Another victory (maybe not) for guns in bars....

[Guest (BH)]

I figured this would already be ripe with discussion by now.... (if it is and I missed it, please delete)

TN Senate passes bill to allow guns in bars | tennessean.com | The Tennessean

The state <nobr id="itxt_nobr_1_0" style="color: darkgreen; font-weight: normal; font-size: 100%; font-family: Arial,Verdana,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Senate</nobr> approved a bill Thursday that would let handgun owners carry their weapons into any establishment that serves alcohol, raising further doubts about an earlier compromise meant to let guns into restaurants but keep them out of bars.

The Senate passed their version of the guns-in-restaurants bill 23-9 without considering a House amendment meant to prevent people who have permits to carry handguns from taking them into places whose main business is serving alcohol.The legislation would open up even more restaurants and bars to firearms than a similar law passed last year. A Nashville judge struck down that law last fall, saying it was too vague on which establishments could allow handguns and which could not.

Sen. Doug Jackson, the bill's sponsor, said the current measure sidesteps those problems by saying clearly that handgun owners can take their weapons into any eating establishment that hasn't posted signs restricting guns by the entrance.

But earlier this month, Rep. Harry Tindell, D-Knoxville, tried to draw that line again by proposing an amendment that would separate bars from restaurants based on the amount of food they serve. That amendment was approved by the House Finance Committee, over Todd's objections.

"Last year, we made a commitment to the people of Tennessee that we were going to authorize guns in restaurants but not bars," Tindell said. "This bill does just the opposite. It goes 180 degrees from what we did last year, and I've tried to bring it back to where we were last year."

More litigation?

Jackson said Thursday that a separation between bars and restaurants would be difficult to enforce and would confuse handgun permit holders. That might open the law to another round of litigation.

But Tindell's amendment has the support of the hospitality industry. Nashville restaurateur Randy Rayburn, a plaintiff in last year's lawsuit, said Thursday he was disappointed Jackson hadn't added language aimed at keeping guns out of bars."Sen. Jackson and the Senate have passed a very radical version of public policy for the hospitality industry," he said. "The House version with Tindell's amendment is more acceptable to Tennessee voters and law enforcement."

The House is scheduled to take up the gun bill Wednesday. Todd said he plans to make the Senate version the basis of debate for the vote in the House and does not support Tindell's amendment.

"I think constitutionally it (Tindell's amendment) is going to be challenged," Todd said. "The other way, it's clean. It's clear. If you post, you can't carry, period."

Tindell, however, said he plans to press ahead with his proposal, with or without Jackson and Todd's support.

"I haven't tried to count the votes," he said, "but let's see what people think."

Well what do you think? Edited May 1, 2010 by (BH)

[macville]

Try checking in the TN Politics and Legislation forum for these kind of things. http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/tennessee-politics-legislation/37807-restaurant-carry-bill.html

[Guest redbarron06]

First it is not nor has it ever been a guns in bars law. Tennessee does not have a legal thing as a bar. In order to get your liquer license you must by law make more them 50% of your profit by selling something other than liquer or wine. This is a guns in resturaunts bill and always has been.

[DaveTN]

First it is not nor has it ever been a guns in bars law. Tennessee does not have a legal thing as a bar. In order to get your liquer license you must by law make more them 50% of your profit by selling something other than liquer or wine. This is a guns in resturaunts bill and always has been.

Yes it is. And that will be the down fall of it. Just because you don’t have a legal name for bars in this state; they still exist.

We did this. The anti gun people had nothing to do with it. We had a restaurant carry bill on-track to go through that would not allow carry in bars. The age limits and hour limits were removed and it became guns in bars.

If you support guns in bars; say so. But don’t whine about the media calling it “Guns in bars†that’s exactly what it is.

[ngoeser59]

YouTube - Murder witness turns gun advocate

[ngoeser59]

[Mark A]

What a great advocate you've become. I hate that your life took that turn though.

Mark

[Guest Caveman]

Yes it is. And that will be the down fall of it. Just because you don’t have a legal name for bars in this state; they still exist.

We did this. The anti gun people had nothing to do with it. We had a restaurant carry bill on-track to go through that would not allow carry in bars. The age limits and hour limits were removed and it became guns in bars.

