Restaurant Carry Bill

[RobertNashville]

Who are these "good people" you speak of? Mae Beavers was thought to support the 2nd amendment and be pro-carry, but she authored and sponsored this horrid amendment. Doug Jackson was thought to be on our side, and he voted to approve the bill with the amendment.

At the end of the day, politicians are always going to be politicians.

Not an excuse you understand, just an observation...the best we can do is keep pressure on and do our best to make "leaving the reservation" as costly for them as possible.

[GKar]

Went back to the video from 4/13 in Sen Jud and watched the proceedings again. At 2:00, Sen Jackson introduces (as his own) amendment 1 to 1, which seems to be the signage amendment seen as Sen amendment 1. His description of the amendment is interesting...indicating that this amendment is more "business-friendly" in that it will continue to allow signs that are currently posted at places like The Hermitage and The Peabody, which are apparently permanently engraved. This is an interesting point, and a potentially significant leverage point for most legislators, in that there are likely a myriad of places with more permanent signage that would incur a significant expense to change - signs that were not patently non-compliant with the previous law. For example, several of the hospitals in our area have their posting language etched into the glass entrance doors - no small penny to change those, and difficult for legislators to mandate such an "unfunded" expense. While this situation does not justify the other holes that the amendment can create, it does give an idea all the different things legislators must balance - and, at times, run afoul of even when perhaps initially well-intentioned.

Perhaps the creative minds hereabouts can craft sufficient language as a helpful suggestion - language that would be able to both be successful in the current climate and meet desired outcomes?

EDIT: just saw this explanation from John Harris, which seems to dovetail with what was said in 4/13 Sen Jud and matches the timings..

"As I understand it from the drafting of the amendment they had been advised by various state agencies that the state agencies had misread the existing law to allow either the sign or the circle slash and that there are state building in Nashville that use only the circle slash at present. If the amendment was written to clearly prohibit only the circle-slash it could result in a fiscal note that would now delay and potentially kill the bill."

We've already seen how effective the use of fiscal notes can be in obfuscating pending legislation...it is just possible that these legislators who are now finding themselves under various buses here were, in reality, attempting to deliver as best possible in the existing environment a piece of legislation that their constituents said they wanted. If their efforts have morphed into something unacceptable and are advised of such, then they likely will be glad to let it die and move on.

Edited April 25, 2010 by GKar
Addnl info

[Guest HexHead]

Went back to the video from 4/13 in Sen Jud and watched the proceedings again. At 2:00, Sen Jackson introduces (as his own) amendment 1 to 1, which seems to be the signage amendment seen as Sen amendment 1. His description of the amendment is interesting...indicating that this amendment is more "business-friendly" in that it will continue to allow signs that are currently posted at places like The Hermitage and The Peabody, which are apparently permanently engraved. This is an interesting point, and a potentially significant leverage point for most legislators, in that there are likely a myriad of places with more permanent signage that would incur a significant expense to change - signs that were not patently non-compliant with the previous law. For example, several of the hospitals in our area have their posting language etched into the glass entrance doors - no small penny to change those, and difficult for legislators to mandate such an "unfunded" expense. While this situation does not justify the other holes that the amendment can create, it does give an idea all the different things legislators must balance - and, at times, run afoul of even when perhaps initially well-intentioned.

Perhaps the creative minds hereabouts can craft sufficient language as a helpful suggestion - language that would be able to both be successful in the current climate and meet desired outcomes?

EDIT: just saw this explanation from John Harris, which seems to dovetail with what was said in 4/13 Sen Jud and matches the timings..

"As I understand it from the drafting of the amendment they had been advised by various state agencies that the state agencies had misread the existing law to allow either the sign or the circle slash and that there are state building in Nashville that use only the circle slash at present. If the amendment was written to clearly prohibit only the circle-slash it could result in a fiscal note that would now delay and potentially kill the bill."

We've already seen how effective the use of fiscal notes can be in obfuscating pending legislation...it is just possible that these legislators who are now finding themselves under various buses here were, in reality, attempting to deliver as best possible in the existing environment a piece of legislation that their constituents said they wanted. If their efforts have morphed into something unacceptable and are advised of such, then they likely will be glad to let it die and move on.

