Restaurant Carry Bill

[Fallguy]

Thanks Fallguy - my script blocker wasn't letting me see the links.

NP....the Ol' Script Blocker not letting me see the links gag, huh....

[GKar]

because I walk past those circle/slash signs at certain places when with business associates, relatives, etc....and mind my own business...b/c I am still legal.

What court has determined that this practice is legal? If the claim is based upon the AGs opinion only, then one would be led to assume that there has been no case law developed on the matter. Perhaps as a result of no one ever actually being charged with the offense.

I say this to make a single illustration - many of these observations can fall into the same categorization of "generalities and platitudes" as was used to characterize the opposition's arguments today. We need to be careful how we develop and present some of our positions, lest we begin to take on too many characteristics of those we'd like to defeat...

[Guest 270win]

I think you are right that there is no case law because most people conceal resulting in no one being charged for this offense. If anyone is discovered...they are probably asked to leave...even when police are called. It seems to be for all practical purposes a 'feel good' law....kind of like on the flip side these establishments that are licensed by the ABC are supposed to sell a certain amount of food to sell liquor by the drink..but the ABC is not enforcing that law either obviously. I am glad at least from what we are hearing that people aren't getting slammed over these signs in public by the police, prosecutors, and courts....but that can always change as long as you have a monetary fine on the books and the state wants some money and a free gun.

[Volzfan]

I think that our best scenario is that this dies for this session. Next year we will hopefully have voted out some of the fools like Doug Henry (my Senator) and Sherry Jones (my Representative) and replaced them with true 2A supporters and have a 2A Governor in office and then see what we can get accomplished.

[Guest HexHead]

I think that our best scenario is that this dies for this session. Next year we will hopefully have voted out some of the fools like Doug Henry (my Senator) and Sherry Jones (my Representative) and replaced them with true 2A supporters and have a 2A Governor in office and then see what we can get accomplished.

Henry and Jones, thankfully aren't the problem. The problem are the lawmakers we thought were on "our side", who'll throw us under the bus in a heartbeat.

Beavers and Jackson come to mind, with their two amendments. Between the two Dougs, we know what to expect from Henry.

[GKar]

Next year we will hopefully have voted out some of the fools like Doug Henry (my Senator) and Sherry Jones (my Representative) and replaced them with true 2A supporters and have a 2A Governor in office and then see what we can get accomplished.

I would hope you are right...but I don't think it will happen to an extent that makes possible the sweeping changes some here want. It will take a substantial change occurs in the voting patterns of the major population centers of the state - until that time, changes in the TCA will continue to happen incrementally within the confines of a somewhat divided politicolegal system. Within that environment, an all-or-nothing approach usually yields nothing, and rarely promulgates future cooperation.

[Guest TNReb]

I have tried to put together what passed today, with the amendments in their proper places, so that we can see what the law actually says. Please check me on this and correct anything that needs correcting.

First, § 39-17-1305, which made it illegal to carry anywhere alcohol was served is gone. I believe this would effectively do away with any need to pursue appeal of Bonnyman's ruling.

§ 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 senators who voted against the bill were Berke, Burks, Ford, Harper, Haynes, Henry, Kyle, Marrero and Stewart. For more information on them, including contact and district information, go to: Tennessee General Assembly Main Page. If any of these are your senator you need to start working now to get them out when they stand for re-election.

Also, please contact your House member and urge them to vote to adopt SB1302 instead of HB3125 so it can go on to the governor. It may not be a perfect bill, but it is our best hope for passage in time to override a likely veto. Also, it is better than HB3125 as that bill was amended.

Other than being able to carry in more places, one of the best things about this bill is that it would force all the gutless wonders hiding behind the law and Bonnyman's ruling out into the open. While I don't intend to do any business with his restaurants, one thing you can say about Randy Rayburn is that he has the courage of his convictions and took a public stand on them, unlike the anonymous cockroaches who signed on to his lawsuit but scurried away from the light. If you want to post you should be able to, but at least have the courage of your convictions.

Onward and upward! Get on the horn to your Representative and the governor now and often!

[Volzfan]

Henry and Jones, thankfully aren't the problem. The problem are the lawmakers we thought were on "our side", who'll throw us under the bus in a heartbeat.

Beavers and Jackson come to mind, with their two amendments. Between the two Dougs, we know what to expect from Henry.