If you support guns in bars; say so. But don’t whine about the media calling it “Guns in bars†that’s exactly what it is.

This entire statement is ridiculous.

[DaveTN]

This entire statement is ridiculous.

Ahh… it obviously not simple enough for a caveman to understand it. But thanks for the constructive discussion.

[Guest Caveman]

Ahh… it obviously not simple enough for a caveman to understand it. But thanks for the constructive discussion.

You are welcome.....and way to be original on the "caveman" joke, never heard that one before.

[Worriedman]

The anti gun people had nothing to do with it. We had a restaurant carry bill on-track to go through that would not allow carry in bars. The age limits and hour limits were removed and it became guns in bars.

If you support guns in bars; say so. But don’t whine about the media calling it “Guns in bars†that’s exactly what it is.

It was not a "bar" owner that filed the suit in Chancery Court against the legally, Legislative Chapter passed by our Legislature. It was a Restaurant Owner.

Age limit arguments are specious, they apply only to smoking in TN, have nothing to do with alcohol. If there is a time limit that needs to be set to restrict firearms carry, wonder if the same should not apply to automobile operation, don't hear them wanting to figure out how to decide if their visitors have had too much to drink, just how to decide if they are carrying while within their walls. They rely on a law to keep guns out now, why not trust one to allow legal carry? If a law works now, it should work with a new set of rules.

The ABC and the "Hospitality" lobby want to stay away from the insurance up-charge if their establishments are legally termed "bars", as well as the hardship regarding the local Southern Baptist if they have to list an establishment as a bar vs. a restaurant.

If these establishments are so gung-ho for safety, let them put a breathalyzer at every exit and forcibly check their patrons as they leave and fire their cars up. While they are at it, check 'em on the way in, if the blow over the limit, refuse service. (Ever see that happen on Broadway?)

Lets make the ABC require beer be factored into the "food audits", bet you will not see that change suggested. As it is, it is not considered an alcoholic bevearge for book keeping reasons. Try to sell that the THP at a DUI checkpoint, but it works for the ABC and their handlers.

[DaveTN]

It was not a "bar" owner that filed the suit in Chancery Court against the legally, Legislative Chapter passed by our Legislature. It was a Restaurant Owner.

It was not a big deal until the “Drunks with Guns†decided that not only did they have a right to carry in a bar; they had a right to have a “drink or two†while they were doing it.

Age limit arguments are specious,

As so is the argument that Tennessee doesn’t have bars. I know a bar when I am standing in it and I will be happy to show you bars in Murfreesboro and even buy you a beer while we discuss it.

don't hear them wanting to figure out how to decide if their visitors have had too much to drink, just how to decide if they are carrying while within their walls.

Drinking and driving is a crime; they don’t have to assume that everyone that is drinking is driving. And Metro and many others cities have all kind of methods for busting drunk drivers. Metro has the DUI task force in the downtown area and road blocks outside that area.

The ABC and the "Hospitality" lobby want to stay away from the insurance up-charge if their establishments are legally termed "bars", as well as the hardship regarding the local Southern Baptist if they have to list an establishment as a bar vs. a restaurant.

Good for them. A bar is still a bar.

If these establishments are so gung-ho for safety, let them put a breathalyzer at every exit and forcibly check their patrons as they leave and fire their cars up. While they are at it, check 'em on the way in, if the blow over the limit, refuse service. (Ever see that happen on Broadway?)

It’s not about safety; it’s about liability. If you want the state to force a business owner to expose himself to a civil suit then you get the state to exempt them first. But of course that won’t happen because most lawmakers are lawyers and they won’t do anything to limit a payday.

I am not against HCP holders being able to carry in bars as long as they can’t drink. If they drink; they lose their HCP. I also will not support any law that takes away the business owners authority to post unless the law also gives him total immunity from civil action of any kind based on the acts of a HCP holder.

[Guest rockytop]

Dave, where would a person need to go to obtain a Tennessee business license to operate a "BAR"? If they are legal, surely Tennessee would want to tax them.

[DaveTN]

Dave, where would a person need to go to obtain a Tennessee business license to operate a "BAR"? If they are legal, surely Tennessee would want to tax them.

I’m not a business owner, I don’t know. But the next time I find myself standing in a bar; I will ask.

