Restaurant Carry Bill

[Worriedman]

seems to me that all the promises from those at the capital about fixing this as well as people on here claiming how thrilled we would be and not to worry have kind of fallen flat.

This new bill is not good, I hope it gets vetoed and is not over ridden.

I for one am fairly pleased with what we wound up with in an election year. I get to carry if the place is not posted. We get to vote with our feet if the places we want to go post. Makes no difference what kind of sign it is, if they intend to post, we can go there or not.

I already have talked one place that posted here last year into changing their minds relative to the new law. We just stopped going in, have not been back, and it hurt their business. The place got sold and the new owners checked their take for the months prior to, and after the posting, and have decided to take their sign down. Reasonable conversation and calm negotiations seem to work. Places that post just do not want my money, I can live with that.

Suits about the vagueness of the sign portion of the law are possible if need be, good chance to win that, so I will take the deal at the moment.

Plus, passage of the current bill pisses Rayburn off, and that is a plus in my book.

A big issue that everybody is glossing over is the sunset of the ABC, that is big, and gives some leverage over all this.

Stay tuned.

[Fallguy]

seems to me that all the promises from those at the capital about fixing this as well as people on here claiming how thrilled we would be and not to worry have kind of fallen flat.

This new bill is not good, I hope it gets vetoed and is not over ridden.

What's wrong with it?....

[Guest HexHead]

What's wrong with it?....

I'm not going to be so presumptuous as to speak for Mike, but my guess is he's got the same concerns I'd had about the Senate amendment?

All the idiots that put up the useless, cute international symbol over the years will now be "legally" posted, with the force of law. It's going to be too easy for businesses to post now. Places that didn't in the past because they didn't care enough to post a large sign with the prescribed verbage (or something substantially similar), now have a much less innocuous option. Basically they caved to Rayburn and give him a sign he can live with.

As a result of this new, more liberal signage requirement, many places that weren't really off-limits before now are and I suspect we're going to end up with far more places posted than we did last year.

I'm pretty torn about this bill.

[saintsfanbrian]

I always tried to honor the owners request when they put up the circle with the slash as I felt they did not want my money. Now I will simply ensure that I honor their request. No big deal. Most places deliver and I can cook better than any restaurant.

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

So - what exactly is this part about "the sunset of the ABC" ?? I seem to have missed that along the way. What does it mean exactly?

[Guest HexHead]

So - what exactly is this part about "the sunset of the ABC" ?? I seem to have missed that along the way. What does it mean exactly?

Good question. I was wondering the same thing.

[Fallguy]

I'm not going to be so presumptuous as to speak for Mike, but my guess is he's got the same concerns I'd had about the Senate amendment?

All the idiots that put up the useless, cute international symbol over the years will now be "legally" posted, with the force of law. It's going to be too easy for businesses to post now. Places that didn't in the past because they didn't care enough to post a large sign with the prescribed verbage (or something substantially similar), now have a much less innocuous option. Basically they caved to Rayburn and give him a sign he can live with.

As a result of this new, more liberal signage requirement, many places that weren't really off-limits before now are and I suspect we're going to end up with far more places posted than we did last year.

I'm pretty torn about this bill.

I'm sure Mike will post in a little, but maybe it is the new 39-17-1359, I was just curious since he didn't give any specific reason. I was wondering if maybe he looked at the introduced bill (which is horrible) and not what actually passed.

I'm not 100% happy either...but we have already debated it so not going to go into all the reasons again...but overall I don't think it's the worst thing.

[GKar]

HB2459, being bantered about between the House and Senate, sunsets (dissolves) the current ABC effective June 30, 2010. That part is agreed upon by both chambers. A Senate amendment to the bill also seeks significant restrictions upon members of that commission as to their capacity to serve as lobbysits and/or representatives of establishments that are governed by the board. Statements from the floor of both chambers have expressed extreme displeasure with the way ABC has discharged their responsibilities, and indicate that a summer session will be held (after the sunset takes effect) to restructure and reimplement an ABC that works the way the legislature intends it to work.

My guess would be this is a far more troublesome thing to Rayburn et al than SB 3012... The great irony is that, were it not for the controversy they themselves stirred up with Bonneymore, this HB2459 likely never happens...

Edited May 14, 2010 by GKar
Correct bill #

[Volzfan]

I'm not going to be so presumptuous as to speak for Mike, but my guess is he's got the same concerns I'd had about the Senate amendment?

All the idiots that put up the useless, cute international symbol over the years will now be "legally" posted, with the force of law. It's going to be too easy for businesses to post now. Places that didn't in the past because they didn't care enough to post a large sign with the prescribed verbage (or something substantially similar), now have a much less innocuous option. Basically they caved to Rayburn and give him a sign he can live with.

As a result of this new, more liberal signage requirement, many places that weren't really off-limits before now are and I suspect we're going to end up with far more places posted than we did last year.

I'm pretty torn about this bill.

Yeah that circle-slash things is the major part that I don't like but that seems to be what we will have and I'll live with it until something better gets passed in the future.

Anyone know if Bredesen has left yet and if he vetoed the bill?

