Restaurant Carry Bill

[Guest Doc44]

At what height should the signs me posted... they must be low enough for the height challenged (can't say midget anymore) and need a slash bar icon sign for those that can't read and understand english, but can the illegals still carry those big knives?

What a bunch of crocked jerks.... I think there is a name for that malidy.

Doc44

[GKar]

The Senate version of HB3125, SB3012 (Jackson's), already has the following amendment :

(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.

(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) The sign 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 and shall contain language substantially similar to the following:

AS AUTHORIZED BY TCA § 39-17-1359, POSSESSION OF A WEAPON ON THIS PROPERTY, WITHIN THIS BUILDING, OR THE POSTED PORTION OF THIS PROPERTY OR BUILDING IS PROHIBITED. POSSESSION OF A WEAPON ON POSTED PROPERTY 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.

Now, just an entertaining thought: under this proposed law as amended, the state is now dictating to a select group of property owners that they MUST post their property to forbid possession of firearms. Does that open the door for some such property owner to bring a charge that this is an unconstitutional barrier to their exercise of 2A? I realize that certain properties are already barred (schools, Fed properties, etc), but in general those are accomplished through a different legal mechanism. Just possible that this bil trades one brand of "unconstitutionality" for another?

[Guest HexHead]

So Jackson lied to us. The bill was supposed to have specific language and now the amendment puts the "substantially similar" language back into the bill. So the signs can say anything, and we'll be back to where we were before, where we can get hung on "intent" from an non-legal handwritten "no guns" sign. I bet Rayburn will drag out his "no guns- ever....." signs again.

When did Jackson and Rayburn start sharing spit in the shower?

[Fallguy]

So Jackson lied to us. The bill was supposed to have specific language and now the amendment puts the "substantially similar" language back into the bill. So the signs can say anything, and we'll be back to where we were before, where we can get hung on "intent" from an non-legal handwritten "no guns" sign. I bet Rayburn will drag out his "no guns- ever....." signs again.

When did Jackson and Rayburn start sharing spit in the shower?

While I still like exact wording better....Jackson's amendment doesn't mean the sign can say "anything", it says that no matter the wording, the sign would have to include, a)That is it posted per TN law, b)what is prohibited and where it is prohibited and c)that is a criminal offense.

I have always thought the "substantially similar" part was to allow the personalization of a sign, but certain elements were to be required. While not the best, at least this does require certain elements to be in the sign.

So a simple "No Guns" sign would not be legal since it wouldn't have all three of the above requirements.

[macville]

I still don't understand how a property owner can't be held responsible if they ban legally carried weapons weapons and someone gets hurt because they can't defend themselves. It seems like the only way for them to not be held responsible if they have a secure area with metal detectors, therefore showing that they've made efforts to make sure no one is armed.

Here's another thought I just had. Can the state constitutionally allow private property owners to "legally" post? They only have the power to regulate carry with a "view to prevent crime." So where do they get the power to let private property owners have power? I don't see private posting preventing crime.

Matthew

[Fallguy]

I still don't understand how a property owner can't be held responsible if they ban legally carried weapons weapons and someone gets hurt because they can't defend themselves. It seems like the only way for them to not be held responsible if they have a secure area with metal detectors, therefore showing that they've made efforts to make sure no one is armed.

Once you chose to enter, you assumed the risk of anything happening. If you don't want to disarm, don't enter.

It may not be right, but that is the law as of now.

Here's another thought I just had. Can the state constitutionally allow private property owners to "legally" post? They only have the power to regulate carry with a "view to prevent crime." So where do they get the power to let private property owners have power? I don't see private posting preventing crime.

Matthew

Interesting argument.

[Guest HexHead]

While I still like exact wording better....Jackson's amendment doesn't mean the sign can say "anything", it says that no matter the wording, the sign would have to include, a)That is it posted per TN law, b)what is prohibited and where it is prohibited and c)that is a criminal offense.

I have always thought the "substantially similar" part was to allow the personalization of a sign, but certain elements were to be required. While not the best, at least this does require certain elements to be in the sign.

So a simple "No Guns" sign would not be legal since it wouldn't have all three of the above requirements.

Look at the existing law requiring signs, the AG's opinion on "substantially similar" and the reality of the signs actually posted. It's just going to be a continuation of the same old hodgepodge of postings. Business as usual.

The "substantially similar" loophole will continue to allow a judge to convict on "intent", as has been discussed here ad nauseam in the past.

Edited April 21, 2010 by HexHead

[Fallguy]

Look at the existing law requiring signs, the AG's opinion on "substantially similar" and the reality of the signs actually posted. It's just going to be a continuation of the same old hodgepodge of postings. Business as usual.

The "substantially similar" loophole will continue to allow a judge to convict on "intent", as has been discussed here ad nauseam in the past.

Previously "substantially similar" has not been defined (in the TCA or in the courts). This amendment says "substantially similar" requires at least three elements to be in the sign for it to be legal.