Haven't these jerk-offs ever heard of the term "grandfathered"? They could grandfather in permanently engraved signs and govt. building signs that existed before say, 01/01/10 to keep ****tard restaurant owners from posting non-complaint signs between when the bill is passed and it goes into effect. The original bill even gave everyone until 10/1/10 to change to a compliant sign. This isn't ****ing rocket science here. They just want to make it as obtuse as possible as an excuse to do nothing.

[Guest 270win]

I still see the govt types up in Nashville still getting in a tizzy over a silly sign figuring how to possibly milk us legal carry permit folks for a little fine money.

That is absolutely disgusting and uncalled for. To spend so much time and effort on this is an insult to those of us with permits.

I could get a pen and mark through those two pages of total CRAP regarding that sign language silliness...and you know what...PROBLEM SOLVED! There wouldn't be a damned sign law period to add to confusion for folks with permits...less confusion for legal folks is better in my view. Go hassle the criminals. Now if someone sees a legal person with a gun in their precious govt building up in Nashville and doesn't like it...well they can always ask that individual (say you happen to not conceal to well!) to just leave the property/take the gun to the car. That's the more sane way to handle things. You don't need two pages of BS law to try to penalize the good guy with a fine after he's already paid the state money??? What pay the state MORE money over a sign???? That's exactly what i'm seeing out of these legislators....such a slap in the face. I think those of us with permits shouldn't put up with this crap one bit of being FINED five hundred bucks over a damned sign!...we're the legal ones...that's the same fine for 'intent to go armed' on the first offense (when not in a public place)??? Why should we be fined like those without permits??? Raise hell period over this class act shafting by the 'pro gun'.

[Guest HexHead]

Thinking again about Jackson's comment about the amendment being more "business friendly", there's the whole crux of the problem in the first place. He and the other legislators are more than willing to throw 300,000 HCP holders under the bus, not to inconvenience a few businesses or hotels. Okay, they've got an old sign, they can put up another also. Like Rep. Todd said, the idea is they can print the sign off the State's website, put it in a 99 cent frame and have a legal sign. Hardly a reason to make us end up with a hodgepodge of signage so that we don't know where it's a criminal offense or not.

[Guest 270win]

I hope this Senate amendment either gets fix, as far as the signs, or just dies. We do not need more confusion that can trap someone who is otherwise law abiding when his gun becomes accidently exposed in public and the police are called. If these so called lawmakers were smart and had any common sense, they would realize a sign with a fine is not needed because a business owner can just ask someone to leave. It is that easy...even if the police are called there is no need for citing someone who is law abiding a five hundred dollar fine over a silly sign.

I realize this 'sign law' does not seem to be enforced, but isn't it sad that there is more language in the penal code for the revised 'sign law' to trap the law abiding with permits than those without permits in the 'intent to go armed' statute? Two pages of trash under this bill aimed at us with permits.

[Fallguy]

The questions I would like to see all of these legislators answer is...."How is any of this within the scope of 'to prevent crime' as mandated by Article 1 Sec 26 of the TN Constitution?"

[Guest archerdr1]

Saturday morning I sent an email to Vince Dean asking him to vote against it if it keeps the amendment. This afternoon I received a response.:

Darin,

Good points and I will support the author of the Legislation. It is my

understanding that he will attempt to strip the amendment, either in the

house or on the Senate side.

Thanks for the note,

Vince Dean

Dist 30

Tn General Assembly

I replied telling him I was good with it if the amendment is stripped.

[Guest 270win]

If the legislature wants to allow any sign out there, then the legislature needs to remove this Class B Misdemeanor 500 dollar fine for us. That is the only way I find it acceptable. Lower the fine to something like 25 dollars civil penalty/parking ticket..not criminal.

I think considering the timing factor, this bill does not have time to reconcile both houses and then over ride a veto.

