Restaurant Carry Bill

[Guest HexHead]

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.

I didn't want to give him other options or even mention "veto". Why plant that seed? HAHAHAHA

He needs to get LOTS of messages of STRONG support for the bill. Anything less is wishy washy and sends the wrong message. I'm sure the opponents are letting him know in no uncertain terms that they want him to veto it, he needs to hear from us in strong language too.

How about "If you don't sign this bill...."

LOLOLOLOL

Edited May 6, 2010 by HexHead

[JeffL]

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.

He received an overwhelming majority of calls last year asking that he support the bill. He said this at his press conference and vetoed the bill anyway. I suspect he'll repeat his actions of last year.

[mcurrier]

Uh-Oh!

[Guest HexHead]

He received an overwhelming majority of calls last year asking that he support the bill. He said this at his press conference and vetoed the bill anyway. I suspect he'll repeat his actions of last year.

Sadly I can't disagree with you on that. Maybe he thought he really wouldn't get his veto overturned last year? He knows better this year.

[Mike.357]

they did a bit about this law on the local news tonight. It included a statement from JJ Jones, Knox County Sheriff. I do not have it word for word but basically he said that the KCSO teaches a permit course monthly and he supports the right of people with a HCP to carry everywhere where legal.

[Guest HexHead]

they did a bit about this law on the local news tonight. It included a statement from JJ Jones, Knox County Sheriff. I do not have it word for word but basically he said that the KCSO teaches a permit course monthly and he supports the right of people with a HCP to carry everywhere where legal.

Well, he's certainly not going to be up for the Nashville Chief's job.

[Volzfan]

He received an overwhelming majority of calls last year asking that he support the bill. He said this at his press conference and vetoed the bill anyway. I suspect he'll repeat his actions of last year.

Sadly I can't disagree with you on that. Maybe he thought he really wouldn't get his veto overturned last year? He knows better this year.

I did tell the Gov that I wanted him to sign the bill but told him that he could get by with telling the media that he is still against the law but was not going to sign the bill and still could say that he was opposed to it.

My first choice is that he sign it but if he doesn't I certainly hope that he will just ignore it and let it become law without his signature.

[Guest ScottD]

I'm assuming the same 10 day sign/veto period is also the expiration period in which it becomes law?

[GKar]

Yes, Scott, I believe that is correct. In fact, Bredesen did exactly that on another piece of legislation passed just recently in this session - a bill that prevents spending public dollars on a controversial medical procedure. He actually sent a letter to the Spkrs of both houses indicating that while he was generally in favor of the concept, he was opposed to certain specific aspects of this bill...thus, he was allowing it to become law without his signature.

Somehow, I just can't bring myself to think we could be that lucky...

[eapking]

Nikki was just on Cam & Co. and said she thought Bredesen would veto again.

[Guest lci419]

I still don't like this, not one bit. I think we just got thrown under the bus big time both by design and by ignorance. By design, in that certain legislators got language put in there that potentially eliminates a lot of of places we can carry. By ignorance, that everybody has been so focused on the "restaurant/bar" side of this, that they missed the fact that this bill doesn't say "This shall only apply to bars and restaurants." Sounded good on the surface, but no, it means ANYWHERE. Granted most of the bill was geared towards establishments that serve alcohol by the drink, but that little clause in there makes no such distinction. That little clause that you all are so eager to have the governor sign off on is going to be the one that pops us up the keister.

For those of you that think we can "clean this up" next time around, I hope you're right, but I wouldn't be counting on that for the next 10 or so years... So no, I will not be calling anyone to sign off on this. I'd rather have the less than ideal laws we have now.

[Wingshooter]

I have mixed thoughts on this as well. We are making a concession on the posting rules to gain the restaurants that serve (that don't choose to post). Considering I have gone into a restaurant that serves alcohol only on 3 occasions (unarmed of course) since the previous law was ruled unconstitutional, I am trying to convince myself that this is a true win.

