Restaurant Carry Bill

[GKar]

If by "existing sign" you mean the prescribed language in the current code, few would misinterpret. But that isn't the question, now, is it? And as for the problem with reverting to the prescribed language only, see above...

[Guest HexHead]

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.

That's reasonable.

[Guest HexHead]

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.

Since fiscal notes only applies to the governmental entities, they could amend the amendment to allow government buildings to keep existing signage until it has to be replaced, like they did with the State Park signs, or just ignore them altogether like they're currently doing with the local parks.

They could further change the amendment to make the prescribed legal signs in the original bill apply only to privately owned businesses.

[GKar]

Grandfather provisions rarely work well, in that they are typically very difficult to word sufficiently for legislative purposes. Plus, such an approach immeidately opens the barn door to cries of "unfair to business" while cow-towing to municipalities.

[Fallguy]

Grandfather provisions rarely work well, in that they are typically very difficult to word sufficiently for legislative purposes. Plus, such an approach immeidately opens the barn door to cries of "unfair to business" while cow-towing to municipalities.

Funny thing though is the current 39-17-1359 has a grandfather clause for goverment buildings......

I still think it's sad that all of this has to be done because the state can't spend a few bucks to fix some signs....or simply make a list of state buildings that are off-limits by statute. Many states list the State Captiol Building as an off-limits area.

[Guest HexHead]

Funny thing though is the current 39-17-1359 has a grandfather clause for goverment buildings......

I still think it's sad that all of this has to be done because the state can't spend a few bucks to fix some signs....or simply make a list of state buildings that are off-limits by statute. Many states list the State Captiol Building as an off-limits area.

Surely there's enough combined intelligence on the Hill to make this simple if they wanted to.

[Guest RevScottie]

Guys I think you are still missing the point of my argument. I am talking about seeing a No Weapons sign of any sort and going ahead and carrying based on loopholes in the legality of how the sign was posted. You know that the owner does not want you to carry on his property yet you go ahead and do it anyway. It also seems that some want a low fine so they can go ahead and continue to exploit the loophole.

I think a standardized printable sign from a state web site would be a good idea. Then there is no doubt if you can carry or not. This will keep people from accidently carrying into places they should not. I agree that without a proper posting that a $500 fine is not fair. It seems that many on here are upset that they will no longer be able to carry onto private property against an owners wishes because a loophole will be closed with standadized signs.

I am all for 2A rights but property owners have rights as well. Yeah it will suck if as a result of this there are less places to legally carry but the only reason it is legal now is because of some sign posting technicalities. The new laws would change nothing as far as our rights go it would just tighten up some legal loopholes.

.

[Guest HexHead]

Grandfather provisions rarely work well, in that they are typically very difficult to word sufficiently for legislative purposes. Plus, such an approach immeidately opens the barn door to cries of "unfair to business" while cow-towing to municipalities.

They didn't have any problems "grandfathering" the signs at the TN State Parks. They still say no guns. Permit holders are supposed to know the HCP is an exception to their signs. They will change the wording on them when they are replaced through normal maintenance.

They could easily do the same thing with government buildings.

As for business owners complaining about fairness regarding their posting signs, they can go piss up a rope for all I care. Or any of us should care.

[RinTN]

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

... Violators would receive at least a $500 fine, two days in jail and a three-year suspension of their carry permits. ...

Any idea where the paper got the part about two days in jail from? I don't see anything like that in the text of the bill.

[GKar]

My objection to grandfathering comes from painful experience: in other forms of legislation, grandfather clauses have turned out to be less-than-desirable as the age gap grows between their initiation and the current time. My own experience with some federal grandfathering clauses has seen the eventual erosion of a multi-million dollar endeavor, and has been a never-ending source of constant enforcement activity. Lemme try to paraphrase something I recently lived through into an applicable scenario: a government building has an embedded sign in the columns at each of its entrances. Said language is not compliant with a requirement for exact language in a newly enacted statute, but is "grandfathered". Next year, one of the signs is damaged. That one could be repaired to its original state relatively cheaply; however, since in being fixed it's being "modified" and is no longer considered grandfathered (a very typical enforcement approach with grandfather clauses - they only apply to the actual state of the item at the time of enactment of the statute)...so now, the building is faced with a very expensive project to renovate all the signs, since they now fall under the exact wording requirements.

