Restaurant Carry Bill

[Guest lci419]

I really don't want to turn this into a property owners right's thread....there is enough of those, but..

If you open you property/business to the public then IMO you have accepted to allow the public into your place, along with all the lawful things that persons may have or can do. At least so long as that person doesn't become a disturbance and/or interfere with conduction of business.

If you have a private club or business, then by all means you can place any restrictions on entrance and the conduct once inside you wish.

If I have a choice, then by all means, I would rather do business with a place that doesn't post (legal or not) against carry, but in smaller towns or in certain situations, there may not always be a choice.

If you haven't already, when you get a chance, look at and reply to this thread http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/handgun-carry-self-defense/36341-public-accommodation-properties-have-no-right-block-fundamental-right.html

Thank you Fallguy for once again being a voice of reason. This is one of the points I tried making in an earlier post on this.

[Guest 270win]

I was in downtown Nashville today for work purposes and happened to walk around the Broadway area. I looked on purpose for these signs with guns and circles (I know kind of funny)...just to see how many places I wouldn't legally be able to go without risking a fine. There are quite a few...now I know there are some that say "Take your business elsewhere"...but sometimes with clients/vendors/work associates...you don't always have that choice. I was unsure if a state govt building had a real sign or not...Polk Building? I guess it depends on how hard you are looking for these signs...but with this legislation there's going to be a lot of running to cars for people if this 'sign' law changes. It is bad enough that there already is a fine over 'substantially' worded signs...but this circle and slash deal is just another avenue, in my opinion. Sometimes you notice signs, sometimes you don't. I don't spend my time looking for signs when with people working....and I do carry when I work for protection. So it looks like we go from trading one evil (alcohol) to signs...I guess a sign can always not be seen...crazy....I can compromise on the not consuming in public while carrying...though I think that is over the top because it is quite legal in many states...and I can compromise on a permit suspension..though I think 3 years is extreme...because even DWI suspensions aren't that long...but to fine me for a lawfully possessed handgun over a sign is nuts..and for the state to make it easier is nuttier.

None of these punishments fit the crimes and that is the sad part.

1. DWI-License suspensions are much shorter....and still get a 'hardship' license

2. smoking in businesses is an extremely minor fine 50 bucks for a sign

3. People can DRIVE after drinking....they get busted for 'intoxicated'...'under influence'

Take a sip and you get your carry permit suspended for THREE YEARS, on top of the Class A misdemeanor and a Class B Misdemeanor 500 buck fine for a 'no gun' sign.

Edited May 1, 2010 by 270win

[waynesan]

Here is another Channel 4 video on the subject:

Restaurant Owner Calls Gun Bill Anti-Business - Video - WSMV Nashville

[Fallguy]

Just noticed this...if it has been asked here previously and answered, I apologize.

So, the proposed language:

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.

( 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 (.

©

(1) A violation of this section is a Class A misdemeanor

(2) In addition to the punishment authorized by subdivision (1), if the violation of subsection (a), occurs in an establishment described in subdivision ((1), and the person has a handgun permit issued pursuant to § 39-17-1351, such permit shall be suspended in accordance with § 39-17-1352 for a period of three (3) years.

Here's my question: reading ©(2) carefully, it seems to be saying that only a violation of subsection (a) that occurs in the location described in ((1) results in the 3 year suspension...in other words, possessing a handgun while being under the influence (alcohol or controlled substance) in a public establishment that serves alcohol triggers the addn'l suspension, but simply consuming while possessing a handgun in that same location does not? Both would be Class A misdemeanors, clearly.

At first I thought you had it backwards, but reading it more closely I think you are exactly right.

So the only time the 3 years suspension comes in is if you are intoxicated and in a place that serves alcohol.

While armed and...

• Under the influence - Class A Misdemeanor (Like now)
  
• In a place that serves alcohol and consuming - Class A Misdemeanor(Like always has been proposed)
  
• In a place that serves alcohol and under the influence - Class A Misdemeanor & HCP Suspened for 3 years
  

Actually...that is not bad as I first thought....and could live with that.

....and just for argument sake....that would seem to confirm that at least in the TCA consuming and under the influence are two different things.

Edited May 1, 2010 by Fallguy

[Guest Doc44]

I agree to a point but it is lawful to walk barefooted and how many places have you seen that refuse to serve you without shoes on? There are restaraunts that require jacket and ties as well even though shorts and T shirts are legal.

Sexual discrimination:

Doc44

[Guest HexHead]

Here is another Channel 4 video on the subject:

Restaurant Owner Calls Gun Bill Anti-Business - Video - WSMV Nashville

I just looked up "douchebag" in the dictionary, and Rayburn's picture was there.