One thing is for sure, it will be far easier for the restaurants to post. I can think of several locations (not all restaurants) that have displayed the circle/slash for years that I will no longer be allowed to legally enter if I am armed. Bitter/sweet on this one, and I am finding it hard to jump for joy.

[Guest ScottD]

I have mixed thoughts on this as well. We are making a concession on the posting rules to gain the restaurants that serve (that don't choose to post). Considering I have gone into a restaurant that serves alcohol only on 3 occasions (unarmed of course) since the previous law was ruled unconstitutional, I am trying to convince myself that this is a true win.

One thing is for sure, it will be far easier for the restaurants to post. I can think of several locations (not all restaurants) that have displayed the circle/slash for years that I will no longer be allowed to legally enter if I am armed. Bitter/sweet on this one, and I am finding it hard to jump for joy.

They still have to post the proper signage. A circle slash isn't to the word of the law.

[Oh Shoot]

They still have to post the proper signage. A circle slash isn't to the word of the law.

Yes it is.

Any type business at all.

- OS

[Guest lci419]

"They still have to post the proper signage. A circle slash isn't to the word of the law."

Absolutely it is...notice lack of language about "bar," "restaurant," "alcohol, "beer," "food," "liquor by the drink," "50% of sales." "for on-site consumption," etc., etc., etc. in this section. This is precisely what I meant by "ignorance." We have dozens of posts clarifying this point alone in this 70 some odd page topic. Yet, some of us here still don't understand that our goose is cooked if Bredesen signs off on this. Not singling anyone out here, because I am convinced that many up on capitol hill missed this salient point as well.

This section of the law means EVERYWHERE grocery stores, banks, gas stations, liquor stores, antique malls, hardware stores, pet stores, dress shops, electronics stores, shopping malls, doctors offices, drug stores, delis, non-alcohol serving restaurants, ice cream shops, libraries...(need I go on?) that has the "International Symbol" prohibiting guns is going to be off limits and punishable for violation thereof. I maintain, let Bredesen veto it so he can do something right for once.

© 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).

Edited May 7, 2010 by lci419

[steamnsteel]

I can count probably ten places that have the circle slash sign without even thinking very hard. I read over on TFA that someone incorrectly added this into the bill, if such is the case then why was it not proof read before being presented for discussion and voting?

[Oh Shoot]

I can count probably ten places that have the circle slash sign without even thinking very hard. I read over on TFA that someone incorrectly added this into the bill, if such is the case then why was it not proof read before being presented for discussion and voting?

It was added on purpose. It was no accident.

It's only "incorrectly" added in most all our opinions.

- OS

[Wingshooter]

Speaking of signs....

Here's a real winner at Beef 'O' Brady's in Cleveland. People tell me they have good food. I wouldn't know

I guess it becomes a $500 sign if someone draws a little picture on it. Either way, I don't go where I am not welcome.

Edited May 7, 2010 by Batman

[jcj]

I think we may have lost more than we gained with the passage of this bill. Yes, the bill will allow HCP holders to enter restaurants that serve alcohol and choose not to post. Great!

Unfortunately, all of those many restaurants, retail stores, supermarkets, gas stations, and other establishments who opted for the "slash through gun" sign that was previously not legally binding are now all officially off limits. Granted, I would prefer to do business with places who don't post, but there are a lot of places that have that type of sign.

Also, unless I missed it, there's no regulation as to how large the sign must be, just that it must be at all entrances and visible to the average person. I recall a statement during the debate that the "little stickers" won't do and it had to be an actual sign, but I don't see anything in the bill that prevents the little sticker version of the anti-gun Ghostbusters sign from being considered valid for posting purposes.

While I'm on the subject.. I know TGO had (has?) a database of sorts that listed places who posted when dealt with this bill before it was invalidated last year. I was considering putting together a web site specifically to allow people to submit entries of posted places to a database searchable by city, county, etc.. Heck, I could allow all businesses to be listed and configure searches of "posted" or "carry on in" establishments.