[dralarms]

Yeah that circle-slash things is the major part that I don't like but that seems to be what we will have and I'll live with it until something better gets passed in the future.

Anyone know if Bredesen has left yet and if he vetoed the bill?

I asked the same question.

[Guest uofmeet]

As a result of this new, more liberal signage requirement, many places that weren't really off-limits before now are and I suspect we're going to end up with far more places posted than we did last year.

I'm pretty torn about this bill.

I understand what you are saying, but I don't see why you would want to give your money to someone who doesn't want guns? Even though at this second the circle slash sign is not a legal posting, if I see it, i will think twice about going in their. As far as I am concerned, if they don't like my gun, then they don't like my money.

P.S. I would also like to know the status of this hopefully soon to be law.

[saintsfanbrian]

Wow - making the ABC do their job? That would be amazing.

[GKar]

Looks like legislature will be around long enough to override even an May 18 veto. Sen FWM meetings scheduled Mon and Tues next week, House Floor Mon and Thurs, and still a lot off disagreement on budget stuff. And an article RE a pending immigration bill that was revived this week indictes that it was scheduled to be taken up again May 24...

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

According to the bill summary page, it is still 'transmitted to governor'. Last year when he vetoed it, it showed up as 'Vetoed by Governor' pretty quickly on the summary page.

Thanks for the clarification on the ABC thing, I will be happy to see the ABC's feet held to the fire.

[GLOCKMEISTER]

guys were in good shape, if he vetos it then we have time to override it.. AGAIN!!! They will be in session at least till the 27th.

[Redec]

I asked the same question.

This is updated pretty quick JIC there is not a proper announcment.

Tennessee General Assembly

[Guest HexHead]

My guess would be this is a far more troublesome thing to Rayburn et al than SB 3012... The great irony is that, were it not for the controversy they themselves stirred up with Bonneymore, this HB2459 likely never happens...

Ahh, the law of unintended consequences. Payback's a bitch.

[Guest HexHead]

I just called the Governor's office. He's leaving sometime today or tomorrow, and the lady I spoke with has "no information regarding whether or not he's vetoed the handgun carry bill yet."

So I guess we wait again today for the other shoe to drop.

Edited May 14, 2010 by HexHead

[E4 No More]

I just called the Governor's office. He's leaving sometime today or tomorrow, and the lady I spoke with has "no information regarding whether or not he's vetoed the handgun carry bill yet."

So I guess we wait again today for the other shoe to drop.

She used code for "You aren't important enough to talk to about this."

[Guest HexHead]

She used code for "You aren't important enough to talk to about this."

Yeah, there's that. But I'm also sure she responded as she was instructed to, whether she actually knows or not.

[Mike.357]

What's wrong with it?....

see Hexheads response.

All the idiots that put up the useless, cute international symbol over the years will now be "legally" posted, with the force of law. It's going to be too easy for businesses to post now. Places that didn't in the past because they didn't care enough to post a large sign with the prescribed verbage (or something substantially similar), now have a much less innocuous option.

You took the words right out of my mouth, or from my fingers as it were.

and I want to add this, personally I could care less about being able to carry in a place that serves alcohol for on premise consumption. We rarely eat out, I do not go bars, but if I do go to these places I normally have a beer or maybe two. So carrying there matters not to me. But with the law allowing the ghostbuster sign I am legally forced now to choose either breaking the law and ignoring the sign in several places. And the ghostbuster sign will be much easier to post up than a sign where wordage must be exact. They screwed us here in the big picture of things. I am happy for all of you who frequently eat out, I hope the trade is is worth it.

Edited May 14, 2010 by Mike.357

[G27]

Ahh, the law of unintended consequences. Payback's a bitch.

Yep.

Can't say it upsets me.

I know, it's a 180 from where I was earlier, but after watching these dbags doing anything they can to derail our ability to exercise our rights, I'm in a vindictive mood. Screw 'em.

[Fallguy]

This is updated pretty quick JIC there is not a proper announcment.

Tennessee General Assembly

According to the bill summary page, it is still 'transmitted to governor'. Last year when he vetoed it, it showed up as 'Vetoed by Governor' pretty quickly on the summary page.

Thanks for the clarification on the ABC thing, I will be happy to see the ABC's feet held to the fire.

They say the info on the status page is supposed to be accurate to within 1 hour, but I figure we'll hear about it by some means when whatever happens happens....

[Fallguy]

Looks like legislature will be around long enough to override even an May 18 veto. Sen FWM meetings scheduled Mon and Tues next week, House Floor Mon and Thurs, and still a lot off disagreement on budget stuff. And an article RE a pending immigration bill that was revived this week indictes that it was scheduled to be taken up again May 24...

guys were in good shape, if he vetos it then we have time to override it.. AGAIN!!! They will be in session at least till the 27th.

I agree....looks like the bill will become law....just when is the question now.

[ttocswob]

...But with the law allowing the ghostbuster sign I am legally forced now to choose either breaking the law or ignoring the sign...

Kinda what a colleague once called, "a no or no-go situation."

I'm with you...that gunbuster sign on the emergency room entrance now puts me in legal jeopardy...it ain't just about restaurants anymore.