I agree that Beavers and Jackson have been a HUGE disappointment and they need to answer for their actions but I can't agree that Henry and Jones are not a problem. They are both sorry excuses for public servants and I'm not talking about only 2A issues. I have many more issues with them both and I'm doing all that I can to get them voted out of their seats. If those of us in their districts can get them replaced with true 2A supporters then we will have accomplished something. They are the only two that I can affect with my vote.

Beavers and Jackson are backstabbers and it's up to their constituents to take care of them. The rest of us should be flooding them with calls and emails voicing our displeasure with their recent actions. I've sent mine.

Edited April 29, 2010 by Volzfan

[Guest 270win]

If the 'international symbol' deal could be taken out of this amended senate bill, it wouldn't be a bad bill. With the 'international symbol', I am made a 'criminal' at places that I may go...not just restaurants...with my firearm. I do not always have the option to go back to a car. I guess if this thing passes it still means concealing well in TN sadly b/c we are trading breaking one stupid misdemeanor for another misdemeanor by screwing us over with new 'signs'.

[Guest Jamie]

If you're gonna be a criminal any way, what difference does it make which law you break?

J.

[Guest 270win]

That is the sad thing the legislature is doing....using these signs to make us 500 dollar criminals in place of the alcohol crime. It is crazy that we be fined the same amount as someone without a permit is for 'intent to go armed' over a sign. I can understand the property owner asking us to leave...but that is a civil thing...not a criminal place for the state to be involved (also money making game through fine revenue). Eliminate this stupid fine for a sign...it is not 'pro gun' to add another way for us to be fined..that is 'anti gun'....look at how long that 'sign law' is....two pages!...so much effort to screw us...it takes five minutes to use a red pen and eliminate that crap...all of it...and not hassle us...but instead some legislators choose to think up two pages worth of garbage law on top of law to hassle us more....that is not 'pro gun' folks.

[Guest db99wj]

Has anyone spoken with Doug Jackson to see what he is saying?

The reason I ask, a lot of disappointment was being thrown around last year and what most of us did not know, did not understand, did not know anything about was that there were deals being worked on that weren't out in the public. We were ready to jump in the bus we thought we were thrown under and back over these officials until it passed.

So with that little devils advocate rant thrown in, has anyone talked with these reps?

I haven't.

[Guest 270win]

Yeah I'd like to find out about this 'international symbol' being added to the silly sign law in this state. This not only affects restaurants but many other properties in TN where you can get fined for carrying a gun. Some places you don't have choice to go to, such as a client, a local/state government building, helping a relative, a hospital, and so on....so far many of these places are legal to carry in for me...with this change a lot of places i'd risk a five hundred dollar fine. We need that removed or big time remove the 500 dollar penalty to something very minor.

[Guest HexHead]

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

I'm not sure that's correct, haven't seen the penalty spelled out. That's the old penalty for carrying in a place that serves alcohol for consumption on premises, but I haven't seen it mentioned connected to this bill. Unless it's the only penalty for a Class A misdemeanor.

Also, please contact your House member and urge them to vote to adopt SB1302 instead of HB3125 so it can go on to the governor. It may not be a perfect bill, but it is our best hope for passage in time to override a likely veto. Also, it is better than HB3125 as that bill was amended.

What are you smoking? These signage amendments are a horror, because they apply to everywhere in TN, not just restaurants. Those little clear background circle/ slash / gun stickers could be popping up everywhere you now see the circle/ slash / cigarette sign. We're considerable better off with the House bill, without the Senate amendments. Hell, we're better of with NO BILL than the Senate one.

Other than being able to carry in more places, one of the best things about this bill is that it would force all the gutless wonders hiding behind the law and Bonnyman's ruling out into the open. While I don't intend to do any business with his restaurants, one thing you can say about Randy Rayburn is that he has the courage of his convictions and took a public stand on them, unlike the anonymous cockroaches who signed on to his lawsuit but scurried away from the light. If you want to post you should be able to, but at least have the courage of your convictions.

Onward and upward! Get on the horn to your Representative and the governor now and often!

Using the words Rayburn and courage in the same sentence clearly defines you as a troll. Rayburn is a coward and a liar. He only pushed for the elimination of the last bill because he was afraid he'd lose some business by posting his establishments, so he wanted the State to do it for him, and he didn't mind spreading as many lies as possible to get there.

