Restaurant Carry Bill

[Fallguy]

And now, they are tryin to adjourn to the closest establishment that serves alcohol...

LOL

[Fallguy]

Summary...

Rep. Todd moved to substitute and conform to the Senate bill.

Rep. Harry Tindell spoke in support of his amendment that would require any establishment that generates less than 50% of its annual revenue from "food sales". It is a poorly worded and thought out amendment. He states he brought the amendment. He claims his amendment draws a distinction between "guns in bars" and "guns in restaurants."

Rep. Joe McCord, who reportedly was going around trying to kill this bill by pushing for the Tindell amendment, spoke on the floor in favor of the Tindell amendment. He also took the opportunity on the floor to attack the NRA's proposed solution and to complain about the amount of "gun" bills that are presented each year. McCord paraphrased his perspective of the NRA as taking a position that "if you don't support carrying guns in bars, we will oppose you...." Obviously, McCord is not running for office again and his "out of the closet" oration complaining about the gun bills and the firearms owners of Tennessee. He wanted to know "what line will we not cross" for firearms owners in Tennessee.

Rep. Henry Fincher stood to rebut the claims and conclusions of Rep. McCord regarding the NRA and firearms owners comments.

Rep. Vance Dennis spoke against the Tindell amendment by noting the care of the House Judiciary Committee that did not adopt this qualifier and its clear ambiguities. Rep. Dennis moved the amendment to the table.

The vote on the tabling motion was 60 to 36 - the proposed amendment by Tindell was defeated.

Debate on the bill started with Rep. Gerald McCormick. His question went to the issue of whether a "beer joint" could ban the possession of firearms in the location and it was responded by Rep. Todd that the property owner would have the ability to post the property in their discretion.

Rep. Larry Miller went back to an old argument (futile) of "whose duty is it to catch someone who is carrying a weapon and drinking"?

Rep. G. A. Hardaway, proud that he had one of the NRA's lowest ratings, wanted to raise questions about the liability of property owners regarding posting issues.

Rep. Kent Coleman wanted Rep. Todd to review the posting which he stated included the international circle and slash.

Rep. Eddie Bass moved for the question.

Bill passes...

[Il Duce]

thanks fallguy

[Guest HexHead]

Well, I have mixed feelings. I hope this ends up being a win for us.

[Bigiron]

Are there enough votes to override Breseden's forthcoming veto?

[Il Duce]

so this passed bill states a restaurant has to place correct wording in order to ban handguns?

[Guest db99wj]

So what is next again?

[Mike.357]

so someone save me the effort.

Does this bill include the gunbusters sign?

[GKar]

Next, the bill goes to the Gov's desk to be signed. I believe he has 14 calendar days to sign (maybe 10?). If he signs, bill is law. If he does not sign and simply allows it to sit on his desk with no action, it becomes law after 14 days. If at any time in the 14 days he vetoes, it goes back to both the House and Senate for override votes if they are both still in session.

[GKar]

@ Mike - yes, it allows a legal posting to consist solely of or include the international circle/slash.

[Mike.357]

@ Mike - yes, it allows a legal posting to consist solely of or include the international circle/slash.

Now assuming that the circle/slash thing works everywhere, we are screwed. Those signs are all over the place.

another reason to vote for a non incumbent on election day.

[Guest Usagi]

Now assuming that the circle/slash thing works everywhere, we are screwed. Those signs are all over the place.

another reason to vote for a non incumbent on election day.

I thought the bill said the circle-slash sign had to be posted with the proper verbage.

ETA: And it will likely get struck down again in court. Too many words.

Edited May 5, 2010 by Usagi

[G27]

Thanks for the summary, Fallguy.

The circle-slash amendment is horrible. Just horrible.

