Restaurant Carry Bill

[E4 No More]

So are those of you following this going to post a synopsis of the law for those of us who haven't read all 55 pages of this thread?

[Oh Shoot]

So are those of you following this going to post a synopsis of the law for those of us who haven't read all 55 pages of this thread?

You can read what's in it after it's passed.

- Nancy Pelosi

[VolunteerGuns]

You can read what's in it after it's passed.

- Nancy Pelosi

Sweet. You gotta love Nazi Pelosi

[dralarms]

OK just letting you know and I am not trying to advertise......I run Sonny's BBQ in Knoxville, TN and I have had to tell Carry permit holders to go get there gun. They came into the restaurant with an empty holster...I went up to him and asked him to get his gun. I told him that I believe in our right and asked him to exercise his! He thanked me and went to his car to get it.

I've heard good things about your place, been trying to get up there. My son brought me some "smokin" sauce when he was there a couple of months ago and man that stuff is tasty.

[RinTN]

OK just letting you know and I am not trying to advertise......I run Sonny's BBQ in Knoxville, TN ...

Had I known this a couple of days ago I would have made a different dining decision. I'll remember this for the next time I'm in Knoxville though!

[JAB]

OK just letting you know and I am not trying to advertise......I run Sonny's BBQ in Knoxville, TN and I have had to tell Carry permit holders to go get there gun. They came into the restaurant with an empty holster...I went up to him and asked him to get his gun. I told him that I believe in our right and asked him to exercise his! He thanked me and went to his car to get it.

I am picky as all get out about barbecue and actually like Sonny's - much better barbecue than a chain has a right to be (better, in fact, that a lot of family owned places.) I like eating there and it bugs the crap out of me that the law says I have to disarm when there isn't even a 'bar', Sonny's only serves beer, doesn't really make a big deal about having beer and I don't drink beer when I am there (beer would fill me up too much and cut down on the amount of ribs I can eat.) Sonny's is exactly the type of place I think of when I think of how ridiculous the current law is. I'm glad to hear that you support carry permit holders' rights. I do have to wonder, though...

Is it not still illegal for a HCP holder to carry there, even with management's permission? With the exception of certain 'agents' of the business, does management even have the legal right to give such permission? That is one of the big things that bugs me about Rayburn, et al. They claim to be fighting for the rights of restaurant owners, managers, etc. but what they are really doing is fighting to preserve laws which take away the right of an establishment (where alchohol is served) to decide that carrying there is okay.

[Guest TNReb]

So are those of you following this going to post a synopsis of the law for those of us who haven't read all 55 pages of this thread?

I posted this earlier about the Senate bill that passed last week. This is how the laws would read as amended:

§ 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 big problem with this version, as amended, is that it allows posting by the international circle/slash sign alone, without the statutory language, and many think the penalties are too great for the violations.

The House bill (HB3125) is very similar to the Senate Bill above. However, the amendment that was passed in committee changes § 39-17-1359 so that section 3 (a), ( and © read:

(a)

(1) Except as provided in subdivision (a)(2), 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)

(A) An individual, corporation, business entity or local, state or federal government entity or agent thereof that operates or manages an establishment that is open to the public, serves alcohol or beer, and derives less than fifty percent (50%) of its gross annual revenue from the sale of food shall prohibit the possession of weapons by any person who is within the confines of such establishment.

( For purposes of determining whether an establishment derives less than fifty percent (50%) of its gross annual revenue from the sale of food, such determination shall be made based on the prior calendar year of operation of such establishment. If an establishment has not been in existence or sold food for an entire year, the fifty percent (50%) shall be determined by the initial partial calendar year in which the establishment has been in existence.

(3) The prohibition in subdivisions (1) and (2) shall apply to any person who is authorized to carry a firearm by authority of § 39-17-1351.

(

(1) Notice of the prohibition permitted or required by subsection (a) shall be accomplished by posting notices to be displayed in prominent locations, including all entrances primarily used by persons entering each building, or portion of the building or buildings, where weapon possession is prohibited.

(2) If the possession of weapons is also prohibited on the premises of the property as well as within the confines of a building located on the property, the notice shall be posted at all entrances to the premises that are primarily used by persons entering the property.