[Guest nashvegas]

Just noticed this...if it has been asked here previously and answered, I apologize.

So, the proposed language:

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.

( 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 (.

©

(1) A violation of this section is a Class A misdemeanor

(2) In addition to the punishment authorized by subdivision (1), if the violation of subsection (a), occurs in an establishment described in subdivision ((1), and the person has a handgun permit issued pursuant to § 39-17-1351, such permit shall be suspended in accordance with § 39-17-1352 for a period of three (3) years.

Here's my question: reading ©(2) carefully, it seems to be saying that only a violation of subsection (a) that occurs in the location described in ((1) results in the 3 year suspension...in other words, possessing a handgun while being under the influence (alcohol or controlled substance) in a public establishment that serves alcohol triggers the addn'l suspension, but simply consuming while possessing a handgun in that same location does not? Both would be Class A misdemeanors, clearly.

That's how I read it as well, and as Fallguy stated, I could leave with that also.

[Fallguy]

That's how I read it as well, and as Fallguy stated, I could leave with that also.

LOL...ooops.

Only about 3 hours sleep last night due to fire alarm at work and the weather.....

[Guest 270win]

Yeah the more I read the bill....if someone is 'under the influence' and within the confines of an establishment that serves liquor....that individual can get his handgun carry permit suspended for three years. It is more than just taking a sip. The taking the sip would be the Class A Misdemeanor...which would be one offense...leading to the probable one year suspension by the dept of safety if convicted.

So not as bad as I thought either. I would hate someone to have a permit suspended three years over having a drink...I'm not excited over a year suspension. Someone who is drunk in a restaurant/bar and carrying a weapon does need a license suspension just like those DWI convictions need DL suspension because they are a risk to the public.

[Guest archerdr1]

Here is another Channel 4 video on the subject:

Restaurant Owner Calls Gun Bill Anti-Business - Video - WSMV Nashville

good job Nikki! She did WAY better than Rayburn. And, with Credit to Channel 4, they gave her plenty of time to make her point.

[Champ198]

good job Nikki! She did WAY better than Rayburn. And, with Credit to Channel 4, they gave her plenty of time to make her point.

Agree! Nikki did a great job of laying out the basics!

Randy Rayburn should be happy camper because he can post his property. . . why would he care what anyone else does? I wonder if he and his bartenders are responsible for destroying more families than any permit holder ever will. . . he serves alcohol to people who drive on the roadways that could kill anyone of us. It would be nice to know how many times he's been sued for serving alcohol because they drank in his bar and went out and killed someone or damaged property. Drink responsibly right Randy?

[Guest 270win]

I will not blame a bar that serves alcohol for DWI's...but some do irresponsibly serve and not cut people off who need to be cut off that are obviously intoxicated. It happens a lot in Memphis, especially in the tourist areas. I have no idea what the law is here as far as stopping alcohol serving to people who are obviously public intox...some states hold the restaurant/bar responsible for that...and if the person DWI's down the road and hits someone the restaurant/bar can lose a liquor license and the restaurant/bar is held responsible in civil and sometimes criminal court.

It sounds like this bar owner in Nashville needs to mind his own business like I mind my own business if he does not cut public intox folks off. That is almost a public nuisance.

Edited May 2, 2010 by 270win

[Fallguy]

57-4-203©(1)

It is unlawful for any licensee or other person to sell or furnish any alcoholic beverage to any person who is known to be insane or mentally defective, or to any person who is visibly intoxicated, or to any person who is known to habitually drink alcoholic beverages to excess, or to any person who is known to be an habitual user of narcotics or other habit-forming drugs.

[macville]

57-4-203©(1)

It is unlawful for any licensee or other person to sell or furnish any alcoholic beverage to any person who is known to be insane or mentally defective, or to any person who is visibly intoxicated, or to any person who is known to habitually drink alcoholic beverages to excess, or to any person who is known to be an habitual user of narcotics or other habit-forming drugs.

This gets enforced as much as the 50% law gets enforced by the state ABC board... so pretty much doesn't.

Matthew

[mcurrier]

I just looked up "douchebag" in the dictionary, and Rayburn's picture was there.

Yup. I must have the same dictionary.

[GKar]

This gets enforced as much as the 50% law gets enforced by the state ABC board... so pretty much doesn't.

Matthew

Speaking of this...I saw an AP report tonite that indicated the TN ABC has been getting a lot of pressure from the legislature as fallout from Bonneymore's decision, and has begun to actually enforce the most egregious instances. Apparently, they recently closed a few places in Nashville (Buckwild and Trax), including one that consistently had food sales of 5% or less of total. The ABC spokesperson quoted in the piece made some reference to a 1983 Board decision that allowed them to also consider other factors before taking enforcement as the primary reason they have not enforced the law up to now.

