Restaurant Carry Bill

[RobertNashville]

Correct me if I'm wrong BUT Tennessee has NO BARS under the law. All are places to eat as 50% of their revenue must be from food. I am sure I'm not going to popular for this but I DO NOT support anyone carrying in what I call a bar (where people go to drink and not to eat). NO ONE, regarldess of his/her outstanding citizenship have any reason to be in such a place except to drink and therefore do not need to be carrying. That said, I don't care if the law is changed to allow carry everywhere because I'm not going to be in a place that caters to drinking and take a chance on being shot by some half drunk regardless if he/she is legally carrying or not. But, that is just me and I respect your opinion otherwise.

I would suggest that anyone stupid enough and reckless enough to drink while carrying a firearm (or drive a vehicle for that matter) is ALWAYS stupid and reckless and DANGEROUS to everyone around them whether they are sitting in a McDonalds, an O'Charly's that serves mixed drinks or a "bar".

I don't know about anyone else but I'm sick to death of laws created to accommodate the lowest common denominator!

Responsible, law-abiding citizens not only should be allowed but by the Constitution have the right to carry firearms for personal protection; last time I looked, the Constitution didn't say "except for when they are in a bar" or "within 100yards of an establishment that serves alcohol.

That said, my right to go armed does NOT supersede another legal entity's right to say "not on my property" but that is as it should be - you don't want me in your business on on your property armed, then just say so and I'll go somewhere else...why does it need to be any more complicated than that???

Edited April 28, 2010 by RobertNashville

[Guest HexHead]

Correct me if I'm wrong BUT Tennessee has NO BARS under the law. All are places to eat as 50% of their revenue must be from food. I am sure I'm not going to popular for this but I DO NOT support anyone carrying in what I call a bar (where people go to drink and not to eat). NO ONE, regarldess of his/her outstanding citizenship have any reason to be in such a place except to drink and therefore do not need to be carrying. That said, I don't care if the law is changed to allow carry everywhere because I'm not going to be in a place that caters to drinking and take a chance on being shot by some half drunk regardless if he/she is legally carrying or not. But, that is just me and I respect your opinion otherwise.

I think it's pretty damn disingenuous by the State to bust our balls the way they've been doing so with all this crap, based on a rule they don't make any attempt to enforce in the first place. Law says to be issued a liquor by the drink license, an establishment must have more than 50% of their gross income from food. Places that don't should lose their liquor licenses, period. Or create another class of license for those establishments. But our legislature is obviously too gutless to do so. It's easier to just **** with us.

[Guest HexHead]

That said, my right to go armed does NOT supersede another legal entity's right to say "not on my property" but that is as it should be - you don't want me in your business on on your property armed, then just say so and I'll go somewhere else...why does it need to be any more complicated than that???

I'll argue that part with you, but I agree with the rest of your post.

[GKar]

I don't know when Coleman added an amendment to 3125 to amend the Senate amendment with the sign issues, but it's a good amendment.

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/106/Amend/HA1068.pdf

This is the original amendment from several weeks ago (March 10, I think, in a House Jud subcmte) that first rewrote the House bill. This is the version of the bill that was later further amended by Tindell in HFWM, and by Jackson in Sen Jud.

[RobertNashville]

I'll argue that part with you, but I agree with the rest of your post.

I can't tell what you agree with and what you don't?

[molonlabetn]

I'll argue that part with you, but I agree with the rest of your post.

It's true... a property owner has every right to disallow someone from being there for any reason, and their say trumps the visitor/patron's. I think the problem is when the law allows for a property owner to post a legally enforceable prohibition on a certain 'class' of people. For instance, it would be perfectly within a person's right to ask someone to leave because they don't like how they look, but totally another to post a sign stating "No Tattoos", which has the force of law.

Such things should be handled on an individual basis, and fall under trespassing laws if the person refuses.

[Guest HexHead]

It's true... a property owner has every right to disallow someone from being there for any reason, and their say trumps the visitor/patron's.

That's not quite true either. Let's see them get away with putting up a "No Blacks" or "No Gays" sign. Business owner may not like blacks or gays, but he's stuck with them. Why should HCP holders be any different?

Business owners are told all the time what they can and can't do. Zoning, ADA rules, Smoking/ no smoking. It's a long list, and they may not agree with much of it. So again, why are we so different and their rights suddenly become sacrosanct as far as we're concerned? Many other states don't allow posting "no guns", or the sign has no force of law whatsoever.

[saintsfanbrian]

A simple - we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone should suffice. However there are places that are posted no trespassing and I cannot go in there without fear or repercussions.

Posting a sign stating you don't want a person with a valid HCP in your business tells me you don't want my business at all. Post all you want. I will go elsewhere.

I will agree that they are "discriminating" against HCP holders and as such the ACLU should step in but that is a dog for a different hunt.

[G27]

Correct me if I'm wrong BUT Tennessee has NO BARS under the law. All are places to eat as 50% of their revenue must be from food. I am sure I'm not going to popular for this but I DO NOT support anyone carrying in what I call a bar (where people go to drink and not to eat). NO ONE, regarldess of his/her outstanding citizenship have any reason to be in such a place except to drink and therefore do not need to be carrying.