[Guest 270win]

The bill gives criminal penalties for walking past a sign that has either the language substantially similar, an 'international sign' (whatever that is..not really defined too well)...or both. Now the question is...what is visible to the average person on any of these signs and what does this sign have to look like exactly that is an 'international sign'? I highly doubt these 'international signs' will hold water as far as criminal penalties...because not defined well.exactly what is the object inside the sign supposed to look like...a water gun..toy gun..a bowie knife..shotgun..rifle...AR15..pistol..revolver?..and also exactly what is seen by one person may not be seen by the next person...but I'm not a lawyer....and I do conceal a snubbie in public...not a full sized handgun to avoid technical problems should some bedwetter decide to moan and complain.

Edited May 5, 2010 by 270win

[Fallguy]

The Governor has 10 days (not including Sundays) to sign the bill or let it become law without his signature. But this 10 day countdown does not start today. It starts after all the "recording keeping" and such is done in the legislature. I think this took about 3 days or so last year.

The bill would allow the "Circle and Slash" symbol alone to be a legal posting anywhere. However it would still have to be "plainly visible" and at all entrances.

There is no reason to think it will get struck down in court.

As far as too many words....it simply repeals 39-17-1305...no words at all.

Now if someone wants to challenge 39-17-1359 and have that whole law ruled vauge...I'm fine with that.

You can follow the status of the bill here Tennessee General Assembly to see the actual date that it is sent to Governor and the 10 days start.

[Fallguy]

Just to give fair credit....the summary came from a TFA alert e-mail, I simply copied and posted it.

While I don't like the "International Symbol" part....it is not the worst thing that could have happened I don't think.

[GKar]

I posted this earlier about the Senate bill that passed last week. This is how the laws would read as amended:

§ 39-17-1321 would read as follows:

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.

§ 39-17-1359 would read as follows:

39-17-1359. Prohibition at certain meetings -- Posting notice.

(a)

(1) 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) The prohibition in subdivision (1) shall apply to any person who is authorized to carry a firearm by authority of § 39-17-1351.

(

(1) Notice of the prohibition permitted by subsection (a) shall be accomplished by displaying one (1) or both of the notices described in subdivision (3) 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. Either form of notice used shall be of a size that is plainly visible to the average person entering the building, property, or portion of the building or property, posted.

(2) 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.

(3)

(A) If a sign is used as the method of posting, it shall contain language substantially similar to the following:

AS AUTHORIZED BY TCA § 39-17-1359, POSSESSION

OF A WEAPON ON POSTED PROPERTY OR IN A

POSTED BUILDING IS PROHIBITED AND IS A

CRIMINAL OFFENSE.

( As used in this section, “language substantially similar to†means the sign contains language plainly stating that:

(i) The property is posted under authority of Tennessee law;

(ii) Weapons or firearms are prohibited on the property, in the building, or on the portion of the property or building that is posted; and

(iii) Possessing a weapon in an area that has been posted is a criminal offense.

© 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 (3).

©

(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).

(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to alter, reduce or eliminate any civil or criminal liability that a property owner or manager may have for injuries arising on their property.

(e) The provisions of this section shall not apply to title 70 regarding wildlife laws, rules and regulations.

(f) This section shall not apply to the grounds of any public park, natural area, historic park, nature trail, campground, forest, greenway, waterway or other similar public place that is owned or operated by the state, a county, a municipality or instrumentality thereof. The carrying of firearms in those areas shall be governed by § 39-17-1311.

Other sections would be amended to require training in permit classes on the effects of alcohol and the penalties for violation of § 39-17-1321, together with removal of previous forms of posting for package stores and places with on-premises consumption.

Therefore, it appears that drinking while carrying would be a Class A Misdeamenor, which would be punishable by up to 11 months and 29 days in jail, a fine of up to $2,500 or both, and if you have a permit, it would be revoked for three years. Carrying on posted property, which could be accomplished by signage or the international circle/slash emblem, or both, without consumption, would be a Class B Misdemeanor punishable only by a $500 fine.

The big problem with this version, as amended, is that it allows posting by the international circle/slash sign alone, without the statutory language, and many think the penalties are too great for the violations.

