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

[Erik88]

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

[Guest Caveman]

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

You apparently didn't understand my question. I was asking Patty if he did or did not go to theses restaurants because they serve alcohol since some people seem to think these places are "bars" and that is a point being discussed in this thread. I guess I should type slower for you guys huh?

[Chucktshoes]

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

According to the TN ABC they aren't. Just saying...

[Guest canynracer]

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.

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.

You apparently didn't understand my question. I was asking Patty if he did or did not go to theses restaurants because they serve alcohol since some people seem to think these places are "bars" and that is a point being discussed in this thread. I guess I should type slower for you guys huh?

The point being discussed is Daves point, about what constitutes a bar, and the lack of verbiage around it...you went on ramble about those restaurants just because they serve alcohol...which is not the point...there are obvious bars, as Dave pointed out...and all I did was support that statement...maybe you SHOULD type slower for us, so we can gain a clear understanding of your "Logic".

There are Bars....and there are restaurants...plain and simple...

[Guest canynracer]

According to the TN ABC they aren't. Just saying...

thats they point...ABC NEEDS to identify clearly what is a BAR....

[Guest Caveman]

I'm done.

[Guest redbarron06]

thats they point...ABC NEEDS to identify clearly what is a BAR....

it is not up to ABC, it is up to the law.

OK, so if the state goes into Coyote Ugly, does an audit and determines that they are making more than 50% of income on alcohol then they pull the permits to serve. The buisness is in violation of the law. End of story. TN law does not allow for any buisness to make more than 50% of income on the consumption of alcohol and retain a state alcohol or or wine serving permit. Unless you are in Joes corner joint, serving beer off of a county permit then the establishment you are in is a resturaunt or other buisness according to state law.

I if you want to have a legal definition of a "BAR" in Tennessee then come up with one and get the state to pass it into law.

[Erik88]

are you all forgetting the fact that these "bars" can opt out of the new law by posting a proper sign? I'm not even sure what is being argued anymore but I thought that should be mentioned.

I am personally very grateful for this new law. I work in a Restaurant where we were robbed at gunpoint!!! This is a huge sense of relief for me.

[Guest canynracer]

it is not up to ABC, it is up to the law.

OK, so if the state goes into Coyote Ugly, does an audit and determines that they are making more than 50% of income on alcohol then they pull the permits to serve. The buisness is in violation of the law. End of story. TN law does not allow for any buisness to make more than 50% of income on the consumption of alcohol and retain a state alcohol or or wine serving permit. Unless you are in Joes corner joint, serving beer off of a county permit then the establishment you are in is a resturaunt or other buisness according to state law.

I if you want to have a legal definition of a "BAR" in Tennessee then come up with one and get the state to pass it into law.

(27) (A) “Restaurant†means any public place kept, used, maintained, advertised and held out to the public as a place where meals are served and where meals are actually and regularly served, without sleeping accommodations, such place being provided with adequate and sanitary kitchen and dining room equipment and seating capacity of at least seventy-five (75) people at tables, having employed therein a sufficient number and kind of employees to prepare, cook and serve suitable food for its guests. An establishment shall be eligible for licensure as a restaurant in accordance with this part, if the establishment is open at least three (3) days a week, with the exception of holidays, vacations and periods of redecorating, and if the serving of meals is the principal business conducted each day the restaurant is open...

where does the 50% come in? (I am learning here, so be gentle)

[Guest canynracer]

are you all forgetting the fact that these "bars" can opt out of the new law by posting a proper sign? I'm not even sure what is being argued anymore but I thought that should be mentioned.

I am personally very grateful for this new law. I work in a Restaurant where we were robbed at gunpoint!!! This is a huge sense of relief for me.

nope...not forgetting that at all...so does your employer allow you to carry?

[Guest redbarron06]

(27) (A) “Restaurant†means any public place kept, used, maintained, advertised and held out to the public as a place where meals are served and where meals are actually and regularly served, without sleeping accommodations, such place being provided with adequate and sanitary kitchen and dining room equipment and seating capacity of at least seventy-five (75) people at tables, having employed therein a sufficient number and kind of employees to prepare, cook and serve suitable food for its guests. An establishment shall be eligible for licensure as a restaurant in accordance with this part, if the establishment is open at least three (3) days a week, with the exception of holidays, vacations and periods of redecorating, and if the serving of meals is the principal business conducted each day the restaurant is open...

where does the 50% come in? (I am learning here, so be gentle)