You've never been to a bar and not had an alcoholic beverage?

Wow.

Edited April 28, 2010 by crimsonaudio

[molonlabetn]

That's not quite true either. Let's see them get away with putting up a "No Blacks" or "No Gays" sign. Business owner may not like blacks or gays, but he's stuck with them. Why should HCP holders be any different?

Business owners are told all the time what they can and can't do. Zoning, ADA rules, Smoking/ no smoking. It's a long list, and they may not agree with much of it. So again, why are we so different and their rights suddenly become sacrosanct as far as we're concerned? Many other states don't allow posting "no guns", or the sign has no force of law whatsoever.

Ethnicity, gender, etc.. are not choices to be legally discriminated against by a public business (albeit I don't know of any law which could prohibit you from posting such things on your private property, at least)... Choices though, such as having pets with you, or tattoos, a particular sexual preference, or any number of other voluntary practices (including possession of a weapon) certainly do not trump the choice of the property owner to not accept. It goes back to the question, who's 'choice' has the most weight? Well... it's the choice of the person who owns or controls the premises where you are.

One question though, is whether it can be illegal for a man to enter a marked woman's restroom? It's generally 'posted' in a gender discriminating way, one could argue... but does that have the force of law?

Before smoking in public buildings became illegal, were no-smoking signs legally enforceable, or would it be handled as tresspassing after you were asked to leave?

[Guest HexHead]

Choices though, such as having pets with you, or tattoos, a particular sexual preference, or any number of other voluntary practices (including possession of a weapon) certainly do not trump the choice of the property owner to not accept. It goes back to the question, who's 'choice' has the most weight? Well... it's the choice of the person who owns or controls the premises where you are.

So where are the "No Gays" signs?

[molonlabetn]

So where are the "No Gays" signs?

The US Military comes to mind...

[RobertNashville]

Personally, I've often wrestled with how to "define" a right. The best way I've ever heard to identify/define a true right from something that is not is that nothing can truly be a "right" if, by its existence/enforcement it infringes on the right of another or if IT can be infringed upon by the "right" of another.

In other words, my right to go armed stops at the property line of another; if not, then I'm telling that other person that my right to go armed is more important than his right to use/enjoy his property the way he wants (effectively telling him that he doesn't have a right to enjoy his property the way he wants).

I have no right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" if, so you can exercise your right to freely practice your religion, you can sacrifice me on an alter of stone.

Likewise, your right to free speech ends once you start writing or speaking untruths about me.

As is was described to me, our "rights"; given by God and enumerated in the Constitution are all equally important and must be applied to all and at the same time but, as the old saying goes, your rights stop at then end of my nose (on in the case of this discussion, my property line).

Further, in an age of the Patriot Act, warrant-less wiretaps, email/data mining, no-knock warrants, militarization of our law enforcement agencies and political correctness in and effort to not "offend" anyone/anytime/anywhere; our right to keep and bear arms is hardly the only right being trampled on and/or in danger these days.

Edited April 28, 2010 by RobertNashville

[molonlabetn]

Someone can ask you to leave their property if they don't like what you say, too... or, to put it another way, you can ask someone to leave your property if they are saying things which you find offensive, disturbing, threatening, etc... The premise is that you have just as much right to reject what someone does or says, as they have to do it or say it... but when you're on your property, you have the final say... when you're in public, and you don't like something, you have the option to either disagree, challenge it, or leave... it just depends on what it's worth to you. For example:

On my property, someone comes over and tells me they don't like I have a gun... If they don't like it they can leave, and if they don't shut up I'll rightfully aske them to do so.

On someone else's property, I am there and they tell me they don't like I have a gun... If they dislike it enough they can ask me to leave and if I don't leave they can rightfully have me removed.

In public, where we both have a right to be, and someone has a problem with me having a gun... well, that's their problem, not mine. They can argue with me if they want, even insult me, or they can walk away, but neither of us can force the other to do anything differently.

[Guest HexHead]

In public, where we both have a right to be, and someone has a problem with me having a gun... well, that's their problem, not mine. They can argue with me if they want, even insult me, or they can walk away, but neither of us can force the other to do anything differently.

And now we get to the gist of the problem. I'd agree with your points if we're talking about your home or even a private club. However, once you open your doors to the public, the line gets blurry.

Now maybe one of you property rights types can explain to me how other states get away with not allowing restaurants or businesses to post "no guns" then, or where the signs have no more force than just expressing the business owner's preferences?

[RobertNashville]

And now we get to the gist of the problem. I'd agree with your points if we're talking about your home or even a private club. However, once you open your doors to the public, the line gets blurry.

Now maybe one of you property rights types can explain to me how other states get away with not allowing restaurants or businesses to post "no guns" then, or where the signs have no more force than just expressing the business owner's preferences?

They get away with it because the people let them.

In this country...in a free market/capitalistic system, a "business" is a legal entity just like a person and has, in most respects, the same legal rights as a person. As such, the government shouldn't be telling a business how to run its business except in very rare circumstances.