Tennessee lawmakers pressure ABC to crack down on bars - Kingsport Times-News Online

[Fallguy]

This gets enforced as much as the 50% law gets enforced by the state ABC board... so pretty much doesn't.

Matthew

True

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

I have been on vacation since Tuesday of last week and I seem to have missed a lot. In reading through HB3125 and the amendments, am I correct in my understanding that they have now included amendments that get rid of the cicle/slash as a stand-alone legal posting?

[VolunteerGuns]

I have been on vacation since Tuesday of last week and I seem to have missed a lot. In reading through HB3125 and the amendments, am I correct in my understanding that they have now included amendments that get rid of the cicle/slash as a stand-alone legal posting?

You got it. Either the complete worded statute, and/OR the international circle/slash.

[lock n' load]

I haven't been on top of the latest changes of this bill that is trying to pass. But really what I am wondering is what good a law like this would even do for permit holders? If the bill does pass and it allows people with HCPs to carry in restaurants that serve alcohol only for there to be a provision for establishments to post an "no guns allowed" sign on their doors then what ground have we gained? It is almost like a catch-22 no matter which way you look at it. I believe that law-abiding citizens should be allowed to carry a firearm for protection and that it cannot be forced onto a person or business who does not want weapons on their property. Maybe there is something I am missing, but it seems to me that even if this bill is passed, we will still be limited to carrying guns to places we can already carry into now. I am sure the lawyers or insurance companies for the big restaurant chains like Applebees, Chilis, etc. would make sure that their businesses are posted with the correct signage if the bill passes into law. I am not sure about local non-francised businesses would be willing to follow suit but I guess if they absolutely did not want guns in their establishments, they would spend the time and money to make sure the signs on their doors were compliant with the law. Correct me if I am wrong (and I very well may be) but I just don't see how this bill or any bill for that matter will change anything from what we have now.

[macville]

I have been on vacation since Tuesday of last week and I seem to have missed a lot. In reading through HB3125 and the amendments, am I correct in my understanding that they have now included amendments that get rid of the cicle/slash as a stand-alone legal posting?

I am not sure what's correct. It seems one of the amendments says that the sign with the TN code spelled out is the proper sign, but the second fiscal memo (dated april 13) says that a building would be properly posted if just the gunbusters sign was up. So who knows? I'm guessing the actual text would be more accurate than the memo.

Matthew

[VolunteerGuns]

I am not sure what's correct. It seems one of the amendments says that the sign with the TN code spelled out is the proper sign, but the second fiscal memo (dated april 13) says that a building would be properly posted if just the gunbusters sign was up. So who knows? I'm guessing the actual text would be more accurate than the memo.

Matthew

Nope. Not just a memo. The bill as amended states....

© A building, property or a portion of a building or

property, shall be considered properly posted in accordance with

this section if 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

If it makes it out Wed either/or will be a proper posting.:-\

IMO... Not good legislation for HCP holders. Just my .

[Guest 270win]

I am in agreement that there are a lot of circle/slash signs that I carry past that are presently (in my opinion) ok....such as some buildings like hospitals...govt buildings..like libraries..DL center...county clerk office to get a license plate... in Memphis area....doc offices...a financial institution. I am not sure how 'prominently displayed' for the avg person to see these signs are. That is the only vague part that may help someone....as in you walk through a door and you just don't see a sign...just like I honestly don't see every stinking no smoking sign...b/c normally who all looks for signs everywhere. I do notice the large TCA long worded signs that are big. I've only seen a couple in Memphis.

What now...run back to the car when I see every gun with a slash??? What if I don't have my car and am walking with friends??? That is my problem. The large prominent TCA has kept those signs undesirable for businesses to put up....the gun/slash thing will make it MUCH EASIER for businesses to put up...making it harder for those who must carry all the time to carry legally on their persons...and some of us do while we work....so with more places (not just restaurants) a 500 buck fine spot that I may go for work...what now??? Carry pepper spray to be legal??? It's kind of hard to plan the day when you are self employed at times and want to stay armed 24/7 or riding with someone else.

[G27]

If it makes it out Wed either/or will be a proper posting.:-\

IMO... Not good legislation for HCP holders. Just my .

It's actually a step backwards if that amendment sticks - as others have pointed out there are tons of places currently 'not legally posted' that will automatically be so if this passes - and not just reataurants.

Man, sometimes we can't win for losing...

[Guest TNReb]

And if we ever meet I'll buy you a beer if we're not carrying.

It will have to be a non-adult beverage, because I don't drink and I'm always carrying.