[Lumber_Jack]

I've heard others talking about there "not being enough time". How does this process work. Is there a deadline for the vote. Sorry for the ignorance of our legeslative process

[Guest HexHead]

I've heard others talking about there "not being enough time". How does this process work. Is there a deadline for the vote. Sorry for the ignorance of our legeslative process

The state's legislature adjourns for the year early-mid June. Just for the sake of discussion lets say the House and Senate pass a bill they can agree on without having to go back to a conference committee again like last year and then vote on it again. It goes to the Governor and he has 30 days to sign it, veto it or let it sit on his desk and just become law. With HB 0962 last year, he let it sit on his desk almost to the deadline trying to run out the clock before vetoing it. Then the two chambers have to vote again to override his veto, provided they have the will and the votes. If they can't get it all done before the legislature adjourns, the bill dies and the whole process has to start over with the next legislature in January.

[Lumber_Jack]

Thanks Hex

So what do these guys do from June-Dec? hmmmmm

[Guest FroggyOne2]

Thanks Hex

So what do these guys do from June-Dec? hmmmmm

Go home,,, politic.. and run their buisnesses.. to make some money..

[Guest HexHead]

A trip down memory lane, I posted this last November....

I know Todd is saying "we'll fix it in January", but the big question now if after all the hoopla last summer, does the State House still have the stomach for it? Will it pass again with even less restrictions? If it does, you know Phil will veto it again. And then will there still be the votes to override him again on this issue? You know now that the liberals and the media have smelled, no tasted blood in the water there will likely be MUCH MORE opposition this time around. This time will make last summer's proceedings look like a cake walk.

BEST case scenario, it'll be July again before we can legally carry again.

__________________

Well, waddaya know?

[GKar]

SB3735 is now before Sen Jud cmte...Bunch didn't really know what the bill sought. Marerro asked if this bill allows consumption; Bunch couldn't answer that question, so they deferred to their lawyer who advised that the other existing laws outside of the old section (the one proposed for removal) do not address consumption but rather only a prohibition of possession while intoxicated, and thus this proposed legislation would allow consumption up to point of "intoxication", which is covered by that existing law. With that, everybody quickly retreated, indicating that outcome was not one they would/could support. This one is now officially dead, as Bunch removed it from consideration

EDIT: this is also HB2694, so HB3125/SB3012 is all there is for this session...no viable alternative any more. The House version (3125) is scheduled for consideration on 4/29 in the House Calendar/Rules committee - presumably, that is the body which will schedule it for Floor vote. Presumably, it can move to the Senate floor anytime, but the Senate floor calendar for Thursday has not yet been posted (prob be posted Wed afternoon or evening, capturing committee votes on Wed). General Assembly activity seems to be winding down towards a May adjournment...statement made today that this was the last Sen Jud cmte meeting to be held this year, and fewer committee meetings are appearing on the calendar.

Edited April 27, 2010 by GKar

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

Well this just keeps getting better doesn't it?

[Guest HexHead]

Funny really, how this year it's not the House that's the problem, but the ****ing Senate. All this time, I thought it was illegal to have one drop of alcohol while carrying, but apparently that's not the case. WhooHoo.

I was just on the phone with the NRA-ILA expressing my disappointment at their email I got today, asking everyone to contact their Senators asking them to support SB3012, instead of asking them to remove the signage amendment.

It sucks that the clean bill is now dead because of the stupidity of the sponsor. I'm glad to see some of our so called pro-gun Senators were watching our back on that one. They're determined to shove this bill with the "Randy Rayburn Commemorative amendment" attached to it right up our asses. I wish I could get Mae Beavers to kiss me, I like to be kissed when I'm getting screwed.

I hope 3125 fails the way it is, it's got too much baggage attached to it.

Has that appeal even been scheduled yet?

[GKar]

According to the legal staff for Sen Jud, at this time it is illegal to consume. A by-product of passing 2694 would apparently be making it legal to consume alcohol while in possession of a firearm until you reach the point of "under the influence" (however that is defined).

And the error here was apparently by the House sponsor (Dennis), who brought the bill to Bunch simply seeking a Senate sponsor. Given the reaction by Jackson, Bunch, et al during the Sen Jud cmte, this "clean" bill never stood a chance once this implication/consequence was fully understood....which, if it hadn't occurred in Sen Jud, would have occurred on the floor of either/both houses. Seems very clear that the Gen Assembly has no tolerance for any consumption while carrying - so, in retrospect, this one was dead before the ink was dry.

