Restaurant Carry Bill

[VolunteerGuns]

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.

Absolutely NO gamble to it.. A circle/slash is not even close to the "sub similar" in the statute.

[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.

Here's my take on that. Rayburn's on record in the Tennessean as stating he'd like a 4" x4" sign and that if some changes he'd like to see to the signage was made in the bill he probably wouldn't sue. The only possible 4"x4" sign that would be practical would be the international symbol sign DJack referred to.

Here's probably where the vagueness issue comes up. Under current law, there is question whether the simple international symbol by itself is a legal sign. Even the AG has opined it's not. So I can see where the issue of "vagueness" may lie. So the Senate's intention is to codify the international symbol alone into a legal sign with the force of law.

The Senate placates Rayburn, and he wins again. But they need to remember, he only said "he" and "probably".

I could be all wet on this, but I'd bet it's pretty close to what's really going on.

And I still think this will be a good time to go into the international symbol sign business.

Edited April 30, 2010 by HexHead

[Guest db99wj]

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 unconstitutionally 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.) We have all said we don't drink when we carry.

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.

I highlighted in red text some important, in my eyes, points. It would appear that all our talk over the years of "Well the sign is not a legal posting, I will carry anyway" has come back to bite us so to speak. It would appear that are legislatures have taken notice to our rantings. It would appear that that loophole is going to be closed and if not, kill bill.

The bill will allow carry in any establishment. The argument about a designated driver ends there, this DD will be able to still carry, but not drink.

We all know that anything that involves spending money is going to be looked at more closely due to everyone being broke.

The last point, don't drink and carry, simple as that.

This is just what I see by reading these comments from Djack. I'm not getting into this as deep as I did last year, I got enough stress going on, I don't need to add to it.

[Guest RevScottie]

I find it ironic that even the state driver's center where I applied for my permit does not appear to be properly posted. It only has the slash picture symbol on the door with wording that firearms are prohibited. For all of you gung ho types anxious to prove a point why not just waltz in there carrying and see how it works out for you?

[Guest SUNTZU]

I find it ironic that even the state driver's center where I applied for my permit does not appear to be properly posted. It only has the slash picture symbol on the door with wording that firearms are prohibited. For all of you gung ho types anxious to prove a point why not just waltz in there carrying and see how it works out for you?

Which newspaper did you say you work for again?

[RobertNashville]

I find it ironic that even the state driver's center where I applied for my permit does not appear to be properly posted. It only has the slash picture symbol on the door with wording that firearms are prohibited. For all of you gung ho types anxious to prove a point why not just waltz in there carrying and see how it works out for you?

I'm curious as to your definition of "gung ho"???

Does wanting to ability to protect ourselves wherever we happen to be at any given moment, provided we are acting responsibly, make us "gung ho"?

I am the first to say that being armed while drinking alcohol (or being impaired in any other way) is irresponsible and dangerous...that said, the fact that I may be sitting in an O'Charley's but not drinking should not be grounds for restricting my right to be able to protect myself (unless the owner's of O'Charley's don't want me to have weapons in their restaurant)...same with an actual "bar"...if I'm not drinking and am not acting irresponsibly then what exactly is the factual basis for saying I have no right to be armed? I say there is no factual basis...in my always humble opinion, all this is that all the talk about "guns in bars" is political hogwash being dispensed by those who hate guns simply because they hate guns (along with certain restaurateurs who are too spineless to take a stand, post properties and, perhaps, lose some business) and supported by legislators who are only concerned about not offending their political base/paying off a $$$ contributor.

Such as these don't care about facts; they simply have a political agenda.

Edited April 30, 2010 by RobertNashville

[G27]

I find it ironic that even the state driver's center where I applied for my permit does not appear to be properly posted. It only has the slash picture symbol on the door with wording that firearms are prohibited. For all of you gung ho types anxious to prove a point why not just waltz in there carrying and see how it works out for you?

Gunman Opens Fire In Busy Dmv Hallway - Hartford Courant

[Fallguy]

djack, thank you for explination on some of the inner workings on how we got to this point.

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.

This is very good and I think we all agree on that.

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.

Perhaps the better thing to have done was to drop the sign changes from this bill all together then, instead of changing it to try and address future law suits. Besides...wouldn't future law suits have to challenge a specific TCA code, not a bill? In otherwords, there could have been a lawsuit to challenge the vaguness of 39-17-1359, but it wouldn't have affected the repeal of 39-17-1305 even though both changes occured because of one bill.

Shoot one could argue 39-17-1359 being ruled vauge would be good period, regardless of what version of it was on the books.

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.

I know since I have had not law schooling that my opinion on the law doesn't mean squat....but I think the "legal staff" is way off on this. Even the anti AG has said that the international symbol by itself was not a legal posting, and it is spelled out fairly clear in the current law.

