Restaurant Carry Bill

[Guest 270win]

The existing law, for the most part, does not allow a circle and slash to give you a five hundred dollar fine. You are correct that the existing law is vague enough that it probably would not stand a court challenge....thus that is probably why it is not enforced in criminal court. Why 'correct' the statute so that we end up getting screwed by the criminal courts? That doesn't sound too smart to me by having more of these signs up...not being able to legally carry anywhere...and the criminal courts waiting to fine us. No thank you on that. If these signs are so important...why not cut the fine and criminal penalty?? That is absolutely absurd to set up a more solid way to fine permit holders.

Edited April 30, 2010 by 270win

[Volzfan]

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

No not at all. I think it's the best that could happen at this point. This bill with the amendment is a piece of crap. If this Senate version were to pass in the House as is, there might be time to beat a veto because that would be the quickest that it could happen. I really hope that doesn't happen. I'll just be content to wait till next year and just maybe they can get one right!

[GKar]

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.

Thanks for the summary. Very little of what you've said is actually new to this thread, but its been scattered here and yon, and having it together in one place in a cogent narrative helps keep things in focus amongst the generalities and platitudes. Much appreciated.

[Guest TNReb]

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.

Well I'm sure that's correct. I've been a criminal defense attorney for over twenty years and deal with it every day.

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.

I don't smoke and I don't drink. And to say we're better off with nothing is like saying if you can't have your steak rare instead of medium rare, you just won't eat anything. We don't have time to get seperate Senate and House bills together, passed in both houses and still have time to override a veto, and I would rather have some of part of what I want than all of none. Obviously you are totally unfamiliar with the way to get things done and get what you want through negotiation, as evidenced by your overblown hyperbole. Your response is to reasoned debate the same as saying, "Oh yeah? So's your old man."

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.

Take a look towards the top of the page under where it says Tennessee Politics and Legislation. I believe it says in red letters "Personal attacks will not be tolerated." If you read what I said I did not say Rayburn was courageous. I said he had the courage of his convictions by putting his name on the lawsuit unlike the other ten anonymous plaintiffs. Although I may not agree with him, at least he is not hiding behind Bonnyman's skirt. And if you read my posts on this site and TFA, anyone with the sense God gave a little bitty pissant would know I am not a troll. It is never proper to respond by attacking someone personally, although you appear to make a sport of it. Did you learn this from Alinsky along with the rest of the left or can you just not come up with anything better to answer someone else's point? Either constructively add to the conversation or stay on the sidelines. I'm sure you're a better person than that or you wouldn't be here. With all due respect, your posts reflect very negatively on you--not the one you are attacking. God bless!

[Guest HexHead]

Well I'm sure that's correct. I've been a criminal defense attorney for over twenty years and deal with it every day.

Well, thanks for clearing that up, I think. It's still not spelled out in the bill, nor did you answer if it's the only penalty for a Class A misdemeanor. But I'll take your word for it. Doesn't effect me because I rarely drink anyway and never when I carry.

I don't smoke and I don't drink. And to say we're better off with nothing is like saying if you can't have your steak rare instead of medium rare, you just won't eat anything. We don't have time to get seperate Senate and House bills together, passed in both houses and still have time to override a veto, and I would rather have some of part of what I want than all of none. Obviously you are totally unfamiliar with the way to get things done and get what you want through negotiation, as evidenced by your overblown hyperbole. Your response is to reasoned debate the same as saying, "Oh yeah? So's your old man."

No, what I'm saying is rather than rush this problematic bill through just to have something, if it can't be passed without the problematic signage language, then let's can it for this year and try to get a better bill next year. We don't have to necessarily take any old piece of crap the legislature want to give us and say "thank you sir, can I have some more?" The possible ramifications of the signage language can end up with many more types of businesses being posted, not just the restaurants.