Yes, this is most certainly a hypothetical occurrence, and is an extreme case. Perhaps a different construct of grandfathering language might avoid such an occurrence - but it does illustrate the temporal nature (often not recognized at the time the clause is inserted) of some of the possible difficulties.

[Guest TNReb]

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

From today's Tennessean....

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

Ok, let me see if I got this right. You quote an article from the Tennessean as authority? Ok. I'll type this real slow and try not to use big words so you can hopefully catch on. This is the exact language of the bill, as amended, that was passed by the Senate yesterday:

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.

Hmmm. Not one word about a minimum $500 fine, or two days in jail. In fact, it appears the only thing they got right was the three year suspension. Yep, just about par for that liberal rag. But, to be fair, this language is also in the section dealing with signage:

39-17-1359. Prohibition at certain meetings -- Posting notice.

(a) . . . .

©

(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).

So it also seems that your source took something not even dealing with the proper code section and inserted it somewhere it doesn't belong. Again, what a shock that the Tennessean would do something like that since they are always so on top of things.

So, pal, the last time I checked, a Class A Misdemeanor in Tennessee carries a sentence of up to eleven months and twenty-nine days, a fine of up to $2,500, or both fine and imprisonment. And that is true for all Class A Misdemeanors unless the law you are dealing with (like DUI, for example) specifies something different.

The mere fact that you would try to use the Tennessean as a source of authority tells me all I need to know about you. You are a lost cause. If you pay the professional tax I hope it is not as an attorney. If so, I hope your malpractice insurance is paid up. Whatever the profession, if your reasoning there is as flawed as it is here, I feel sorry for your clients.

Oh, and by the way, as to your juvenile attempt at a swipe at me in a later post, the term "ambulance chaser" is used in reference to a personal injury lawyer--not a criminal defense attorney. You, sir, are in desperate need of getting a clue. From henceforth, I will ignore any futher postings from you and this will be my last response to your obvious ignorance. You are proof that my Daddy was right when he told me never to get in a pissing match with a skunk. So do your worst. That should be an easy assignment for you since you are so good at it. But I leave you with this: It is better to remain silent and thought a fool, than to speak up and remove all doubt. Every time you post, you confirm the truth of that statement. Have a nice life.

[Guest HexHead]

Guys I think you are still missing the point of my argument. I am talking about seeing a No Weapons sign of any sort and going ahead and carrying based on loopholes in the legality of how the sign was posted. You know that the owner does not want you to carry on his property yet you go ahead and do it anyway. It also seems that some want a low fine so they can go ahead and continue to exploit the loophole.

I think a standardized printable sign from a state web site would be a good idea. Then there is no doubt if you can carry or not. This will keep people from accidently carrying into places they should not. I agree that without a proper posting that a $500 fine is not fair. It seems that many on here are upset that they will no longer be able to carry onto private property against an owners wishes because a loophole will be closed with standadized signs.

I am all for 2A rights but property owners have rights as well. Yeah it will suck if as a result of this there are less places to legally carry but the only reason it is legal now is because of some sign posting technicalities. The new laws would change nothing as far as our rights go it would just tighten up some legal loopholes.

.

I don't disagree with you actually. I quit my membership at Costco when they posted an improper sign, because I spent too much money there to be made to feel unwelcome in any way. So I get what you're saying.

My only point is there should be ONE legal sign, and everybody that wants to post MUST use it. And if they're not using it, they might as well have a sign that says "please don't smell the flowers". Any sign that isn't the one properly worded legal sign, should have NO LEGAL PENALTIES attached to it. They can ask you to leave and that's about it.

You're the one mixing up the issues. It's not whether some may want to carry past an improper sign, it's whether the improper sign should have the force of law or not. If they want the force of law behind the sign, then hang the correct one.

Again, this isn't rocket science here. It's a sign.

Edited April 30, 2010 by HexHead

[GKar]

As for business owners complaining about fairness regarding their posting signs, they can go piss up a rope for all I care. Or any of us should care.

(Un)fortunately, legislation, and the art of getting it passed, takes a very different view. Rameses, tell me not what I should care about...and don't stand under that rope without an umbrella...