It is a shame that the very state that issues our HCPs feels the need to protect themselves from us by posting signs on every state building. Otherwise there would be no need for the state to post at all. However I do understand on how bills are killed because of fiscal notes.

But if it is the captiol building they are worried about...perhaps a better soloution would have been to simply make any place with a metal dector off-limits, posted with a sign or not. Instead of allowing the international symbol alone to be legal.

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.

You're right, it does....we'll see how that works out I guess

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.)

I could be reading it wrong, but you don't have to be intoxicated for you HCP to be suspened for 3 years, only consuming. Currently your HCP is only suspened for the duration of the sentence for conviction of a Class A misdemenor, including a violation of 39-17-1321. Now this would susspend it for 3 years, for having one sip...not even being under the influence. Just seems a bit harsh, regardless of wether one should consume while armed or not.

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.

While NRA support is not bad...they don't necessarly speak for all gun owners (Yes, I'm a member), plus they are just as political as politicians.

I don't doubt what you say about Mr. Harris, but the TFA hasn't issued a public statement to that fact...so far as I know.

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.

Again...thanks for the explination.

[Guest RevScottie]

I was specifically talking about the attitude that if the sign on the door isn't perfect down to the proper size font then I'm carrying anyway and "they" cant do anything about it. Like it or not we are for the most part talking about PRIVATE PROPERTY and we should respect the owners wishes. A simple gun with the slash should be sufficient to let you know that you and your gun aren't welcome. Deal with it by not carrying or exercise the right to take your business elsewhere.

[RobertNashville]

I was specifically talking about the attitude that if the sign on the door isn't perfect down to the proper size font then I'm carrying anyway and "they" cant do anything about it. Like it or not we are for the most part talking about PRIVATE PROPERTY and we should respect the owners wishes. A simple gun with the slash should be sufficient to let you know that you and your gun aren't welcome. Deal with it by not carrying or exercise the right to take your business elsewhere.

I very much respect the wishes of private property owners (I have posts in this thread that ought to make that very clear). However, if specific signage specifications aren't important; why have them specified at all?

I'm suggesting that if a HCP holder is expected to comply with a business owner's wishes, it seems to me that there should be some reasonable, minimal requirements for what the signage should look like/how big it should be and where the signage should be placed so that those of use who are carrying don't have to spend 15 minutes looking for a sign and/or guess whether the property is posted or not.

Ultimately, the property owner always has the final say, posted or not and/or properly posted or not; which is as it should be! We had that situation happen here not that long ago when a HCP holder openly carried into a Carmike theater which apparently wasn't posted at all; was subsequently asked to leave by the manager and had to comply because once asked, he either had to leave or he would be subject to arrest for trespassing.

[Guest HexHead]

I was specifically talking about the attitude that if the sign on the door isn't perfect down to the proper size font then I'm carrying anyway and "they" cant do anything about it. Like it or not we are for the most part talking about PRIVATE PROPERTY and we should respect the owners wishes. A simple gun with the slash should be sufficient to let you know that you and your gun aren't welcome. Deal with it by not carrying or exercise the right to take your business elsewhere.

Then they should be able to ask you to leave, and if you don't comply with their wishes, then you would be trespassing and subject to whatever the penalty for that is. Not an automatic criminal offense with a $500 fine.

[molonlabetn]

I was specifically talking about the attitude that if the sign on the door isn't perfect down to the proper size font then I'm carrying anyway and "they" cant do anything about it. Like it or not we are for the most part talking about PRIVATE PROPERTY and we should respect the owners wishes. A simple gun with the slash should be sufficient to let you know that you and your gun aren't welcome. Deal with it by not carrying or exercise the right to take your business elsewhere.

I wish that worked the other way... for instance, instead of taking the 2nd Amendment to recognize that people can have and bear arms, period, they feel the need to dictate who, how, when, where and why other people can exercise that.

If other people can't take the law of the land simply for what it says, They had better be pretty damn specific about what they want from me, because I will ignore generalizations at every possible opportunity.

[Guest HexHead]

This is an example of circular logic...

Originally Posted by djack41

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.

Originally Posted by djack41

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.

If the existing language, which is allowed to be "substantially similar", is considered vague enough to be challenged, and the new bill in it's original form spelled out specific language that must be used to eliminate any confusion or vagueness, what sense does it make to then want to retain the language of the existing law using the Senate amendments?

What am I missing here?

[Fallguy]

This is an example of circular logic...

Originally Posted by djack41

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.

Originally Posted by djack41

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.

If the existing language, which is allowed to be "substantially similar", is considered vague enough to be challenged, and the new bill in it's original form spelled out specific language that must be used to eliminate any confusion or vagueness, what sense does it make to then want to retain the language of the existing law using the Senate amendments?

What am I missing here?

You are missing that when he says "The bill retains the language of the existing law" he said that in regards to "requiring all signs to be posted at entrances and of sufficient size to provide notice to permit holders." Not the substainlly similar part.