Take a look towards the top of the page under where it says Tennessee Politics and Legislation. I believe it says in red letters "Personal attacks will not be tolerated." If you read what I said I did not say Rayburn was courageous. I said he had the courage of his convictions by putting his name on the lawsuit unlike the other ten anonymous plaintiffs. Although I may not agree with him, at least he is not hiding behind Bonnyman's skirt. And if you read my posts on this site and TFA, anyone with the sense God gave a little bitty pissant would know I am not a troll. It is never proper to respond by attacking someone personally, although you appear to make a sport of it. Did you learn this from Alinsky along with the rest of the left or can you just not come up with anything better to answer someone else's point? Either constructively add to the conversation or stay on the sidelines. I'm sure you're a better person than that or you wouldn't be here. With all due respect, your posts reflect very negatively on you--not the one you are attacking. God bless!

I have been adding constructively to the conversation, we just don't agree with the message.

[Guest HexHead]

I had a long response to DJack's post that got eaten when I tried to post it and I'm not going to type it all over again, but here's the gist of it...

If the bill's opponents planned to challenge it on the grounds that the signage in the old bill was vague, was a large part of that vagueness the concept of "substantially similar"? The new bill originally had very precise and proscribed language in it and now that's been changed with the Senate amendment back to including the term "substantially similar". Doesn't that make it equally as vague?

Doesn't a simple international symbol sign with no verbiage cause confusion, especially for out of town visitors, when they see some places with the full blown verbiage sign and another place with just the international symbol and not know of the criminal violation and possible fine they face just by entering?

And I understand that some government buildings have just the international symbol sign and the fiscal note issue, but why can't just those buildings be grandfathered in and not allow private businesses to use the international symbol alone in response to this new law?

[Guest 270win]

Hex,

I think any of the sign/posting law can be vague if you really look at it. What is 'substantially similar' and what is 'prominent'? I am not a lawyer though...but curious if this is why the sign law has yet to really reach criminal court for a permit holder...or that we have to hear of someone who has been arrested on the spot with a handgun without first being asked to leave property. I have thought about that since moving to Tennessee a few years ago. In Arkansas, the state requires exact wording to signs...and other specific things...then again I've never heard of anyone in Arkansas being fined for that.

[Guest HexHead]

Hex,

I think any of the sign/posting law can be vague if you really look at it. What is 'substantially similar' and what is 'prominent'? I am not a lawyer though...but curious if this is why the sign law has yet to really reach criminal court for a permit holder...or that we have to hear of someone who has been arrested on the spot with a handgun without first being asked to leave property. I have thought about that since moving to Tennessee a few years ago. In Arkansas, the state requires exact wording to signs...and other specific things...then again I've never heard of anyone in Arkansas being fined for that.

I think the reason last year we saw some handwritten "no guns" signs was because of the "substantially similar" provision. The state needs to cut the bull**** and just say, if you want to post, this is the sign you have to use. How hard is that? I believe TX does that with their 30.06 sign.

All I'm asking for here is can we just have one proscribed sign so there's no vagueness or confusion. This isn't rocket science, it's a sign.

Edited April 30, 2010 by HexHead

[Guest 270win]

The simple thing would be to cut the fine out for us.....they can have all sorts of signs but don't subject us to a criminal offense over a sign. I am glad that so far the 'system' has not hassled legal permit holders over this....hopefully this continues.

[Guest TNReb]

No, what I'm saying is rather than rush this problematic bill through just to have something, if it can't be passed without the problematic signage language, then let's can it for this year and try to get a better bill next year. We don't have to necessarily take any old piece of crap the legislature want to give us and say "thank you sir, can I have some more?" The possible ramifications of the signage language can end up with many more types of businesses being posted, not just the restaurants.

Do you really believe that businesses are going to start slapping signs up willy-nilly just because this law passes? They can already post under present law and most don't. I don't think they are now going to risk losing business just because this law passes. And at least we would know who they are. Right now the restaurants that serve alcohol can sit back, not post, and if anything is said, respond that they are just following the law. At least I would know who not to do business with.

Also, I guess I just can't understand the concept that nothing is better than something in this case. If we get something passed this year, we don't have to wait another year to start all over and try again--we only have to try to make it better then. And, perhaps the best reason for passing something--if we don't, they win, and don't you think they won't be back next year emboldened to do even more. Defeat--any defeat--is all they understand. And when we come back next year with the proof that all their chicken-little theories didn't come true, our argument is even stronger. This is not "please may I have some more." This is I got some and later I'm going to get more. The way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time. I say pass the ketchup!