I thought at one point that this bill (2694) was also the better way to go, but wondered to myself if the consumption nuance would become an issue.

[Guest HexHead]

According to the legal staff for Sen Jud, at this time it is illegal to consume. A by-product of passing 2694 would apparently be making it legal to consume alcohol while in possession of a firearm until you reach the point of "under the influence" (however that is defined).

And the error here was apparently by the House sponsor (Dennis), who brought the bill to Bunch simply seeking a Senate sponsor. Given the reaction by Jackson, Bunch, et al during the Sen Jud cmte, this "clean" bill never stood a chance once this implication/consequence was fully understood....which, if it hadn't occurred in Sen Jud, would have occurred on the floor of either/both houses. Seems very clear that the Gen Assembly has no tolerance for any consumption while carrying - so, in retrospect, this one was dead before the ink was dry.

I thought at one point that this bill (2694) was also the better way to go, but wondered to myself if the consumption nuance would become an issue.

This is the first I think any of us are hearing about the consumption issue with this bill, I know it is for me. If Jackson etc knew it was an issue, that would have called for an amendment. Sounds to me that Jackson let this be a last minute bill killing surprise on purpose.

Edited April 27, 2010 by HexHead

[GKar]

I don't think Jackson knew it was an issue long before this meeting today...however, it was not possible to offer an amendment to this bill due to the way it was written. Since the bill caption was only to repeal a section of the code and no other changes, amendments to the bill that wold have prohibited consumption were not possible (according to the legal staff). So, once the bill was entered back on Jan 19, it was fatally flawed once the consequences were fully understood.

Seems I remember some early conversations when 2694/3125 were first offered (probably over at TFA, actually) that simply recognized the difference in consumption restrictions, but no real in-depth discussions...

[JAB]

It goes to the Governor and he has 30 days to sign it, veto it or let it sit on his desk and just become law.

I thought the Governor had ten days (not including Sundays) to sign, veto or let pass without signature, not thirty.

With HB 0962 last year, he let it sit on his desk almost to the deadline trying to run out the clock before vetoing it. Then the two chambers have to vote again to override his veto, provided they have the will and the votes. If they can't get it all done before the legislature adjourns, the bill dies and the whole process has to start over with the next legislature in January.

With the current bill being a little different than last year's I wonder what the chances are that Bredesen would sign it. Probably not - iirc his big objection last year was that he thought there should be some kind of ridiculous 'curfew' attached - as if an HCP holder carrying a firearm while eating a burger and drinking sweet tea at O'Charley's before 11pm is trustworthy but that same HCP holder carrying a firearm while eating a burger and drinking sweet tea at O'Charley's after 11pm is a deranged menace to society. I guess that is what Tennessee gets for electing a guy born in New Jersey and raised in New Jersey, New York and Massachusetts as governor.

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

You know, with them only being in session from Jan-June, it is a wonder they get anything done at all.

[Fallguy]

It is 10 days (not 30) not including Sundays of sitting on the Governor's desk that a bill becomes law.

Hate to see what happened to SB3735, funny how they didn't seem fit to address or worry about consumption till now (this session HB0962 and HB3125) though.

Still a very slight bit of home that the bad amendment of HB3125 can be removed and the senate simply adopt the house version I guess. Fingers crossed.

[GKar]

IIRC, the override votes happened pretty quickly in both chambers - both within three business days of the veto, perhaps? And didn't they both occur in the "message" portion of the floor session (which is much easier to get scheduled)?

[Guest 270win]

Consumption should not be a problem for anyone. It is pretty odd that a state would flat out prohibit the consumption of alcohol by someone carrying a handgun on a license. It is not odd that it is illegal for someone to be carrying while 'under the influence' or 'intoxicated'...as presently under the law.

There is no law against carrying handguns for licensees in NY, Mass, or NJ in bars or restaurants. I have not read of any law that makes it illegal for them to consume alcohol either. I am sure they could get in trouble for being intoxicated and have their license canned by the city/county/state who issued it. If the governor has license from those parts still (NY gives out LIFETIME licenses...NY and NJ does give out non res licenses) he can have a drink while carrying his handgun and having a meal.