But even though this wasn't what he was talking about...yes, it does still use "substainlly similar" it goes on to define 3 elements that must be contained for it to be "substainlly similar" to try and remove any vaguness.

[molonlabetn]

It would be nice if the requirment was a specific sign, available from the state, which property owners could post... at least then it would be consistent. Hmmm... even make them register for the sign, so then we could look up a database of all posted properties...

[Guest HexHead]

It would be nice if the requirment was a specific sign, available from the state, which property owners could post... at least then it would be consistent. Hmmm... even make them register for the sign, so then we could look up a database of all posted properties...

That was Curry Todd's original intent. That restaurant owners could go to the state's website, print off the prescribed sign, put it in a 99 cent frame and be done with it.

[Guest HexHead]

But even though this wasn't what he was talking about...yes, it does still use "substainlly similar" it goes on to define 3 elements that must be contained for it to be "substainlly similar" to try and remove any vaguness.

And doesn't the existing law mention what must be contained in the sign to make it legal? Isn't that where the "substantially similar" comes in? Seems to me he's dancing on the head of a pin here.

[molonlabetn]

Yeah... But heaven forbid the original intent of any law be considered when interpreting it. That's what fries my bacon about the liberal mindset... laws are meant to be 'gotten around' and 'reinterpreted', not followed.

[Guest HexHead]

Yeah... But heaven forbid the original intent of any law be considered when interpreting it. That's what fries my bacon about the liberal mindset... laws are meant to be 'gotten around' and 'reinterpreted', not followed.

Since that ambulance chaser that tried to berate me earlier and was shown to be wrong brought it up, one of the strategies in Alinsky's playbook is what you can't win at the ballot box, you attack in court.

[Fallguy]

Here is my idea for a sign with "exact" wording, but allowing some personlization...

PURSUANT TO § 39-17-1359, ______(Fill in name of person/entity)________ HAS BANNED __(Fill in what is banned: i.e. Weapons/Firearms/Knives)__ ON/IN THIS __(Fill in area where prohobition applies: i.e. Property/Building/Room)__ . FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS PROHIBITION IS PUNISHABLE AS A CRIMINAL ACT UNDER STATE LAW AND MAY SUBJECT THE VIOLATOR TO A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($500).

That way all the "important" information is included, but a property owner can somewhat customize it for his/her purposes.

Just my

Edited April 30, 2010 by Fallguy

[Fallguy]

And doesn't the existing law mention what must be contained in the sign to make it legal? Isn't that where the "substantially similar" comes in? Seems to me he's dancing on the head of a pin here.

Yes and No.

But the existing law does not include any specifics that must be included, this bill does.

[Guest HexHead]

Here is my idea for a sing with "exact" wording, but allowing some personlization...

PURSUANT TO § 39-17-1359, ______(Fill in name of person/entity)________ HAS BANNED __(Fill in what is banned: i.e. Weapons/Firearms/Knives)__ ON/IN THIS __(Fill in are where prohobition applies: i.e. Property/Building/Room)__ . FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS PROHIBITION IS PUNISHABLE AS A CRIMINAL ACT UNDER STATE LAW AND MAY SUBJECT THE VIOLATOR TO A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($500).

That way all the "important" information is included, but a property owner can somewhat customize it for his/her purposes.

Just my

Well, I'm sure that will make them feel special.

[Guest HexHead]

Yes and No.

But the existing law does not include any specifics that must be included, this bill does.

We're all familiar with the existing sign, tell me what part you think is vague enough in it to be challenged in court? 'Cause I sure don't see anything that rises to that level of misunderstanding.

Anyone too stupid to understand the meaning of the "legal" sign, probably wouldn't pass the written part of the HCP class anyway.

[GKar]

The other thing missing in the last page of discourse is the impact of the fiscal notes that would be forthcoming should some version of exact wording requirements be retained. Those fiscal notes would delay the legislation to a point that it would die in this session. Once that reality was realized, a strategy that avoided the fiscal note problem yet addressed the vagueness caused by the undefined term "substantially similar" was necessary. By defining the essential elements of that term, vagueness should no longer be an issue. And no, those elements were never present in earlier or present legislation.

[Fallguy]

We're all familiar with the existing sign, tell me what part you think is vague enough in it to be challenged in court? 'Cause I sure don't see anything that rises to that level of misunderstanding.

Anyone too stupid to understand the meaning of the "legal" sign, probably wouldn't pass the written part of the HCP class anyway.

IMO substainlly similar, without any guidlines, is vague. But that could just be me.

That was the purpose of my example sign, not to make anyone feel special, but to require exact wording excpet for the fill in the blank areas. That way there is still a standard format, but either certain or all items could be banned and it could be on all or part of the property, but without having to leave the language for all of it in the statute.