(3) 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. In addition to, but not in lieu of, the sign set out in subdivision (4), notice may also include the international circle and slash symbolizing the prohibition of the item within the circle.

(4) The sign shall be of a size that is plainly visible to the average person entering the building, premises or property and shall contain the following language:

AS AUTHORIZED BY TCA § 39-17-1359, POSSESSION OF A WEAPON ON THIS PROPERTY, WITHIN THIS BUILDING, OR THE POSTED PORTION OF THIS BUILDING IS PROHIBITED. A VIOLATION IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE PUNISHABLE BY A FINE OF $500 AND POSSIBLE IMPRISONMENT.

©

(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).

This throws the confusion back in about what is a bar and what is a restaurant and looks to me like an attempt to get his overturned again if it passes. However, the language about signage in this amendment states that while the international circle/slash emblem can be used, it cannot be used in "lieu of" the language--meaning you can post with the symbol, but you would have to include the language also to be a legal posting. So while it is a terrible amendment concerning where you can carry, the posting language appears to be better. The biggest problem we have now is getting something passed so that a possible veto can be overridden before this session ends. If you have to reconcile the two, that may be impossible, so we would have to wait until January of next year to start over again.

Hope this helps without having to read through all the posts. Anyone please feel free to correct me if I am wrong about any of this. I wouldn't begin to say this is anywhere close to a good synopsis of all the discussion that has been had, but is only to try to show what the current state of the bills would be.

[Guest TNReb]

Is it not still illegal for a HCP holder to carry there, even with management's permission? With the exception of certain 'agents' of the business, does management even have the legal right to give such permission? That is one of the big things that bugs me about Rayburn, et al. They claim to be fighting for the rights of restaurant owners, managers, etc. but what they are really doing is fighting to preserve laws which take away the right of an establishment (where alchohol is served) to decide that carrying there is okay.

Very good point. I would have to say that under the present law, if you are carrying in an establishment that serves alcohol, even with the owner/operator's permission, you could be found to be in violation of the law. So once again, a law-abiding person is forced to decide between becoming a law-breaker or protection of self and loved ones. Alright Hex, I repent of my previous comments about Rayburn and concur with yours!

[Guest 270win]

TN Reb,

Do you think that the State House will adopt the State Senate's bill for the floor vote or will the State House vote on its own amended bill? I am afraid that the 50% food requirement House amendment will be just asking for a lawsuit again, like last year.

[VolunteerGuns]

ITS ALL:bs:

KILL THE BILL! KILL THE BILL!

KILL THE BILL!

KILL THE BILL! KILL THE BILL!

KILL THE BILL!

KILL THE BILL! KILL THE BILL!

KILL THE BILL!

KILL THE BILL! KILL THE BILL!

(I'm protesting;))

[VolunteerGuns]

I'm not feeling too good about this bill getting shot down in the house. I mailed Rep. Fincher 4/22 and stated that I'd rather have no bill at all, than the amended version. I've Still to get a response. Henry ALWAYS responds FAST, or at least if he agrees!

Worries me a little!

[Guest HexHead]

Alright Hex, I repent of my previous comments about Rayburn and concur with yours!

I'm glad you came around.

[Guest HexHead]

TN Reb,

Do you think that the State House will adopt the State Senate's bill for the floor vote or will the State House vote on its own amended bill? I am afraid that the 50% food requirement House amendment will be just asking for a lawsuit again, like last year.

My Rep tells me he feels it's unlikely Todd will accept the bill with the Senate amendment and they will probably go to conference committee to iron out the differences. In a perfect world they'll lose the Tidwell amendment in exchange for the sign amendment. One can only hope.

I think the prospect of a lawsuit based on Tidwell's amendment is just bluster. I may not agree with her, but I see Bonneyman's logic in declaring the old law vague as it was on the permit holder to ascertain if the place he just entered was a restaurant or not. In this case, it's up to the owner to ascertain whether it's a restaurant of not, and IF not, the onus is on HIM to post the sign. The definition is pretty cut & dry, if your previous year's gross annual sales were more than 50% liquor, then you have to post. What's vague about that? It's pretty much what most of the other states are doing.