If I own a restaurant and I want my customers to be able to smoke, I ought to be allowed to do that...if I don't want them to smoke I should be allowed to tell them "no smoking". If I don't want them armed...or I don't want them wearing less than a suit/tie or I want to fry everything in bacon grease I should be allowed to do that...I decide how to run my business and the people can freely decide if they want to be customers or not.

You have no more right to come into my business armed (if I don't want you there armed) than you do to come into my business and start yelling in a loud voice what you happen to think about the current president because while you have the "right" to "free speech" you do not have a right to force me or anyone else, to provide a platform from which to speak or an audience to hear you.

[Oh Shoot]

Correct me if I'm wrong BUT Tennessee has NO BARS under the law. All are places to eat as 50% of their revenue must be from food....

As far as liquor by the drink I believe that's right.

But not for beer joints. Beer licenses are handled by the counties, and I don't think there's any food requirements at all in most (or any).

- OS

[GKar]

In public, where we both have a right to be, and someone has a problem with me having a gun... well, that's their problem, not mine. They can argue with me if they want, even insult me, or they can walk away, but neither of us can force the other to do anything differently.

The interpretation of the emphasized part is the key. On any property/enterprise that is privately owned, I may be able to come and go as I please when the doors are open, but I still don't have a RIGHT to be there...I'm only there as long as the owner allows me to be there. The only areas where I truly have a RIGHT to be there (other than those areas I own) would be those areas owned/operated by the local municipality/governmental authority.

[Guest HexHead]

They get away with it because the people let them.

Yeah, like we have any more say? I don't buy that, otherwise someone would be challenging those laws in those states.

In this country...in a free market/capitalistic system, a "business" is a legal entity just like a person and has, in most respects, the same legal rights as a person. As such, the government shouldn't be telling a business how to run its business except in very rare circumstances.

Have you ever owned a business? The government, whether it be local, state or federal tells businesses every day what they can or can't do. There's all kinds of regulations businesses, and especially restaurants have to abide to or they'll be shut down, regardless of the business owner's wishes.

If I own a restaurant and I want my customers to be able to smoke, I ought to be allowed to do that...if I don't want them to smoke I should be allowed to tell them "no smoking". If I don't want them armed...or I don't want them wearing less than a suit/tie or I want to fry everything in bacon grease I should be allowed to do that...I decide how to run my business and the people can freely decide if they want to be customers or not.

Good luck with that. That's already been outlawed. And the bacon fat isn't far down the pike.

[Guest HexHead]

The interpretation of the emphasized part is the key. On any property/enterprise that is privately owned, I may be able to come and go as I please when the doors are open, but I still don't have a RIGHT to be there...I'm only there as long as the owner allows me to be there. The only areas where I truly have a RIGHT to be there (other than those areas I own) would be those areas owned/operated by the local municipality/governmental authority.

The irony here of course is that those are the places most likely to be posted and where you'll be most tightly controlled as to access.

[RobertNashville]

...

We have as much "say" as we want...the only person really stopping you or me or anyone else from doing something about a law or regulation we don't like is the person we see in the mirror when we shave in the morning.

Yes, actually, I've owned a couple of businesses in my life and I'm very aware of all the laws and requirements burdening our businesses today. That said, you might want to take another look at the post you are quoting...I didn't say what the government is or isn't doing, I said "shouldn't".

[Guest don_m]

Now maybe one of you property rights types can explain to me how other states get away with not allowing restaurants or businesses to post "no guns" then, or where the signs have no more force than just expressing the business owner's preferences?

The law here in Pennsylvania is simply silent on property owners posting. "No Guns" signs are very rare other than courthouses, federal properties, and schools (pretty much the only places legally off limits), but if a business owner chooses to post some kind of a sign and you ignore it that's not specifically a crime. You could possibly be charged with trespassing, but most likely would just be asked to leave.

[whiskey]

Emailed Senator Tim Barnes and he will be voting to pass.

[Guest 270win]

Smoking used to be handled as a trespass type deal. You could be asked to leave if you did not comply with the property owner. If you did not stop smoking and/or leave, you were subject to being charged with trespassing. You now can be popped for some little fifty or hundred dollar fine...IF a cop wants to mess with it I believe....but I doubt a property owner is going to mess with this. I am not sure if the smoking deal is a criminal offense or just a civil penalty in TN.

The 'properly worded' signs in TN do not seem to be messed with in the courts. I am under the assumption that you will be given your chance to leave, if found out (you should have had it concealed better). If you say "Hey sorry about that"...and walk to your car...I doubt you'd have any problems. Get in an argument over the technicalities of things...and wait on the cops to be called...that's where problems start.....if someone sees your gun and gets upset....just leave the property if there is some sort of sign to avoid problems.

[Guest 270win]

I just looked at the legislature's website and the Senate is still keeping that garbage 'international symbol' no guns circle with slash as a valid NEW WAY for us to get slapped with a five hundred dollar fine with a third amendment. Why are our senators coming up with a new way on top of the old way for us to get fined? I think we need to ask about that...this is total garbage...it is just opening up more ways for legal folks to get fined. Pressure needs to be put on these guys to remove this junk.