Restaurant Carry Bill

[Guest archerdr1]

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.

I have gone to BARS in the past and not had any alcohol to drink. I was the designated driver. Why should I not be able to carry if that is the case?

[Guest faust921]

ANTI-gun logic applied to bars

I think the solution is to limit alcohol sales in bars to a limit of 2 80 proof drinks per visit. (what do you need more than 10 bullets in a magazine for?)

Certain alcohol types such as auto-accident alcohol, domestic violence alcohol, and health damage alcohol, should be banned outright, based on packaging, place of sale and other factors not related to the decision or consequences of ethanol use by the individual whatsoever. (because we should ascribe a behavior to inanimate objects not persons, for example, assault rifles and cop-killer bullets)

Bar hours of operation should be limited in urban areas, because this is where the highest volume of alcohol is served/sold and this is where the greatest potential injury to children can occur. (It's always about the children, isn't it? - like my mother-in-law always said, nothing good happens after 11:30 pm.)

(Then make up an anecdotal story to put a face on the falsehoods) Take the tragic story of (make up name here) who is poor and lives on the rough side of the tracks. (because to be poor is to be noble and above critique) Ms. Fiznik was just walking down the street to empower a community to be more diverse when she saw a billboard and was overcome by the urge to drink 10 shots of Wild Turkey Poor Judgment Bourbon. Had the appropriate laws been in place to protect Ms. Fiznik, she wouldn't have fallen asleep in her apartment with a lit cigarette, killing 24 people. Clearly a law reducing bar operations to 45 minutes per day could have prevented this senseless tragedy.

SO WE MUST JOIN TOGETHER and ACT NOW TO DO WHATT NEEDS TO BE DONE and PUT A STOP TO THIS MADNESS, (oh yeah, I almost forgot) AND PROTECT THE CHILDREN!

And our adversaries must be labeled. "Booze pushers", "Big Alcohol", "The ethanol industrial complex", "wine nuts", "scumbag saloon keepers" so any argument can be met with "well that's no surprise, you wanting to drink at a bar, because your just a weak "whiskey junkie".

You own a bar??!! Your just a greedy member of big alcohol!!

Edited April 29, 2010 by faust921

[GKar]

SB3012 comes up on the Senate floor this morning (item 5 on the first regular calendar). If passes as amended, it does not contain any of the "50% food revenues" features of the amended House bill. It acknowledges both the circle/slash and "sustantially similar" signage without further definition of similar, and maintains the other features ($500 fine, training requirement in HCP class, etc) of the previous versions. Session begins at 9am CST...will likely take them a little while to get to the regular calendars.

H3125 comes up before the House Calendar cmte this morning at 8am CST.

Edited April 29, 2010 by GKar
Addnl info

[macville]

Why don't we require background checks to buy alcohol? It seems like anyone with a DUI conviction, domestic violence, drunk assault, or another conviction that proves you'd be dangerous if you have alcohol shouldn't be able to buy any. That logic seems to go for guns, why not alcohol? It seems to kill more every year...

Matthew

[G27]

Why don't we require background checks to buy alcohol? It seems like anyone with a DUI conviction, domestic violence, drunk assault, or another conviction that proves you'd be dangerous if you have alcohol shouldn't be able to buy any. That logic seems to go for guns, why not alcohol? It seems to kill more every year...

Matthew

Because the libs have done a fantastic job of building an irrational fear of guns into the general public.

[GKar]

HB 3125 gets sent to the House floor for vote Wednesday next week. Todd's only comment - "It is what it is." No amendment added in Calendar (a miracle??).

Other Calendar happenings: HB 3064 taken off notice by sponsor (dealt with closing HCP database, IIRC), HB 2694 rolled one week (why??)

Edited April 29, 2010 by GKar
Addnl info

[GKar]

.

Edited April 29, 2010 by GKar
double post

[VolunteerGuns]

Session begins at 9am CST...will likely take them a little while to get to the regular calendars.

Link?

Anyone?

[GKar]

Tennessee General Assembly::Streaming Video

Click "View Event"

[saintsfanbrian]

Because the libs have done a fantastic job of building an irrational fear of guns into the general public.

While I think liberals have not helped the image of firearms in the general populous we cannot solely blame them.

We have not done our due diligence of showing the shooting sports in a positive light.

Frequently when media outlets go to an event where firearms are prevalent the biggest bumbling idiot is shown with his booger grabber on the bang switch talking in his deepest southern drawl.

Also - let's face it. Gunny talking about how he loves the smell of Watermelon in the morning doesn't help much either. While we think it is funny and can appreciate his sense of humor the average citizen thinks it is a little "scary" for this type of behavior as the only time they see people with guns is in the news and on TV/Movies where death and carnage are usually the norm.

Very infrequently do you see shows where the good guy simply has to pull out a gun and the bad guy walks away.

Very infrequently in the news do you hear this either.