[Guest 270win]

I can sadly see places that serve suing again on some other garbage grounds, if a food % is thrown in.

Arkansas defines restaurants/private clubs that serve at least 60% food differently under the alcohol statute from other private clubs. Arkansas incorporated ABC statute into the weapons statute. Places that are not licensed as 'restaurants' by the ABC board do not have to put up any special sign in Arkansas noting such to the public. They generally can serve alcohol on Sundays while (until recently) other establishments could not.

I know in Mississippi you just have to avoid sitting in the bar area of a restaurant or avoid places/portion 'primarily devoted to serving alcohol'. There is no special sign.

Alabama, you can sit in the bar or restaurant area...go to a nightclub...whatever you want down there..it's all legal. No special sign.

It is not illegal in Ark, Ala, or Mississippi to drink...but being intoxicated and carrying can cause you A LOT of problems...in Ark your license can be canned for two years.

[whiskey]

Florida has the 50% rule to define restaurants/bars. They use it for smoking though.

[Guest TNReb]

TN Reb,

Do you think that the State House will adopt the State Senate's bill for the floor vote or will the State House vote on its own amended bill? I am afraid that the 50% food requirement House amendment will be just asking for a lawsuit again, like last year.

Hard to say. There are things people like and don't like about both bills. The Senate Bill, since it was passed first, has the quickest track if it is adopted by the House. No conference committee=no delays. However, it has the problematic sign language. The House bill has better language on signage, but has that terrible language on what is and isn't a restaurant. If it passes instead of adopting the Senate Bill, then everything is delayed while it goes to the Senate.

Maybe the House could amend the amendment to take out the language on what a restaurant is. Then it would be a pretty good bill. I just fear the delay since if something ultimately is passed without enough time to override a likely veto, the antis (Randy Rayburn, et. al.) win again, and it might be harder to get a good bill through next year. Knowing that a veto could not be overridden might give some political cover and allow some legislators who might vote against us to vote for the bill so they can go home and say, "I voted with you." We need to know who honestly is for and who is against us, especially with the elections coming in November.

I still think it would be better for us to get something passed and then try to improve it next year. We would then have the additional argument that none of the other side's Chicken Little predictions came true, and problems would become more evident. While I would personally prefer a law saying carry anywhere, anytime without having to be permitted (like the 2A says), reality is what it is, and we need a victory here badly. No one is going to go out on a limb for us if they think we are going to saw it off behind them. Therefore, I have held my nose and asked my Representative to adopt the Senate Bill and get it to the governor ASAP.

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

I am with you on this TNReb. I thought it was the House amendment that had the circle/slash sign provision in it? Am I wrong, was it the Senate bill that allowed the circle/slash as a legal posting?

[Guest TNReb]

I am with you on this TNReb. I thought it was the House amendment that had the circle/slash sign provision in it? Am I wrong, was it the Senate bill that allowed the circle/slash as a legal posting?

The Senate Bill says this about signage:

C) 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).

Therefore, it is either/or.

The House Bill, as amended, says this about signage:

(3) 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. In addition to, but not in lieu of, the sign set out in subdivision (4), notice may also include the international circle and slash symbolizing the prohibition of the item within the circle.

Since it says, "in addition to, but not in lieu of," then you could add the international symbol to the sign with the statutory language, but the international symbol alone, without the statutory language, would not be a proper posting.

I think I'm correct on this, but if anyone knows different, jump in.

[Guest HexHead]

A couple of amendments are on the House agenda today, start at page 12...

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/106/AmendmentPacks/2010-5-5_H_regular.pdf

HB 3125 is #8 on the first agenda for the session today.

Edited May 5, 2010 by HexHead

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

ugh - is anyone else having trouble getting the streaming video to open up for the house session?

[VolunteerGuns]

Yep. Page isn't loading. Thought it was just me. I guess not.

[VolunteerGuns]

Got it now!

[VolunteerGuns]

FYI

House Session - 79th Legislative Day

[Volzfan]

Any updates on the action on the bill?

[VolunteerGuns]

not as of yet. currently at recess.