TCA 57-4-102 (27) A

<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD rowSpan=5></TD><TD height=12 colSpan=3></TD><TD rowSpan=5></TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=3></TD></TR><TR><TD></TD><TD> (27) (A) “Restaurant†means any public place kept, used, maintained, advertised and held out to the public as a place where meals are served and where meals are actually and regularly served, without sleeping accommodations, such place being provided with adequate and sanitary kitchen and dining room equipment and seating capacity of at least seventy-five (75) people at tables, having employed therein a sufficient number and kind of employees to prepare, cook and serve suitable food for its guests. An establishment shall be eligible for licensure as a restaurant in accordance with this part, if the establishment is open at least three (3) days a week, with the exception of holidays, vacations and periods of redecorating, and if the serving of meals is the principal business conducted each day the restaurant is open;

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Now this does not talk about places like Opryland Hotel, Gnereal Jackson river boat or places other than restaurants. According to TCA 57-4-101 there is no provision to license a "BAR" to serve alcohol or wine.

[Erik88]

nope...not forgetting that at all...so does your employer allow you to carry?

yes. my manager says he feels safer knowing I carry.

[Guest canynracer]

Thats AWESOME!!! congrats!

[Guest redbarron06]

yes. my manager says he feels safer knowing I carry.

Good for you and your manager. You should take him shooting in celebration.

[Worriedman]

where does the 50% come in? (I am learning here, so be gentle)

TCA 39-17-1305 © (3) (

( As used in this subdivision ©(3), “restaurant†means any public place kept, used, maintained, advertised and held out to the public as a place where meals are served and where meals are actually and regularly served, such place being provided with adequate and sanitary kitchen and dining room equipment, having employed in the restaurant a sufficient number and kind of employees to prepare, cook and serve suitable food for its guests. At least one (1) meal per day shall be served at least five (5) days a week, with the exception of holidays, vacations and periods of redecorating, and the serving of such meals shall be the principal business conducted.

For it to be a "Restaurant" it must derive 50+% of it's gross income from serving meals.

Don't forget, the ABC has lobbied to make sure they stack the deck in favor of the liqueur lobby, food audits do not count any beverage with a alcohol by weight of less than 5% as an "alcoholic beverage". That is all your beer in TN.

[eapking]

yes. my manager says he feels safer knowing I carry.

LUCKY! - N. Dynamite

[Guest Patty]

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

Back when I first started going to "Bars", 1965 era, and also carrying handguns. A bar was a place to drink, gamble, and find work. A restaurant was a place to have a meal. Some bars did serve food, my cousin served food at his. Taverns were just alittle bit different then too. I used to go bar hopping, sometimes it would take several days to complete the hop.

Todays restaurants have a bar table set up inside. But thats not a bar, but it is called that my some of the folks that have never been to a "Bar" before. It is what it is, you can get drunk at both places.

What ever the good folks up on the hill decide, thats the law that will be enforced.

Been more people killed by drunk drivers than by drunk gunslingers. There has also been alot of fights in "Bars", and out in the parking lot. Caution is a wise choice, I have learned that lesson many times. Yawn, lol

[Guest David865]

I think we as hcp holders should be allowed to carry into places such as red lobster that serve drinks. I worked in a nightclub for a couple of years as a doorman (carding people and taking cover charge) and the grill closed at a certain time then it became a dance club and bar. I rarely seen people stroll out of there at 1 or 2 in the morning that have not been drinking. I don't believe people should be allowed to carry in a place like this unless they are a leo. I think people armed should use better judgement and avoid places like a bar.

[Guest redbarron06]

I think we as hcp holders should be allowed to carry into places such as red lobster that serve drinks. I worked in a nightclub for a couple of years as a doorman (carding people and taking cover charge) and the grill closed at a certain time then it became a dance club and bar. I rarely seen people stroll out of there at 1 or 2 in the morning that have not been drinking. I don't believe people should be allowed to carry in a place like this unless they are a leo. I think people armed should use better judgement and avoid places like a bar.

So why are LEOs any different? Remimber the nutcase in Antioch that was a cop? What about the guy that goes out with his buddies as the DD? Why are LEOs so special that we have to make unconstitutional laws to provide them with special privileges the rest of us don't get?

[DaveTN]

So why are LEOs any different? Remimber the nutcase in Antioch that was a cop? What about the guy that goes out with his buddies as the DD? Why are LEOs so special that we have to make unconstitutional laws to provide them with special privileges the rest of us don't get?