[RinTN]

In the legal text where it says:

(2) In addition to the punishment authorized by subdivision (1)...

is subdivision (1) a reference to:

(1) A violation of this section is a Class A misdemeanor

[Guest HexHead]

So, pal, the last time I checked, a Class A Misdemeanor in Tennessee carries a sentence of up to eleven months and twenty-nine days, a fine of up to $2,500, or both fine and imprisonment. And that is true for all Class A Misdemeanors unless the law you are dealing with (like DUI, for example) specifies something different.

You could have answered my question about that directly instead of being an ass.

Oh, and by the way, as to your juvenile attempt at a swipe at me in a later post, the term "ambulance chaser" is used in reference to a personal injury lawyer--not a criminal defense attorney.

You sure are full of yourself, aren't you? I see it's true, 99% of the lawyers give the rest a bad name. You opened the door for that referring to me as a Liberal. That's the strongest personal attack there is in my world. I would have been fine if you'd called me as a ********er or a mother****er, but liberal? Hrmfff.

I still stand by my original statement that anyone that commends Randy Rayburn for anything on this issue can only be a troll. So go hang out under your bridge somewhere.

Edited April 30, 2010 by HexHead

[Guest TNReb]

In the legal text where it says:

(2) In addition to the punishment authorized by subdivision (1)...

is subdivision (1) a reference to:

(1) A violation of this section is a Class A misdemeanor

Yes it is, RinTN. It is saying in addition to the punishment for a Class A Misdemeanor, if you are a permit holder, it can be suspended for three years.

[Volzfan]

[Guest TNReb]

You could have answered my question about that directly instead of being an ass.

You sure are full of yourself, aren't you? I see it's true, 99% of the lawyers give the rest a bad name. You opened the door for that referring to me as a Liberal. That's the strongest personal attack there is in my world. I would have been fine if you'd called me as a ********er or a mother****er, but liberal? Hrmfff.

I still stand by my original statement that anyone that commends Randy Rayburn for anything on this issue can only be a troll. So go hang out under your bridge somewhere.

Even though I said I would not respond to any more of your posts, you bring up something here I want to clarify. I do not think I ever referred to you as a Liberal. What I said was, "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?" My intent was not to call you anything, much less a Liberal, and if you took it that way, then I sincerely apologize. I was merely trying to point out that this is a tactic used by the left and one which makes them look small when they use it. As a matter of fact, one of the next sentences says, "I'm sure you're a better person than that or you wouldn't be here." Meaning that I was giving you the benefit of the doubt since you were on this website that you were basically a good person.

I have gone back and reviewed my posts and I cannot find any where I have called you a Liberal, or any other name. However, you have referred to me as a Troll, an ass, an ambulance chaser, along with "pal" and "chief" in a derogatory manner, and finally, cast aspertions on me simply because I am a lawyer. However, I will take the high road and again say that if you thought I was calling you a Liberal, that was not my intent and I am truly sorry. As to those other names you said I can call you--I'll pass. I don't use that kind of language, and I don't know you well enough to call you things like that.

[Guest HexHead]

Even though I said I would not respond to any more of your posts, you bring up something here I want to clarify. I do not think I ever referred to you as a Liberal. What I said was, "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?" My intent was not to call you anything, much less a Liberal, and if you took it that way, then I sincerely apologize. I was merely trying to point out that this is a tactic used by the left and one which makes them look small when they use it. As a matter of fact, one of the next sentences says, "I'm sure you're a better person than that or you wouldn't be here." Meaning that I was giving you the benefit of the doubt since you were on this website that you were basically a good person.

I have gone back and reviewed my posts and I cannot find any where I have called you a Liberal, or any other name. However, you have referred to me as a Troll, an ass, an ambulance chaser, along with "pal" and "chief" in a derogatory manner, and finally, cast aspertions on me simply because I am a lawyer. However, I will take the high road and again say that if you thought I was calling you a Liberal, that was not my intent and I am truly sorry. As to those other names you said I can call you--I'll pass. I don't use that kind of language, and I don't know you well enough to call you things like that.

along with the rest of the left

Close enough to Liberal. But look, this has become an emotional issue for all around, so this is the closest thing I could find to a handshake. We all need to be on the same side.

And if we ever meet I'll buy you a beer if we're not carrying.