Maybe we can learn something from the enemy. Since at least 1994, they took their time, won small victories when they could get them, and used every opportunity to make the other side look bad. It didn't get them much--only the White House and control of Congress--which ultimately led to them being able to pass a law that 80% of the country opposed and which will radically change the fabric of this country forever. Maybe we should go and do likewise. Wars are not won all at once. Wars are won by winning enough small battles to claim ultimate victory.

[Oh Shoot]

...

All I'm asking for here is can we just have one proscribed sign so there's no vagueness or confusion. This isn't rocket science, it's a sign.

"proscribed" means excluded, forbidden.

You mean "prescribed" for dictated, ordered.

</English Nazi>

- OS

[Guest 270win]

I believe Hex is proposing that the sign in TN follow certain size and language requirements, like in Texas. Texas requires that the signs even be in English and Spanish. I've never seen a true legal sign in Texas.

Now I think what would be BETTER than Texas is that these signs have no criminal penalties...similar to Minnesota and Missouri. You'll notice that these two states you may get a slap on the wrist for not leaving when there is a sign...25 to 100 dollars...but it is a civil penalty...similar to a parking ticket...you aren't going to get arrested...and you aren't going to have your gun confiscated. Have the 'sign law' there for the bed wetters but dumb it down for us.

[GKar]

If the bill's opponents planned to challenge it on the grounds that the signage in the old bill was vague, was a large part of that vagueness the concept of "substantially similar"? The new bill originally had very precise and proscribed language in it and now that's been changed with the Senate amendment back to including the term "substantially similar". Doesn't that make it equally as vague?

No, because the section continues on to define the 3 essential elements that constitute "substantially similar". THAT is what has been missing all these years. And this method of definition is pretty commonplace in a variety of regulatory environments, and as such will be familiar to the court and unlikely to be found objectionable.

Doesn't a simple international symbol sign with no verbiage cause confusion, especially for out of town visitors, when they see some places with the full blown verbiage sign and another place with just the international symbol and not know of the criminal violation and possible fine they face just by entering?

Unlikely that many out-of-state visitors would have been previously conditioned to ignore any type of prohibitory signage, a practice that is always fraught with risk. Most folks, upon seeing a prohibition, don't stop to ask "Gee, I wonder if that means its really a criminal act, or just there for decoration?".

And I understand that some government buildings have just the international symbol sign and the fiscal note issue, but why can't just those buildings be grandfathered in and not allow private businesses to use the international symbol alone in response to this new law?

There is no more target-rich environment for a vagueness challenge than an attempt to "grandfather" in something like this. How would you propose that language be presented? Would you list the various places individually? Could you develop a definitive description that would meet your proposed conditions in a court of law? Most every attempt I've seen at grandfathering something as broad-based and ill-defined as this ends in a regulatory quagmire.

[Oh Shoot]

I believe Hex is proposing that the sign in TN follow certain size and language requirements, like in Texas.

Exactly. That would be a prescribed sign.

We already have one, the municipal/county parks sign. Exact language and even minimum size in length and width is mandated, or prescribed. The current proposed signage amendment will not change that either, as it's not called for in that statute.

- OS

[Guest 270win]

The easy part would be to eliminate the sign statute completely. There's how you eliminate that 'vagueness'. It benefits everyone involved. Permit holders don't risk a fine. Business holders can put up their signs...but you know what...they don't mean squat criminally...but they can still ask someone to leave....it works just fine in most states....why is that so hard for folks in Tennessee to comprehend? The sign statute is a completely unneccessary statute that does nothing to benefit any party.

The next to easy part would be to strike out the five hundred dollar criminal fine part in all those sentences....and then sneak in/substitute 25 dollar civil penalty instead....Hey that's how many slick politicians work! That mainly would benefit permit holders and those putting up signs can put them up all day...and we can carry without worrying about hiring a lawyer to deal with a bad cop that could cause us a bad day should our handgun become exposed.

It's all about modifying the English language in these bills and amendments! If only those guys in Nashville could hand me then pen...I could help them out with this bill writing to make things much simpler and easier to read!