Don't get me wrong...I'm not really happy with all the changes, but so far they still seem to be better than where we are now.

[Guest HexHead]

Previously "substantially similar" has not been defined (in the TCA or in the courts). This amendment says "substantially similar" requires at least three elements to be in the sign for it to be legal.

Don't get me wrong...I'm not really happy with all the changes, but so far they still seem to be better than where we are now.

So then we'll be back to trying to cypher whether a sign is legal and if a place is really posted, or if the owner is just trying to placate the bedwetters again? Instead of NO CONFUSION, where they could just download the "approved" sign from the state's website, print it off and just get a 99 cent frame for it, we'll be back to these ****s making up their own signs.

Where's the support for HB 2694 instead of the piece of crap this bill is turning into? I could live with the amendment the House added yesterday, but the Senate amendment shows those guys couldn't find their asses with both hands.

[Fallguy]

So then we'll be back to trying to cypher whether a sign is legal and if a place is really posted, or if the owner is just trying to placate the bedwetters again? Instead of NO CONFUSION, where they could just download the "approved" sign from the state's website, print it off and just get a 99 cent frame for it, we'll be back to these ****s making up their own signs.

Where's the support for HB 2694 instead of the piece of crap this bill is turning into? I could live with the amendment the House added yesterday, but the Senate amendment shows those guys couldn't find their asses with both hands.

HB2694 doesn't address 39-17-1359 at all, let alone the wording of a sign.

How hard is to look at a sign and see if it says...

• Pursuant to TN law or Pursuant to T.C.A. 39-17-1359
  
• All weapons have been prohibited on this property or Handguns have been prohibited in this building or Firearms have been prohibited in this room.
  
• Violation of this posting is a criminal offense or Violators are subject to a $500 fine.
  

One problem with the exact wording in HB3125 is, it still says "On this property, within this building or the posted portion of this building" It has to include all 3 areas even if possession is only prohibited in one of them. Isn't that a bit confusing as well?

[saintsfanbrian]

Personally - if I see the sign I will probably just turn around and leave regardless of what it reads exactly unless it is simply the circle slash sign as that has no weight.

[Guest HexHead]

Previously "substantially similar" has not been defined (in the TCA or in the courts). This amendment says "substantially similar" requires at least three elements to be in the sign for it to be legal.

I guess you missed this part of the Senate amendment....

© 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

So, according to the amendment, they can just put a circle/ slash sign up and call it a day.

And Saintsfanbrian, it will be legal.

[Guest HexHead]

HB2694 doesn't address 39-17-1359 at all, let alone the wording of a sign.

How hard is to look at a sign and see if it says...

• Pursuant to TN law or Pursuant to T.C.A. 39-17-1359
  
• All weapons have been prohibited on this property or Handguns have been prohibited in this building or Firearms have been prohibited in this room.
  
• Violation of this posting is a criminal offense or Violators are subject to a $500 fine.
  

One problem with the exact wording in HB3125 is, it still says "On this property, within this building or the posted portion of this building" It has to include all 3 areas even if possession is only prohibited in one of them. Isn't that a bit confusing as well?

No, all encompassing is not confusing. Remember, Todd's original intent was for the owners that wanted to post to just be able to go to the state's website and print off the approved sign and just frame it. Could it be any easier than that? Why do these jackasses have to keep trying to reinvent the wheel?

As for HB 2694, I'm not sure it even allows posting as it isn't mentioned and the bill removes the violation entirely.

Edited April 21, 2010 by HexHead

[Fallguy]

I guess you missed this part of the Senate amendment....

© 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

So, according to the amendment, they can just put a circle/ slash sign up and call it a day.

And Saintsfanbrian, it will be legal.

You're right...I had not seen the text of the Senate amendment. It would make just a slash and gun a legal posting.

That is not good at all!!!!!! Several steps back from where we are now.

No, all encompassing is not confusing. Remember, Todd's original intent was for the owners that wanted to post to just be able to go to the state's website and print off the approved sign and just frame it. Could it be any easier than that? Why do these jackasses have to keep trying to reinvent the wheel?

As for HB 2694, I'm not sure it even allows posting as it isn't mentioned and the bill removes the violation entirely.

I admit I have never heard of Todd wanting there to be a sign you could download. Guess that would leave no doubt about whether it was a proper sign or not.

HB2694 simply repeals 39-17-1305, it does not address posting, so 39-17-1359 would still be in effect just like for any other property.

[Guest HexHead]

You're right...I had not seen the text of the Senate amendment. It would make just a slash and gun a legal posting.

That is not good at all!!!!!! Several steps back from where we are now.

I admit I have never heard of Todd wanting there to be a sign you could download. Guess that would leave no doubt about whether it was a proper sign or not.

HB2694 simply repeals 39-17-1305, it does not address posting, so 39-17-1359 would still be in effect just like for any other property.

