Restaurant Carry Bill

[Mike.357]

didn't they stay in session well into June last year?

[LagerHead]

It seems to me that for the Governor to Veto a bill AFTER the legislative body has adjourned and can't respond, is just a political foul all the way around. Not saying it doesn't happen or is against legislative process but that to me would be the ultimate slap in the face to TN residents.

I don't think he cares. He's outta here and he knows it.

Of course, that is why i am an network engineer and not a congressman.

Me too.

"Move over m'am. I can subnet that Class B network for ya. Looks ta me like yer needin' a bunch o' /23's. There. That'll fix ya right up. No thanks necessary. I'm a network engineer."

[RobertNashville]

Regardless of what does or does not happen with this current "restaurant bill" I suggest that what the pro-Second Amendment folks ought to be asking the next legislature to focus on is the following...

1. Legislation that would mean a return to the concept that anyone who may legally possess a firearm may also legally "go armed" at any place and at any time EXCEPT that businesses and/or property owners may exclude firearms at their sole discretion by proper posting/signage. In other words, the state could no longer require anyone to have a HCP.

That said, firearm owners could still obtain a HCP if desired so as to take advantage of the benefits of having one (namely, reciprocity with other states).

2. Legislation that would allow effectively eliminate the ability of an employer to force its employees, who may otherwise legally go armed, to drive to/from their employment unarmed. In other words, regardless of where you worked, you could carry while commuting and leave your firearm in your locked vehicle during the workday (assuming that the employer did not allow you to carry within their facility which should still be their right).

3. HCP data should be PRIVATE/PRIVILEGED information and not available to anyone without a court order/search warrant.

4. Legislation that would require the State to issue HCP holders to qualified applicants unless the TBI could prove that the applicant was not eligible to own a firearm/was not qualified. In other words, the burden of proof to show a person to be ineligible to receive a HCP would be on the State (currently, if the state finds ANYTHING on a person's record the burden in currently on the applicant to show they are eligible).

I found myself in this situation due to an "arrest" from 20 years ago with no subsequent "disposition" shown (in my case, it shouldn't be on my record at all or should at least show that the trumped up charge was dropped). This required me to go back to the original court and get certified court documents from that long ago just to show TBI what happened.

This change/concept is consistent with the the state being required to show a person is ineligible to purchase a firearm. If, due to a background check run by your FFL dealer, you are denied the purchase and appeal, the state MUST, within 15 days, PROVE you are ineligible or allow the purchase to proceed...I think this same concept should be applied to HCP applications.

Ok...those are my thoughts!

[Guest 270win]

Robert,

I agree with you on your points, except on the posting....a sign should not void my permit issued by the state and subject me to criminal penalties. A sign should only subject me to being asked to leave...similar to no shirt, shoes, no service.

Fallguy,

My looking at the revised sign law has been from a purely academic standpoint. I highly doubt anyone will be charged over a sign as before...let the media sensation die down...business as usual in the state. Folks forget pretty quick and go back to paying attention to working, having fun with family, running their businesses, etc. If it wasn't for the media, the public has no idea where we legally can or can't carry a firearm..or really would care. Concealing avoids problems with the generally apathetic people in public. I believe even someone openly carrying who 'accidently' walks into a place with proper signs...and with no guns signs...but that may not be 'legal'...will still be handled the same...just asked to leave....quick easy solution for the property owner/mgr.

[Guest HexHead]

My call and email was asking him to just allow it to become law without his signature. I think that it would take an act of God for him to sign it. Stranger things have happened! You are right, time is NOT on our side!

I asked him to sign it. My logic is that if he hears from enough people urging him to sign it, for the right reasons, he might be more inclined to do nothing and let it become law. Always give them an "out" in your request. Ask for more than you're willing to accept.

[daddyo]

Time to call him and encourage him to sign the bill into law and show his trust and support for TN HCP holders rather than a Veto.

A lot of good it did last year. I'm not going to waste my time.

[Guest HexHead]

A lot of good it did last year. I'm not going to waste my time.

While I completely agree with your initial sentiment, I'll sleep better knowing at least I tried. I can't complain about the outcome if I just sat back and let stuff happen to me.

[GKar]

Good point. Dialing...

[JAB]

The problem is the legislature was trying to get everything wrapped up and get outta town by the 13th or 20th. This means if he veto's it on the 17th they may already be gone. If they are then its going to be a literal act of God to get them back for a special session to just override this one bill... honestly don't see it happening... meaning its dead.

I have a question I hope someone can answer...