The rest of us?

According to the state of Tennessee you do not have a right to bear arms; so no rights are involved. We are both special groups with special privileges. Are you really going to make the argument that one special group shouldn’t have more privileges than the other special group?

The average citizen has the right to complain; special groups have none.

</O:p

[Worriedman]

The rest of us?

According to the state of Tennessee you do not have a right to bear arms; so no rights are involved. </O:p

Therein lies the difference in your perception, and the facts as presented in the Constitution.

Article 1 Section 26 of the Declaration of Rights of the Tennessee Constitution says:

“That the citizens of this state have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.”

What part of that Section do you have trouble grasping? The Legislature can regulate the wearing of arms, IF and only IF they can empirically prove that it reduces crime by that regulation. We have Attorney General opinions that substantiate this:

“The Tennessee Supreme Court has recognized that the General Assembly has the authority, under this section of the Constitution, to enact legislation to regulate the wearing and carrying of arms in public. Any such enactment, however, “must be guided by, and restrained to this end, and bear some well defined relation to the prevention of crime, or else it is unauthorized by this clause of the Constitution.” Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. 165, 181 (1871).”

A general understanding of the English language would allow for reading the flow of the pertinent Section verbiage, such that it is clear.

Do our Legislators take on more power than the Constitution gives them? Absolutely! But it is simply our fault if we allow such theft of Liberty to stand.

A public that abdicates their Rights by accepting some politician's version of what they (politicians) want the Constitution to say, deserves the loss of those Freedoms.

I personally will continue to hound my Legislators re what I consider to be my Rights relative to the issue of firearms.

TCA Code Section 39-17-1307 on it's face, is Unconstitutional via Tennessee's Constitution and the Federal Bill of Rights. There is no proof that the average law abiding Citizen being unarmed will reduce crime, and per Article 1 Section 29 that must be proved for 39-17-1307 to be valid, or legal.

Edited May 6, 2010 by Worriedman

[Guest redbarron06]

The rest of us?

According to the state of Tennessee you do not have a right to bear arms; so no rights are involved. We are both special groups with special privileges. Are you really going to make the argument that one special group shouldn’t have more privileges than the other special group?

The average citizen has the right to complain; special groups have none.

</O:p

You are also overlooking the fact that the feds have passed a law that sais LEO can carry in every state, even though it has jack squat to do with interstate commerce. That is a special privledge for a special class of citizen that none of the rest of us get.

[DaveTN]

You are also overlooking the fact that the feds have passed a law that sais LEO can carry in every state,

I’m not overlooking anything; I agreed with you. They (Police Officers) are a special group; we (HCP Holders) are a special group. We both have special firearm privileges the average citizen does not have. The average Tennessee resident is the one that has a real complaint; if they get caught carrying a loaded gun they go to jail. That happens because neither the United States Constitution nor the Tennessee State Constitution gives them a right to carry.

even though it has jack squat to do with interstate commerce.

I haven’t seen anyone imply that LEOSA has anything to do with interstate commerce. We live under Federal law. That includes interstate commerce; it is not because of it.

That is a special privledge for a special class of citizen that none of the rest of us get.

It certainly is. They also get to drive over the speed limit, disobey traffic control signals, and they can buy new guns much cheaper than most of us.

[Guest Patty]

I’m not overlooking anything; I agreed with you. They (Police Officers) are a special group; we (HCP Holders) are a special group. We both have special firearm privileges the average citizen does not have. The average Tennessee resident is the one that has a real complaint; if they get caught carrying a loaded gun they go to jail. That happens because neither the United States Constitution nor the Tennessee State Constitution gives them a right to carry.

I haven’t seen anyone imply that LEOSA has anything to do with interstate commerce. We live under Federal law. That includes interstate commerce; it is not because of it.

It certainly is. They also get to drive over the speed limit, disobey traffic control signals, and they can buy new guns much cheaper than most of us.

The Second

Amendment is for everyone, the permit is just a tax.

Edited May 8, 2010 by Patty

[Guest redbarron06]

I haven’t seen anyone imply that LEOSA has anything to do with interstate commerce. We live under Federal law. That includes interstate commerce; it is not because of it.

My point is that Congress had to right to pass LEOSA under the constitution. As with many other laws like the national school gun free zone, they used the "interstate commerce" clause to pass it when it has nothing to do with interstate commerce.