Then that is good. Why should restaurants really be treated any differently than any other business in the state? Carrying in public without a permit is already against the law. Drinking so much as a drop of alcohol while carrying is already against the law. Why do we need all this other crap anyway?

[macville]

Once you chose to enter, you assumed the risk of anything happening. If you don't want to disarm, don't enter.

It may not be right, but that is the law as of now.

But consider this... how is a business owner more less responsible for safety when it comes to legally carried guns/banning them and say some spilled water on the floor? It just seems like if you take away someone's self-defense tool, then you are taking upon yourself to provide enough security to provide "equal to what they had" defense. I am trying to think of a real example of this kind of thinking with other things, but nothing is coming to mind.

Matthew

[Guest HexHead]

But consider this... how is a business owner more less responsible for safety when it comes to legally carried guns/banning them and say some spilled water on the floor? It just seems like if you take away someone's self-defense tool, then you are taking upon yourself to provide enough security to provide "equal to what they had" defense. I am trying to think of a real example of this kind of thinking with other things, but nothing is coming to mind.

Matthew

Maybe that the police only have a responsibility to protect you if you are in custody? They've taken away your ability to "defend yourself". so they are responsible for your safety?

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

Yea, if the circle/slash all of a sudden becomes a legal posting, that is going to be very confusing because up until now most all HCP holders have pretty much ignored that sign with regard to legal ramifications. For those not paying attention to the new legislation, assuming it passes as amended, this could get some people in big trouble. I am ok with the "make them post if they are <50% food" amendment, but that circle/slash part has to go. I wonder if an amendment could be offered up on the floor to get that changed?

[Guest HexHead]

Yea, if the circle/slash all of a sudden becomes a legal posting, that is going to be very confusing because up until now most all HCP holders have pretty much ignored that sign with regard to legal ramifications. For those not paying attention to the new legislation, assuming it passes as amended, this could get some people in big trouble. I am ok with the "make them post if they are <50% food" amendment, but that circle/slash part has to go. I wonder if an amendment could be offered up on the floor to get that changed?

Rayburn's pushing for this so it can be "legally" posted as innocuously as possible. It's also likely that if there's a group of people by an entrance to a restaurant, the sign can be missed. This falls right back into the argument used against the last bill, that the average permit holder could be unaware that they are breaking the law. And that brings the whole "constitutionality" issue up again.

[Guest HexHead]

BTW, Sen. Jackson voted FOR this POS amendment.

SB3012 by Jackson - S. JUD COMM.:

Recommended for passage w/amendments- refer to: S. Cal. Comm. 4/13/2010

Passed

Ayes................................................7

Noes................................................2

Senators voting aye were: Beavers, Black, Bunch, Faulk, Jackson, Overbey, Kelsey -- 7.

Senators voting no were: Kyle, Marrero B -- 2.

Be careful who you idolize as a champion.

[Guest 270win]

I wouldn't mind any of these stupid signs if they had no 500 fine possiblity. That is pure stupid that this Senate amendment is watering it down to make the sign less clear than before with the 500 fine. If there was not a 500 fine, I'd be ok....such as you must leave the property if asked to do so....but a 500 fine ...that's garbage....these lawmakers are making things more confusing than it needs to be.

[Guest 270win]

I was looking at the house amendment and it looks like it is different than the senate amendment regarding those signs. The house amendment is more favorable, and keeps the original intent that a 'no guns' sign is not sufficient signage to ban guns legally and possibly fine folks. We'll see if this is the direction both houses want to go...which is what I think they want to go.

[Guest HexHead]

I was looking at the house amendment and it looks like it is different than the senate amendment regarding those signs. The house amendment is more favorable, and keeps the original intent that a 'no guns' sign is not sufficient signage to ban guns legally and possibly fine folks. We'll see if this is the direction both houses want to go...which is what I think they want to go.

This means that it's going to have to go back to a conference committee after (if) each chamber passes their respective bill before going back to both chambers to be voted on again. Then off to the governor. I wonder if he'll still veto it with the new house amendment? Assuming he does, he'll probably wait until the 29th day again, like he did last time and then it has to go back to both chambers for the override. By then, the clock on this session will have run out and we'll be ****ed again.

[macville]

Senators voting aye were: Beavers, Black, Bunch, Faulk, Jackson, Overbey, Kelsey -- 7.

Senators voting no were: Kyle, Marrero B -- 2.

The worse part is that everyone who voted aye on pushing the bill forward with this crap, except for Jackson, are republicans. I'm hoping that they just didn't understand that they just made things FAR more confusing and also made it possible for a court challenge.

Even if Rayburn doesn't sue (yeah, like we trust him at his word), what's to stop someone else from suing?

BTW, what's the other bill that's out which is better than this one because it simply deletes the whole part of the law about alcohol carry?

Matthew

[GLOCKMEISTER]

THEY ARE TAKING TOO MUCH TIME WITH ALL THESE AMMENDMENTS THEY SHOULD JUST PASS HB2694 AND BE DONE WITH IT... YES IM SHOUTING!!!