[Guest TNReb]

Has anyone spoken with Doug Jackson to see what he is saying?

The reason I ask, a lot of disappointment was being thrown around last year and what most of us did not know, did not understand, did not know anything about was that there were deals being worked on that weren't out in the public. We were ready to jump in the bus we thought we were thrown under and back over these officials until it passed.

So with that little devils advocate rant thrown in, has anyone talked with these reps?

I haven't.

This is a good point. You never know what the folks for us had to do to get this passed. While I don't like the posting of the circle/slash, I can live with it. And I feel if you drink anything--even one drink--you shouldn't be carrying, so I can live with that. Maybe we can get this now and do better later. The best thing, I think, is knowing for sure who doesn't want my business, because when they have to post, I will know where not to go. By the way, my son owns the City Cafe in Murfreesboro, and my wife and I own the building, so I am thinking of putting up a sign welcoming all folks carrying legally. I figure we'll be a whole lot safer if I do!

[Guest HexHead]

Has anyone spoken with Doug Jackson to see what he is saying?

The reason I ask, a lot of disappointment was being thrown around last year and what most of us did not know, did not understand, did not know anything about was that there were deals being worked on that weren't out in the public. We were ready to jump in the bus we thought we were thrown under and back over these officials until it passed.

So with that little devils advocate rant thrown in, has anyone talked with these reps?

I haven't.

He stopped responding to emails after the logic of his stupid ass bill in January came to light. The one that would allow carry in places that sold liquor by the drink, but not if they just sold beer. So no carry in places like Pizza Hut or Baja Fresh or many other casual dining places that happen to serve beer.

Between that and the Senate amendment he's supporting and the one he added, it's almost like he's gone over to the other side. Maybe he's thinking the Dems will pull a few more seats in the Senate in Nov and he wants Ramsey's job? Maybe the Brady Campaign made a big contribution, who knows? But he sure isn't working in our best interests any longer.

[Guest 270win]

Hex,

Man you've got a lot of good points that I agree with. I think we are getting shafted big time and will be because when I go to some office buildings for work purposes in Memphis...you know they have those little gun with a slash signs....so what now....run all the way back to my car in downtown Memphis?? Or even worse with a work associate/client and ask "Hey man...can I put my piece in your car?"....Embarrassing. The restaurant thing is bad enough but this is far worse if you go to business places and carry a lot throughout the day.

[Guest HexHead]

Hex,

Man you've got a lot of good points that I agree with. I think we are getting shafted big time and will be because when I go to some office buildings for work purposes in Memphis...you know they have those little gun with a slash signs....so what now....run all the way back to my car in downtown Memphis?? Or even worse with a work associate/client and ask "Hey man...can I put my piece in your car?"....Embarrassing. The restaurant thing is bad enough but this is far worse if you go to business places and carry a lot throughout the day.

And like I said, the Chambers of Commerce, the Hospitality Assn, the Restaurant Assn. and any other anti-gun group you can think of will be handing those little self-adhesive decal signs out like candy on Halloween.

[Guest 270win]

Hopefully the house fixes that 'international symbol' problem. It's bad enough to have a 'sign' law that is criminal as it is. Then again, if you look at the statute, how is anyone blindly going to know what an international symbol is if you read that word for word? That looks like it could be cut through like a hot knife through butter by a decent lawyer because it is undefined in the bill and poorly worded. A picture sign is an extremely poor way to try to fine someone...and how are we all to know what 'item' is in that circle...and what kind of slash? Is it a water gun...a pop gun...a toy gun...air gun...BB gun as far as the 'item' in the circle? I didn't know there was an 'international' symbol for that. If you have bad vision...hey you may just see a blob in that circle! That's the whole problem with a picture in a circle. At least written signs are written (even they may not be seen) as to what is not wanted.

Edited April 29, 2010 by 270win

[Volzfan]

There will never be enough time for the house to change the bill, pass it, send it back to the senate, then senate pass it (if they pass the House version), send it to Bredesen to lay on his desk for 10 days, Bredesen vetos the bill, bill dies because the legislators have gone home to campaign and raise money.

[Guest eyescream]

This bill is crap. I'd rather it died on the floor.

[Oh Shoot]

This bill is crap. I'd rather it died on the floor.