Are you telling me you don’t know the difference in a bar and a restaurant when you are in them?

I can assure you that I don’t know the legal difference. But I can also assure you that I can take you to a bar for a beer in Murfreesboro and you will agree with me that we are in a bar and not a restaurant.

[JAB]

It was not a big deal until the “Drunks with Guns” decided that not only did they have a right to carry in a bar; they had a right to have a “drink or two” while they were doing it.

I must have missed hearing of those incidents last year. I would have thought all the local papers would have put it in the headlines if such things really happened while carry in establishments was legal. I'd like to read more - got a link?

As so is the argument that Tennessee doesn’t have bars. I know a bar when I am standing in it and I will be happy to show you bars in Murfreesboro and even buy you a beer while we discuss it..

Since the law makes it clear that such establishments do not [legally] exist how can there be any vagueness to last year's law from a legal standpoint? If such an establishment doesn't [legally] exist then how can there be any [legal] question as to whether or not an HCP holder can enter? It's like passing a law making it illegal to drink with a leprechaun then saying that the law is vague because the average person can't tell a leprechaun from a pixie.

If the law is being followed then such establishments shouldn't exist. If the authorities are ignoring the law then that needs to be addressed. Saying that a carry law is legally vague because the authorities aren't doing their jobs and the state isn't adhering to the law is ridiculous.

Edited May 3, 2010 by JAB

[DaveTN]

I must have missed hearing of those incidents last year. I would have thought all the local papers would have put it in the headlines if such things really happened while carry in establishments was legal. I'd like to read more - got a link? .

I wasn’t saying that it happened. I was talking about those arguing that they had a right to stop for a couple after work and that if they weren’t at .08 (legal presumption of intoxication) everything was good. I guess they think .07 is okay.

You would have to search for the threads from that time period and read them.

Since the law makes it clear that such establishments do not [legally] exist how can there be any vagueness to last year's law from a legal standpoint? If such an establishment doesn't [legally] exist then how can there be any [legal] question as to whether or not an HCP holder can enter? It's like passing a law making it illegal to drink with a leprechaun then saying that the law is vague because the average person can't tell a leprechaun from a pixie.

If the law is being followed then such establishments shouldn't exist. If the authorities are ignoring the law then that needs to be addressed. Saying that a carry law is legally vague because the authorities aren't doing their jobs and the state isn't adhering to the law is ridiculous.

If you could take your kids in for a family dinner ….. You just might be in a restaurant.

If you try to take your kids in for a family dinner and you are stopped at the door because it is an age restricted venue… You just might be in a bar.

[Guest rockytop]

I must have missed hearing of those incidents last year. I would have thought all the local papers would have put it in the headlines if such things really happened while carry in establishments was legal. I'd like to read more - got a link?

Since the law makes it clear that such establishments do not [legally] exist how can there be any vagueness to last year's law from a legal standpoint? If such an establishment doesn't [legally] exist then how can there be any [legal] question as to whether or not an HCP holder can enter? It's like passing a law making it illegal to drink with a leprechaun then saying that the law is vague because the average person can't tell a leprechaun from a pixie.

If the law is being followed then such establishments shouldn't exist. If the authorities are ignoring the law then that needs to be addressed. Saying that a carry law is legally vague because the authorities aren't doing their jobs and the state isn't adhering to the law is ridiculous.

Thanks JAB, You make the point so much better than I did. Even a Non-Caveman can understand it.

[Guest Patty]

Makes not a difference to me. I already know I do not belong in a bar. With or without a gun. And thats my choice.

[eapking]

You know, I used to think Memphis was the only place that could screw up something so badly. Now I see the rest of the state is just as capable.

[Worriedman]

It was not a big deal until the “Drunks with Guns” decided that not only did they have a right to carry in a bar; they had a right to have a “drink or two” while they were doing it

I wasn’t saying that it happened. I was talking about those arguing that they had a right to stop for a couple after work and that if they weren’t at .08 (legal presumption of intoxication) everything was good. I guess they think .07 is okay.

Some fool wants the ability to carry and drink and you convict the rest of us with that broad brush? Did you see that anywhere in the proposed Bills? No you did not, and you will not here in TN.

You can use that to beat the few who are not realistic, but not the rest of us who simply want the choice to carry and NOT drink, that is what the law was about last year, and this year.