[GKar]

All 3 senate amendments adopted by the floor on voice vote. No discussions of any specifics of any of the amendments. Kyle suggests there be a time frame for implementation of the signs - Jackson counters that the bill actually makes most existing signs compliant, and refuses. Berke tries to move it back to Finance for a fiscal note - Jackson says the impact has already been included in an existing fiscal note, and the latest amendment is administrative only w/ no fiscal impact. Berke isn't gonna give this up easily.

[GKar]

Berke's motion is tabled by voice vote.

[GKar]

Now Henry gets on his podium about "you don't go to a bar except to drink, and someone's gonna get shot...restaurant liablilty..." yadda yadda mumbled yadda. Jackson closes his argument for the bill with a jab at Henry, and makes several very good points supporting key absences in the opposing arguments - characterizes them as "generalities and platitudes, with no real substance". Notes Memphis has recently been found to have two of the 10 most dangerous neighborhoods in the US. Very nice closing argument, actually. Bill passes as amended (all 3) 23-9.

[Guest uofmeet]

I thought Jacksons Closing statement was great. Lets hope it passes on the other side.

[Fallguy]

I like that it repeals 39-17-1305

Neutral on the new 39-17-1321 making consuming an offense, but do not like a violation means HCP suspended for 3 years.

Don't really helps 39-17-1359....if anything may make it even more confusing as to what a proper posting is.

So now the question is...will the House simply adopt this version and pass it on 5/5/10?

For those who wish to read it for themselves.

Amendment 1 rewrites the bill that was first introduced.

Amendment 2 add that violation of 39-17-1321 (consuming) is a Class A misdemeanor and suspend HCP for 3 years

Amendment 3 changes 39-17-1359 from what is in Amendment 1

Edited April 29, 2010 by Fallguy

[VolunteerGuns]

Let me get this right...

So this-

one (1) or both of the following is displayed in

prominent locations, including all entrances primarily used by

persons entering the property, building, or portion of the property

or building where weapon possession is prohibited:

(i) The international circle and slash symbolizing

the prohibition of the item within the circle; or

(ii) The posting sign described in this subdivision

crap has made it through?

[Guest uofmeet]

Just a little confused here, why do you think it is crap?

[VolunteerGuns]

How many places up until now have been using ONLY the circle slash, which has not been a legal posting?

Instantly losing many places that have been legal, but will be no more.

Not to mention the ease an organization (ie. TN Hospitality Assn.) can print these circle slash stickers and send to EVERYONE! They'll be sticking them up right next to the NO SMOKING circle/slash.

FWIW I hope I'm wrong!

Someone please explain to me how my thinking is wrong?

[Guest uofmeet]

Well, i will agree with you. but if they don't want my gun then they don't want my money either. If someone doesn't like me having a gun, i don't think i would want to support them anyways.

I guess i am hoping restaurant owners/managers will use common sense and not post something just because the TN Hospitality Assn. sends it to them.

but that is just my 2 cents.

[daddyo]

Not to mention the ease an organization (ie. TN Hospitality Assn.) can print these circle slash stickers and send to EVERYONE! They'll be sticking them up right next to the NO SMOKING circle/slash.

FWIW I hope I'm wrong!

Someone please explain to me how my thinking is wrong?

Guess I'm not understanding how it is easier to print the circle/ stickers than it is the other one.

[VolunteerGuns]

We are not just talking about restaurants. Its malls, hotels, hospitals, banks. The list goes on! You see the so sign MANY places frequented EVERY DAY that till now meant NOTHING!

LOOK VVVV LEGAL POSTING!

[Guest uofmeet]

maybe for you, but i carry a semi-auto....that sign is for revolvers.

[macville]

Guess I'm not understanding how it is easier to print the circle/ stickers than it is the other one.

Because to post properly you have to either find the sign to print out or you have to find some place that has the proper sign to buy. Where as with just the gunbusters sign, all it takes is googling "gunbuster sign" to find a sign or going to Home Depot/Lowes.

Here's what's scary. What does "plainly visible" really mean? Does that mean a 2" sticker on the door? Have you seen how much stuff some businesses have on their doors? Any sign required should have the gunbuster signs AND the verbage with a min size of 8.5x11". This isn't like smoking where you know it's illegal in any building open to the public unless it's a 21 and over joint (which has been very clearly marked at every place I've seen.)

So can the house strip those amendments out, vote it through, and send it back to the senate?

Matthew

[saintsfanbrian]

Just keep in mind that any store/restaurant that has these stickers does not want your business and do not shop there. Simple remedy. Order online from smaller companies.

Personally I don't care what they put up there. Any signage indicates to me they do not want my business and I will accommodating them.

[Guest uofmeet]

Because to post properly you have to either find the sign to print out or you have to find some place that has the proper sign...

Could I just print a whole bunch of them and send them out just like I could the sticker?

I guess I am still confused on the difference between the two.

Not trying to argue, but understand.