Nashville - Las Palmas posted?

[Guest Ae-35]

Anyone know if the Las Palmas in Nashville are posted?

[Smith]

None that I have been too. That includes Rivergate, Antioch Pike, and the Franklin Rd store.

[mikegideon]

Anyone know if the Las Palmas in Nashville are posted?

They serve alcohol. Am I missing something?

[partypilot1]

Just because they serve alcohol doesn't mean you can't carry there. You just can't go inside. It's nice weather around this time of year, get seated outside and carry to your hearts content, but please do us a favor and conceal it, we don't need bad press and more restrictions.

[mikegideon]

Just because they serve alcohol doesn't mean you can't carry there. You just can't go inside. It's nice weather around this time of year, get seated outside and carry to your hearts content, but please do us a favor and conceal it, we don't need bad press and more restrictions.

I wasn't aware of that.

[KahrMan]

Just because they serve alcohol doesn't mean you can't carry there. You just can't go inside. It's nice weather around this time of year, get seated outside and carry to your hearts content, but please do us a favor and conceal it, we don't need bad press and more restrictions.

I know 39-17-1305 says "It is an offense for a person to possess a firearm within the confines of a building 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 on premises consumption.

But does that really mean that you could eat at a table on a restaurants(that served alcohol) patio and still carry legally? That does not seem correct to me. If it is correct, it seems like a pretty big loophole. Anybody else have an opinion?

[Fallguy]

I know 39-17-1305 says "It is an offense for a person to possess a firearm within the confines of a building 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 on premises consumption.

But does that really mean that you could eat at a table on a restaurants(that served alcohol) patio and still carry legally? That does not seem correct to me. If it is correct, it seems like a pretty big loophole. Anybody else have an opinion?

As long as you didn't have to go through the inside to get to the outside, Yes.

However most places I know you would have to go through the inside to get to the outside...so (as of today) you would be in violation during that time.

This has been discussed before and as far as I can remember, no knew of any case law on it (patios, decks, etc...) though.

But otherwise within the confines of the building means just that, at least IMO. A parking lot during bike night is not within the confines of the building.

Of course hopefully in the coming days this will be moot....well except as the new 39-17-1321 would apply though.

Edited May 24, 2010 by Fallguy

[Guest sck]

Just because they serve alcohol doesn't mean you can't carry there. You just can't go inside. It's nice weather around this time of year, get seated outside and carry to your hearts content, but please do us a favor and conceal it, we don't need bad press and more restrictions.

If the tables outside are on their property, it is still within the confines of the premises. I wouldn't think inside or outside would make any difference.

[Oh Shoot]

If the tables outside are on their property, it is still within the confines of the premises. I wouldn't think inside or outside would make any difference.

Another mission for Kwik!

(if he gets HCP back).

- OS

[macville]

If the tables outside are on their property, it is still within the confines of the premises. I wouldn't think inside or outside would make any difference.

But the law doesn't say "premises", it says building. Last time I checked, outside was not inside a building. Yeah, it's word play, but I would guess a lawyer could have a field day with it (or at least should if you get a judge that has common sense and actually understands english instead of just pushing their agenda.)

Matthew

[Fallguy]

If the tables outside are on their property, it is still within the confines of the premises. I wouldn't think inside or outside would make any difference.

Premises and building are not the same thing.

[Guest sck]

But the law doesn't say "premises", it says building. Last time I checked, outside was not inside a building. Yeah, it's word play, but I would guess a lawyer could have a field day with it (or at least should if you get a judge that has common sense and actually understands english instead of just pushing their agenda.)

Matthew

I would think that is irrelevent, "premises" or "buiding." I agree it is word play. The confines of the building can be defined as the border of the building or the entire property. Depends on who has a more convincing definition...or whatever the judge "thinks" it is. Unless there is a concise definition in our laws there will always be some confusion. The ambiguity is probably deliberate. I'm all for carrying anywhere and everywhere, but if the property owner doesn't want his patrons carrying then why bother looking for loopholes?

[TNRobocop]

The patio is still under the property owners discretion and if the signage is posted, I wouldn't try it.

It could be considered the building if it is attached/touching the building such as an extension.

I wouldn't arrest for it, but not saying other officers wouldn't.

[Guest Jamie]

If "premises" and "building" meant the same thing, then you'd be screwed for even driving into their parking lot while carrying, even if you left the gun in the car when you went in.

For that matter, just walking up close enough to read the "no guns" sign on the door would get you into trouble... and I really can't see a law like that surviving for long, especially after what happened with the first try at the law last year.

J.

[Guest sck]

Premises and building are not the same thing.

Its not the same thing but when we look at 39-17-1305©(3)(, we no longer use confines of the "building." We are now talking about who is allowed to carry and it defines the entire restaurant. © is a subsection of (a) which states unlawful to ...confines of building. (3)describes person authorized to carry and not drinking. ( defines "restaurant" as pretty much every part of the premises including deck or outside (where food is served). So, I would think it's safe to say when describing the confines of the building, for our purpose, it does seem to include the outside.

