

And honestly, while the liberals don't care for the 2A, I care for 1A as much as they do...

[saintsfanbrian]

I care about all of them. If it weren't for them we wouldn't be the best country in the world.

Yes the 2nd protects the first but that doesn't mean it is any more important. They are all equally important or else they wouldn't be in there.

[Guest charlie8584]

Correct me if I'm wrong BUT Tennessee has NO BARS under the law. All are places to eat as 50% of their revenue must be from food. I am sure I'm not going to popular for this but I DO NOT support anyone carrying in what I call a bar (where people go to drink and not to eat). NO ONE, regarldess of his/her outstanding citizenship have any reason to be in such a place except to drink and therefore do not need to be carrying. That said, I don't care if the law is changed to allow carry everywhere because I'm not going to be in a place that caters to drinking and take a chance on being shot by some half drunk regardless if he/she is legally carrying or not. But, that is just me and I respect your opinion otherwise.