Age limit arguments are specious,

As so is the argument that Tennessee doesn’t have bars. I know a bar when I am standing in it and I will be happy to show you bars in Murfreesboro and even buy you a beer while we discuss it.

I would take you up on that. I have lived here all my life, spent a lot of time down on the MS River in some dives down there, and the ones that still exist, have guns all up in them, law or not. But whether they are called bars or churches, they are listed as Restaurants in TN. Change the law involving nomenclature, see how that works with the powers that be that own beer distributorships, you will cut into their profit by raising insurance rates due to the name change, and that is not going to happen. Too many higher ups in State power own establishments that either sell for consumption or distribute to them for any of that to happen.

Drinking and driving is a crime; they don’t have to assume that everyone that is drinking is driving.

Is public intoxication not a crime as well?

Have not seen many bicycle racks or horse hitching post outside most establishments that serve alcohol, so I would figure, as the owners of said establishments must too, that the average patron is arriving and leaving by automobile. And, given you statement about "everyone', then lets assume one out of three is driving at the end of the stay at the trough. My Federal tax dollars get used to produce and play all those "Buzzed driving is drunk driving" adds. They get us coming and going.

Metro has the DUI task force in the downtown area and road blocks outside that area.

Why don't they set up at the exits of the "bars" you speak so knowingly about? Seems like it would be good for business and good for liability and safety.

[GKar]

According to the esteemed Rep. Shaw, a bar is any place where you can buy a drink. And that's a direct quote, on video if you care to watch it...straight from the horse's...mouth.

[Guest Caveman]

Makes not a difference to me. I already know I do not belong in a bar. With or without a gun. And thats my choice.

So you never go to O'Charlies, TGI Fridays, Paleos, Ruby Tuesdays, Olive Garden, Red Lobster, Chilis, Applebees, Calhouns, Texas Roadhouse, Wasabi, Tomo, Nama, Melting Pot, Butcher Shop, Altrudas, Outback, P.F.Changs, El Chicos, Carrabas, Aubreys, or any other restaurant that serves alcohol? Becuase that is what we are talking about here, so I'm not sure what, "I don't belong in a bar" means. Does this mean if you are going to eat somewhere and they serve alcohol you "don't belong" in it. Just trying to clarify.

Edited May 4, 2010 by Caveman

[Guest Patty]

So you never go to O'Charlies, TGI Fridays, Paleos, Ruby Tuesdays, Olive Garden, Red Lobster, Chilis, Applebees, Calhouns, Texas Roadhouse, Wasabi, Tomo, Nama, Melting Pot, Butcher Shop, Altrudas, Outback, P.F.Changs, El Chicos, Carrabas, Aubreys, or any other restaurant that serves alcohol? Becuase that is what we are talking about here, so I'm not sure what, "I don't belong in a bar" means. Does this mean if you are going to eat somewhere and the they serve alcohol you "don't belong" in it. Just trying to clarify.

Well, maybe you don't know what a bar is. Being a "Caveman", lol. I figured you would of. Those places you mentioned, most of them I have never heard or seen . I don't think you would find me in them either. But thats my choice.

[Guest Caveman]

Well, maybe you don't know what a bar is. Being a "Caveman", lol. I figured you would of. Those places you mentioned, most of them I have never heard or seen . I don't think you would find me in them either. But thats my choice.

Wow, you haven't been paying any attention to this thread huh? Go back to sleep.

[Guest canynracer]

So you never go to O'Charlies, TGI Fridays, Paleos, Ruby Tuesdays, Olive Garden, Red Lobster, Chilis, Applebees, Calhouns, Texas Roadhouse, Wasabi, Tomo, Nama, Melting Pot, Butcher Shop, Altrudas, Outback, P.F.Changs, El Chicos, Carrabas, Aubreys, or any other restaurant that serves alcohol? Becuase that is what we are talking about here, so I'm not sure what, "I don't belong in a bar" means. Does this mean if you are going to eat somewhere and the they serve alcohol you "don't belong" in it. Just trying to clarify.

TJ Mulligans, Hadleys PUB, Stella Maris (or whatever its called), Coyote Ugly, 100% of the places on Beale...yeah, they arent bars....not at all....LMAO