TNReb posted this summary a few pages back...this is the bill as passed today.

[Fallguy]

....and not to try and re-start an old debate..but maybe actually end it....

It would seem that this bill would for sure show that "under the influence" and "consuming" are indeed two different things as far as the law of TN goes and when armed.

Since they are not only addressed in two different sub-parts (a) & ( but are punished differently if they occur within the confines of a place that serves alcohol.

[Guest 270win]

I think a good lawyer could tear through that 'international symbol' thing and get a sign charge dropped. It may cost something, but if worst comes to worst that is just the way it is. I do think if you accidently carry in one of these places that has an 'international sign'.or any sign for that matter..and someone happens to see your unconcealed/uncovered part of the handgun...you will probably be asked to leave by either the police if they are called or the property owner....being curteous goes a long ways....it can result in a charge or just walking a way with some silly bedwetter law like this.

[Volzfan]

When will Bredesen get this bill?

[GKar]

Possibly Friday, I'd guess...maybe not till Monday.

[Fallguy]

I think a good lawyer could tear through that 'international symbol' thing and get a sign charge dropped. It may cost something, but if worst comes to worst that is just the way it is. I do think if you accidently carry in one of these places that has an 'international sign'.or any sign for that matter..and someone happens to see your unconcealed/uncovered part of the handgun...you will probably be asked to leave by either the police if they are called or the property owner....being curteous goes a long ways....it can result in a charge or just walking a way with some silly bedwetter law like this.

I agree 99 times out of 100 you are probably just going to be asked to leave instead of charged.

But even if you are charged...the fine is "up to" $500...doesn't mean it has to be that much...or anything actually.

[Volzfan]

Here is the way they voted.

SB3012 by Jackson - FLOOR VOTE: PASSAGE ON THIRD CONSIDERATION 5/5/2010

Passed

Ayes...............................................66

Noes...............................................31

Representatives voting aye were: Barker, Bass, Bell, Bone, Brooks H, Brooks K, Campfield, Carr, Casada, Cobb J, Cobb T, Coley, Dean, DeBerry J, Dennis, Dunn, Eldridge, Evans, Faulkner, Ferguson, Fincher, Floyd, Ford, Fraley, Hackworth, Halford, Harrison, Hawk, Haynes, Hensley, Hill, Johnson P, Litz, Lollar, Lundberg, Lynn, Maddox, Maggart, Marsh, Matheny, Matlock, McCormick, McDaniel, McDonald, McManus, Montgomery, Moore, Mumpower, Niceley, Ramsey, Rich, Roach, Rowland, Sargent, Shepard, Shipley, Swafford, Tidwell, Todd, Watson, Weaver, West, White, Winningham, Yokley, Mr. Speaker Williams -- 66.

Representatives voting no were: Armstrong, Borchert, Brown, Camper, Coleman, Cooper, Curtiss, DeBerry L, Favors, Fitzhugh, Gilmore, Hardaway, Harmon, Harwell, Jones S, Jones U, Kernell, McCord, Miller, Naifeh, Odom, Pitts, Pruitt, Richardson, Shaw, Sontany, Stewart, Tindell, Towns, Turner J, Turner M -- 31.

I'm surprised that we didn't hear from Naifeh or did I miss him somehow?

[Guest 270win]

Fallguy,

You are right...500 bucks is the max. I don't like the principal of the sign law, but I know practically what will happen with it...just as what has been happening with it the few years I have been living in TN...you'll be asked to leave, if you mistakingly walk past one of these signs and your gun is exposed. I have seen some pretty high fine amounts for littering along Interstate 40...and we all know that someone would never ever get fined a thousand bucks for that.

[Oh Shoot]

International sign description states:

"The international circle and slash symbolizing the prohibition of the item within the circle;"

If the item is a semi-auto, just carry a revolver in.

Or vice versa.

- OS