Edited April 30, 2010 by 270win

[GKar]

And, in the current legislative climate, such a bill would fail.

[Guest HexHead]

Sure seems it would have been a lot easier to just remove the words "principle business is the serving of food" from the existing law that Bonneyman found objectionable. She'd tossed out all of the other arguments and it wasn't even Rayburn per se that made the compelling argument, but the 3 HCP holder complainants. Her decision was purely based on those words. I wonder if this strategy was even considered?

[Guest HexHead]

Exactly. That would be a prescribed sign.

We already have one, the municipal/county parks sign. Exact language and even minimum size in length and width is mandated, or prescribed. The current proposed signage amendment will not change that either, as it's not called for in that statute.

- OS

Ironically, I've yet to see one of those signs posted, at least in West Nashville. And AG Cooper opined that the local governments don't need to post the signs, even though it's all pretty much spelled out in the law as to size, language and locations.

Funny how we're expected to have to follow the law and obey the signs, yet the local jurisdictions don't have the same onus, have to obey the law and post them?

[Guest HexHead]

Well I'm sure that's correct. I've been a criminal defense attorney for over twenty years and deal with it every day.

Well Chief, it appears you're wrong....

From today's Tennessean....

The Senate altered Jackson's bill to toughen the penalties for drinking alcohol in a restaurant while carrying a gun. Violators would receive at least a $500 fine, two days in jail and a three-year suspension of their carry permits.

BTW pal, I have to pay the professional privilege tax too.

Edited April 30, 2010 by HexHead

[GKar]

Sure seems it would have been a lot easier to just remove the words "principle business is the serving of food" from the existing law that Bonneyman found objectionable. She'd tossed out all of the other arguments and it wasn't even Rayburn per se that made the compelling argument, but the 3 HCP holder complainants. Her decision was purely based on those words. I wonder if this strategy was even considered?

See djack's earlier post. To only do so would allow the next wave of challenge based upon the signage requirements. Seems the current effort is trying to head-off as many of the known/expected challenges as possible, instead of dealing with one at a time.

[G27]

I guess I'm just going to wait to see what happens with this bill, but on the surface, I don't care for it...

[Guest HexHead]

See djack's earlier post. To only do so would allow the next wave of challenge based upon the signage requirements. Seems the current effort is trying to head-off as many of the known/expected challenges as possible, instead of dealing with one at a time.

Would have been nice had he specified which signage requirements were expected to be challenged.

Costco posted a couple of months ago thanks to Voldemort. They now have a nice big sign out front with the international symbol that says "no firearms on the premises". Under existing law, if you go in there they can ask you to leave or have you cited for trespassing. Under the new proposed law, you've committed a criminal offense and are subject to a $500 fine. Tell me again how that's better for us?

[GKar]

Costco posted a couple of months ago thanks to Voldemort. They now have a nice big sign out front with the international symbol that says "no firearms on the premises". Under existing law, if you go in there they can ask you to leave or have you cited for trespassing. Under the new proposed law, you've committed a criminal offense and are subject to a $500 fine. Tell me again how that's better for us?

For those who would ignore the intent and prefer to gamble over the technicality of the signage, it is not better. For those who would acknowledge and respect the intent regardless of the manner in which its expressed, it makes no diffference.

[Guest HexHead]

I guess I'm just going to wait to see what happens with this bill, but on the surface, I don't care for it...

Maybe we'll be pleasantly surprised, they'll go into conference committee, the House will give up Tidwell's amendment and the Senate will give up Beaver's and Jackson's amendment?

[Guest HexHead]

For those who would ignore the intent and prefer to gamble over the technicality of the signage, it is not better. For those who would acknowledge and respect the intent regardless of the manner in which its expressed, it makes no diffference.

Still, it's a difference between corporate policy and a criminal offense. That's not an insignificant difference given there's no state statute currently against going into a Costco while carrying. The state is pretty clear in the current statute with it's "substantially similar" wording that the sign MUST include the TCA code. Since when is what is clearly in the law just a "technicality"?

And just for the record, I surrendered my membership card the first time I saw the sign. Sam's doesn't post.

Edited April 30, 2010 by HexHead