I know it requires a 'simple majority' to override the veto but does that mean a simple majority of all Senate/House members or a simple majority of whoever shows up? In other words, if a special session were called to deal with a veto and only, say, 25 Senators showed up (with, say, 16 voting for the override and 9 voting against) and 15 Reps came back (with, say, 10 voting for the override and 5 against) then would that be enough to override the veto?

[RobertNashville]

Robert,

I agree with you on your points, except on the posting....a sign should not void my permit issued by the state and subject me to criminal penalties. A sign should only subject me to being asked to leave...similar to no shirt, shoes, no service...

I agree.

I wasn't really dealing with the legal/criminal ramifications of an armed citizen who finds himself (purposely or inadvertently) in a posted property; I was merely supporting the basic concept that if a business/property owner doesn't want armed citizens in his business/on his property that that he has a the right to "say so" by posting.

In the event someone does carry in a posted property; I see no justification for "criminal" charges against that person simply because he is "there"....however, if the person is asked to leave and refuses it's another matter...at that point, as I understand the law, that person is guilty of criminal trespass, armed or not.

[Guest HexHead]

I have a question I hope someone can answer...

I know it requires a 'simple majority' to override the veto but does that mean a simple majority of all Senate/House members or a simple majority of whoever shows up? In other words, if a special session were called to deal with a veto and only, say, 25 Senators showed up (with, say, 16 voting for the override and 9 voting against) and 15 Reps came back (with, say, 10 voting for the override and 5 against) then would that be enough to override the veto?

For that matter, can they hold a "contingency" vote before they leave, assuming he will veto it?

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

I have a question I hope someone can answer...

I know it requires a 'simple majority' to override the veto but does that mean a simple majority of all Senate/House members or a simple majority of whoever shows up? In other words, if a special session were called to deal with a veto and only, say, 25 Senators showed up (with, say, 16 voting for the override and 9 voting against) and 15 Reps came back (with, say, 10 voting for the override and 5 against) then would that be enough to override the veto?

somebody will come along with specifics I'm sure, but my gut instinct tells me no. I think they have to have a "Quorum" before they can take a vote. I don't know what that number is, but I am pretty sure they have to have a minimum number of representatives to vote on any legislation.

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

A quick google search tells me that a Quorum is 'typically' 1/2 + 1 of the existing members.

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

Looking at Bredesens options from a purely political point of view (which is exactly what he will do) I am fairly positive he won't sign the bill anytime soon. To do so in the midst of the flooding situation would cause all kinds of flak about him 'not focusing on the really important issues' etc...

[-boatman-]

For that matter, can they hold a "contingency" vote before they leave, assuming he will veto it?

What is a contingency vote?

[Guest HexHead]

What is a contingency vote?

Hold the "override" vote before he actually vetoes the bill, and have the signed results of the vote in hand when he vetoes it. "Here you go, we figured you were going to do that." Only Williams and Ramsey would need to be around.

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

I have no idea if a contingency vote is even an option, but I do like the sound of it.

[Guest HexHead]

I guess we'll find out by a week from Tuesday, 5/18.

[GKar]

OT, but...Serpas has accepted the NO job. Don't let the door hit ya....

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

hahah, no doubt GKar. New Orleans wants Serpas why? Because he has done such a bang up job of cutting down on crime in Davidson county?

[Mark A]

From what I understand from a couple of friends on the force, good...

Wonder if we can get someone a little more pro-2a in here? My guess is not but I guess I can hope.

[Guest HexHead]

From what I understand from a couple of friends on the force, good...

Wonder if we can get someone a little more pro-2a in here? My guess is not but I guess I can hope.

Not as long as Dean is making the choice. He'll probably bring in one of those idiots from Memph-frica

[Guest Doc44]

hahah, no doubt GKar. New Orleans wants Serpas why? Because he has done such a bang up job of cutting down on crime in Davidson county?

Serpas spoke strongly against the "Guns in Bars Bill" last year and this year. Not pro gun and is going to a place which has a history of taking guns away from the citizens. He will probably feel safer there.

Doc44

[Guest TNReb]

Call and email done!

I hope they don't remember what I said after he vetoed the bill last year.

Did you burn a bridge or two there?

[Guest TNReb]

I asked him to sign it. My logic is that if he hears from enough people urging him to sign it, for the right reasons, he might be more inclined to do nothing and let it become law. Always give them an "out" in your request. Ask for more than you're willing to accept.

That's true Hex. I asked him to sign it also, because it's the right thing to do, but I also said if he could not do that, to please let it become law without his signature. But whatever he did, please do not veto it.