Me too.

Well, I guess this is going to have a big impact on open carrying.

Know whut I mean, Vern?

- OS

[Guest HexHead]

There will never be enough time for the house to change the bill, pass it, send it back to the senate, then senate pass it (if they pass the House version), send it to Bredesen to lay on his desk for 10 days, Bredesen vetos the bill, bill dies because the legislators have gone home to campaign and raise money.

You say all that like it's a bad thing, in this case.

[Guest lci419]

I am really with Hex on this business. I also really hope you guys with the "well they don't want my business anyway" mentality really enjoy living in a cave, because that's going to be about the only place you can carry your pistol. As for me, I live in the REAL world and function in normal society, not a survivalist fantasy land where I can isolate myself from the whole world. I particularly enjoy the comments such as "I can just shop off the internet." What if those vendors come out and effectively state or reveal that they are anti 2nd Amendment? Not as unusual a scenario as you might imagine, and there's only so much I can buy of daily use from Gunbroker or some gun shop. What if an emergency comes up and you have to go to the posted drug store, or hardware store, or grocery store? Oops, they are now posted...hope you enjoy waiting for a week to get what you need in the mail from your local online dealer.

No folks, this bill CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO PASS. Call me a scofflaw, criminal, or violator of business owners property rights...but if it ain't properly posted, I carry. I fully support property owner rights...BUT we're talking about a different beast than your house. This is about property which is open to the public. The standard is quite different, and were the represented "right" different (i.e. the right to be gay, be a crossdresser, freedom of speech, have a personal choice of religion), most likely would lead to a lawsuit which you, Mr. Property Owner would lose if you tried to discriminate against.

I as a lawful gun owner have rights too, and as long as I'm not breaking any laws, menacing anyone, or just being stupid about it, I should be legally allowed to carry where I please. If this law passes as is, and I become a potential criminal? Well, I guess I'll just have to cross that bridge when I come to it.

In some ways, I wonder if the "grand plan" all along was to craft legislation that comes oh so close to being what we want, but torpedoing it with an amendment that they know we won't support. Now they (Beavers, Jackson, et al.) can claim that "Well we tried to fix it for you, but you (the pro-gunners in TN) wouldn't support the bill" and then use this as their reason to not pursue it any further because we are "unreasonable and can't be pacified." Effectively, a STFU and sit in the corner to us gun owners. As has oft been repeated by others, I don't trust ANY politicians regardless of stripe. Their deeds not their words are what earns my trust.

[Guest djack41]

Here is what has transpired with the senate bill.

1. The bill allows carry in any establishment which serves alcohol. No vague definitions of what is a restaurant. Big step. Believed to be untouchable by any court's review.

2. Opponents have been planning to challenge in court the vagueness of the signage law as a way to void any new law which may pass. You all know the problem. Many of you have been posting for years about what is or is not a legal posting. No one knows for sure and the AG opinion is of little help. Attorneys working for the legislature believe the posting language in the existing law is unconstitutionaly vague for a law which contains criminal sanctions.

The senate bill therefore removes the vagueness of the existing law. It provides definition to the message that the sign must communicate and believed to preempt court interference.

Here is the rub. The existing law has been interpreted by legal staff to allow either a sign with text OR the international symbol. Do not debate the point because many state buildings have posted with only the international symbol. Unless the international symbol is allowed, the state will incur costs to replace signage and this will certainly kill any bill in the finance committee by placing the bill "behind the budget". The senate bill therefore allows the international symbol.

3. The bill retains the language of the existing law requiring all signs to be posted at entrances and of sufficient size to provide notice to permit holders. Small stickers would not suffice as some have suggested. No change from the existing law.

4. The senate bill makes it a Class A misdemeanor to consume alcohol in the establishment while in pocession of your gun. If convicted of an offense for intoxication while in the establishment, the armed permit holder would also face a 3 year suspension of the permit (this provision gained a key vote which will be necessary to override a veto.)

The senate bill as amended is fully supported by the NRA which was involved in discussions throughout the process right up to the floor vote. John Harris has also been fully engaged and stated to the senate sponsor this week that he supported the senate bill as amended, for the reasons stated.

Those are the high points. Much effort has gone into passage of the senate bill which will now move to the house for debate. There are reasons for the language in the bill. No conspiracies. Thanks.