( 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.

-Steve

[Guest Jamie]

So, I would think it's safe to say when describing the confines of the building, for our purpose, it does seem to include the outside.

Nope. The "confines of a building" is quite specific, just as "on the premises" or "on the property" are. You really can't get much more so without drawing a picture.

If you try to use the two interchangeably, you run into all sorts of problems with any outdoor venue where beer might be sold, but non-customers still wander by. And that's not just regarding firearms.

J.

[JAB]

I know that in downtown Knoxville (specifically on Market Square) there are a couple of restaurants that put up these 'barricade' fence-type things just outside their building, enclosing a few tables they had sitting outside. One such establishment was Tomato Head and another was the brewery on Gay Street. I am not 100% certain, but my understanding is that, without the barricade/fence thing they couldn't serve alcohol (as they would basically be serving beer, etc. in an open, public area - i.e. the sidewalk in the case of the brewery) but the barricade made that area function as a 'patio' and, somehow, legally viewed as attached to or part of the building, not a public area, making it legal to serve alcohol there. That makes it seem, to me, that turning an area into a 'patio' - even by something so simply as defining a square section of sidewalk with a barricade/fence - makes it 'part of' the building for the purposes of legally serving alcohol. In other words, it seems to me as if that extends the 'confines' of the building out to include whatever is inside the area marked off as a 'patio'. Of course, IANAL.

For the purposes of self defense and the presumption that we have fear of death or serious bodily injury, TN state law extends the definition of our residence to include attached porches and even the curtilage immediately around the residence. It says that the same presumption applies both to the interior and exterior areas of a business (building.) With that definition in another law on the books, my non-lawyer gut feeling is that I wouldn't want to try to rely on the hairs of the law pertaining to restaurant carry being split in my favor.

Edited May 25, 2010 by JAB

[Guest sck]

Nope. The "confines of a building" is quite specific, just as "on the premises" or "on the property" are. You really can't get much more so without drawing a picture.

If you try to use the two interchangeably, you run into all sorts of problems with any outdoor venue where beer might be sold, but non-customers still wander by. And that's not just regarding firearms.

J.

?????

[Guest Jamie]

For the purposes of self defense and the presumption that we have fear of death or serious bodily injury, TN state law extends the definition of our residence to include attached porches and even the curtilage immediately around the residence. It says that the same presumption applies both to the interior and exterior areas of a business (building.)

If you think about that for a second, you'll notice they very carefully defined what they were adding, other than just the structure of your house.

A restaurant may very well be defined as anyplace on the property that food is cooked, served, or eaten. However, inside a building is just that... and the law doesn't just leave it at "no carrying within the confines of a restaurant".

The fences you mention may very well be a technical loophole that allows liquor to be sold, due to them defining the boundaries of a restaurant, but I don't believe it would ever stand up as qualifying as being within a building.

J.

[Guest Jamie]

?????

Yes? Did you suddenly lose the ability to read, or was there something specific you're questioning?

J.

[Daniel]

Jaime is my favorite Huckleberry

[Guest sck]

Yes? Did you suddenly lose the ability to read, or was there something specific you're questioning?

J.

delete

Edited May 25, 2010 by sck

[Guest Jamie]

Actually, I did lose my ability to read your nonsense and it's obvious you've lost your ability to comprehend. I don't understand your argument, including your last post. "????" should have implied "I don't understand your argument," or did you not comprehend that either. But if you insist on going further, be my guest.

Well, let me put it this way... I've had a little experience with executing search warrants... and if a warrant says you can search a whole property, then anything and everything within the boundaries of a certain area are fair game. Houses, sheds... you name it. On the other hand, if a specific structure is named... say either a garage apartment or the main residence... then that had best be all you touch. You don't go poking around the other, or any area that isn't specifically mentioned.

However, you seem to be trying to make the argument that since the law includes a definition for what a restaurant is, that it's also using that same definition for where a gun can or cannot be carried... Even though it also specifically defines a particular area not related to what a restaurant is or isn't: Within the confines of any building.

Is that any more clear?

J.

[Guest Jamie]

Jaime is my favorite Huckleberry

Now I'm wondering if that's a good thing or a bad thing...

J.

[Guest sck]

Well, let me put it this way... I've had a little experience with executing search warrants... and if a warrant says you can search a whole property, then anything and everything within the boundaries of a certain area are fair game. Houses, sheds... you name it. On the other hand, if a specific structure is named... say either a garage apartment or the main residence... then that had best be all you touch. You don't go poking around the other, or any area that isn't specifically mentioned.

However, you seem to be trying to make the argument that since the law includes a definition for what a restaurant is, that it's also using that same definition for where a gun can or cannot be carried... Even though it also specifically defines a particular area not related to what a restaurant is or isn't: Within the confines of any building.

Is that any more clear?

J.

Dude...I'm done. Read my posts. Keep reading it over and over. When your done, understand I am taking my own advice directly below...and if you still don't understand, I don't know what to tell ya. Good night.