It would not be difficult from a programming perspective and it may be a useful tool. Thoughts, anyone? It would be a completely non-commercial endeavor (except maybe a Google text ad or two to help pay for hosting expenses).

I don't want to reinvent the wheel though. If something is already in place, that's cool. Just thought I'd see if there was interest in such a site.

[Guest 270win]

I have had mixed feelings about this bill too, especially about the signs. I am glad that, so far, we have not heard about any of these signs going to court...whether they be legal or not for the five hundred dollars. The sign does have to meet certain requirements and it does have to be on all entrances...and 'visible to the avg person'....now the question is...how many businesses..govt buildings...hospitals..etc...truly put these signs up..legal or otherwise...or even an 'international sign'...up at all entrances...that are easy to see?? I don't know....then again what is an 'international sign'? That to me is pretty vague...how big or little is it...what is an international sign....what exactly is in that circle...a revolver...a semi auto...an AK...an AR...i know i may sound like i'm blowing it out of proportion but talk about last year's 'restaurant bill' being vague..this international sign deal is vague....I seriously think a good lawyer can take care of it...which is good for us.

But in the real world...I think that most of us conceal...and should you accidently walk in a place that has this five hundred dollar sign...legal ...illegal..whatever...the property owner/mgr...as always will just ask you to leave....the cops..mgr...no one really reads up on the particulars...they just want you gone if your gun becomes exposed...they call the cops...just leave....I highly doubt anything more than that will happen.

I've sat in a city court in Arkansas outside Little Rock (no i wasn't in trouble)...and two potheads were slapped with roughly 800 dollar fines quickly a piece...probation..no jailtime...rehab..and that was it...DRUG OFFENSES. I believe it was simple pot possession..not intent to deliver(I don't know the original charge though)..Class A Misdemeanor...but still..after sitting through a session of court....I don't think we are a huge concern of the system over a sign when potheads are slapped on the wrist. I conceal...if I make accidently miss a sign...well that's what concealing is for...i've never been shaken down in public or strip searched..and it won't happen over a sign that I accidently don't see...I'm too busy looking at the pretty lady I'm with or the sights not signs!

[Guest TNReb]

Hey guys, if this does become law, what about this--since they sued on our behalf over last year's law, maybe we should see if we could hire their lawyer to argue that the law on posting this year is so "unconstitutionally vague" that the property/business owners cannot know how to properly post, so the whole posting provision should be thrown out and no one should be allowed to post. We could also try to put it in Bonnyman's court and use the same arguments the anti's did last year to see if she would be consistent. I would contribute to a fund to try to get that done. How about the rest of us?

[GKar]

Bredesen heads for China next week (economic devel/recruitment), so no action on the bill would seem likely until the following week. The GOP budget proposal should be introduced next week as well...legislature may indeed still be here through the 20th or so.

[Guest HexHead]

I can count probably ten places that have the circle slash sign without even thinking very hard. I read over on TFA that someone incorrectly added this into the bill, if such is the case then why was it not proof read before being presented for discussion and voting?

That's bull*****. Doug Jackson himself came on here and defended the wording of that amendment. If anyone threw us under the bus with it, he did.

[Guest HexHead]

Hey guys, if this does become law, what about this--since they sued on our behalf over last year's law, maybe we should see if we could hire their lawyer to argue that the law on posting this year is so "unconstitutionally vague" that the property/business owners cannot know how to properly post, so the whole posting provision should be thrown out and no one should be allowed to post. We could also try to put it in Bonnyman's court and use the same arguments the anti's did last year to see if she would be consistent. I would contribute to a fund to try to get that done. How about the rest of us?

At least if it gets declared "unconstitutionally vague" this time, it will apply only to the posting TCA, not restaurants.

My advice, keep an extra $500-1000 in your savings account and just go about your business as usual. Concealed means concealed.

Edited May 7, 2010 by HexHead

[Guest TNReb]

That's bull*****. Doug Jackson himself came on here and defended the wording of that amendment. If anyone threw us under the bus with it, he did.

Where was this, Hex?