Edited April 30, 2010 by HexHead

[Fallguy]

Guys I think you are still missing the point of my argument. I am talking about seeing a No Weapons sign of any sort and going ahead and carrying based on loopholes in the legality of how the sign was posted. You know that the owner does not want you to carry on his property yet you go ahead and do it anyway. It also seems that some want a low fine so they can go ahead and continue to exploit the loophole.

I think a standardized printable sign from a state web site would be a good idea. Then there is no doubt if you can carry or not. This will keep people from accidently carrying into places they should not. I agree that without a proper posting that a $500 fine is not fair. It seems that many on here are upset that they will no longer be able to carry onto private property against an owners wishes because a loophole will be closed with standadized signs.

I am all for 2A rights but property owners have rights as well. Yeah it will suck if as a result of this there are less places to legally carry but the only reason it is legal now is because of some sign posting technicalities. The new laws would change nothing as far as our rights go it would just tighten up some legal loopholes.

.

I really don't want to turn this into a property owners right's thread....there is enough of those, but..

If you open you property/business to the public then IMO you have accepted to allow the public into your place, along with all the lawful things that persons may have or can do. At least so long as that person doesn't become a disturbance and/or interfere with conduction of business.

If you have a private club or business, then by all means you can place any restrictions on entrance and the conduct once inside you wish.

If I have a choice, then by all means, I would rather do business with a place that doesn't post (legal or not) against carry, but in smaller towns or in certain situations, there may not always be a choice.

If you haven't already, when you get a chance, look at and reply to this thread http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/handgun-carry-self-defense/36341-public-accommodation-properties-have-no-right-block-fundamental-right.html

[Guest RevScottie]

If you open you property/business to the public then IMO you have accepted to allow the public into your place, along with all the lawful things that persons may have or can do. At least so long as that person doesn't become a disturbance and/or interfere with conduction of business.

I agree to a point but it is lawful to walk barefooted and how many places have you seen that refuse to serve you without shoes on? There are restaraunts that require jacket and ties as well even though shorts and T shirts are legal.

[Fallguy]

I agree to a point but it is lawful to walk barefooted and how many places have you seen that refuse to serve you without shoes on? There are restaraunts that require jacket and ties as well even though shorts and T shirts are legal.

If those places are open to the public I'm not 100% sure they should be allowed to deny entry in those situations either.

But actually I really haven't seen a No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service sign in a long time. ...and I have seen several barefoot people in public places.

I do somewhat understand where you're coming from and I'm not saying a person should have free range of the place. But I stand by that if they are acting lawfuly, not interering with your conducting business and not causing a disturbance there shouldn't be a problem.

I mean sitting still and not talking is lawful, but if you are doing it at table, not ordering food and are taking space from paying customers, I have no problem with you being told/forced to leave, because you are intfering with the operation of the persons' business.

But I fail to see how having my lawfully carried firearm is interfering with anyone's conduction of business.

Edited April 30, 2010 by Fallguy

[GKar]

Just noticed this...if it has been asked here previously and answered, I apologize.

So, the proposed language:

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.

Here's my question: reading ©(2) carefully, it seems to be saying that only a violation of subsection (a) that occurs in the location described in ((1) results in the 3 year suspension...in other words, possessing a handgun while being under the influence (alcohol or controlled substance) in a public establishment that serves alcohol triggers the addn'l suspension, but simply consuming while possessing a handgun in that same location does not? Both would be Class A misdemeanors, clearly.

[Guest TnRebel]

If those places are open to the public I'm not 100% sure they should be allowed to deny entry in those situations either.

But actually I really haven't seen a No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service sign in a long time. ...and I have seen several barefoot people in public places.

I do somewhat understand where you're coming from and I'm not saying a person should have free range of the place. But I stand by that if they are acting lawfuly, not interering with your conducting business and not causing a disturbance there shouldn't be a problem.

I mean sitting still and not talking is lawful, but if you are doing it at table, not ordering food and are taking space from paying customers, I have no problem with you being told/forced to leave, because you are intfering with the operation of the persons' business.

But I fail to see how having my lawfully carried firearm is interfering with anyone's conduction of business.

You haven't been to Florida lately have you , "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service " Is a state law for restaurants , except on the beach and then its just No Shoes No Service.

[Oh Shoot]

...

But actually I really haven't seen a No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service sign in a long time. ......

Yeah, I thought those were due to health code statutes, either state or local.

- OS