Nashville - Las Palmas posted?

[Guest Jamie]

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.

So you were arguing?

Huh. If I'd known that, I wouldn't have wasted my time with you.

( I mistook it for a conversation/discussion. )

Good night. Dude.

J.

[Fallguy]

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

All that was ruled unconstitutional.

All the AG opinions I have read say if a term is not defined in the statute, you use the plain language meaning. To me a building is a structure.

Now I am not saying patio's and deck's are legal....I agree that those are "iffy" my point is though that open areas like a parking lot, a field, etc... wouldn't be considered "within the confines of a building"

[Guest Jamie]

Now I am not saying patio's and deck's are legal....I agree that those are "iffy" my point is though that open areas like a parking lot, a field, etc... wouldn't be considered "within the confines of a building"

I would say they're a straight-up "No no" if you have to go through a posted building to get to 'em, since there's no way to get there or leave without breaking the law.

If there's a gate or other access to that area that isn't posted thought... they should be fair game.

( I can only imagine how much havoc Raburn would cause if he could have people arrested for standing at his front door while carrying a gun. )

BTW, until now, I would have thought that the term "within the confines of a building" was so glaringly obvious as to not need further defining, by any legal standard.

J.

Edited May 25, 2010 by Jamie

[JAB]

I would say they're a straight-up "No no" if you have to go through a posted building to get to 'em, since there's no way to get there or leave without breaking the law.

If there's a gate or other access to that area that isn't posted thought... they should be fair game.

( I can only imagine how much havoc Raburn would cause if he could have people arrested for standing at his front door while carrying a gun. )

BTW, until now, I would have thought that the term "within the confines of a building" was so glaringly obvious as to not need further defining, by any legal standard.

J.

But aren't attached, enclosed patios just that - attached to the main structure and built as part of a building? Therefore, aren't attached patios part of a building? My thought would be that an attached patio - as it is a defined, confined area that is part of (attached to) the main structure - would be included in the 'confines' of a building. I don't see how being a little more open, architecturally, makes that much difference.

Of course, there are also different kinds of patios at different restaurants. Some (especially some I have seen at some Mexican restaurants) have actual, 'brick and mortar' walls which more or less extend the walls of the main structure but are open to the sky. Sometimes these are half walls, sometimes they are head high and sometimes they are lower in the front than at the rear, where they attach to the main structure. To me, such structures are very much within the confines of the building. While I would consider those structures to be very much 'within the confines' of the building when deciding whether or not to carry there, I do agree with you that simply carrying through the restaurant in order to get to the patio would seem like enough to be in violation of the law so it is probably a moot point in such instances.

The really confusing areas, then, might be at restaurants where there are 'Tiki Huts' or some other type of freestanding structure in addition to or instead of an attached patio. These would be 'on the premises' but certainly not part of the confines of the main structure and one does not have to pass through the main structure [restaurant] in order to gain access to them. Of course, such freestanding 'gazebo' type structures seem to tend to have their own bar so I don't know how or if that changes things.

Hopefully by this time next week it won't really matter. Hopefully, by then, posted will be posted and everywhere else will be fair game.

Edited May 25, 2010 by JAB

[Guest stovepipe]

Ahhhhh! Lord help us!

[Guest Jamie]

Ahhhhh! Lord help us!

Yeah...

J.

[Guest Glock23ForMe]

I love it when someone gets Jamie riled up....

[Guest Jamie]

I love it when someone gets Jamie riled up....

You must be disappointed then, 'cause I'm a long way from being riled up.

...More than a little confused at some folk's lack of understanding of plain english, but a long way from being irritated about it... so far.

Then again, maybe that's what's throwing people off; it's not written in "lawyerese" or some arcane, dead language, that's not spoken by anyone anymore, only used by a select few...

After all, sometimes a cigar really is just a cigar.

J.

[Guest Ae-35]

Ah......... OK, ...... Under the "old law" the one that was struck down, does anyone know if the Las Palms restaurant chain was posted? Coming down the last of June for my annual " tune-up"... ( mercy I hate the heart cath. ). My wife loves the chow at Las Palmas. Figured if they posted under the old law and the veto does get overridden, they'll re-post. Got to find a place to stay, any suggestions, can't be over 30 to 45 min. drive from the VA./Vandy. Oh... NOT the Guest House Inn !!!!! I spent 9 weeks there in 98. I hate that place!!!!!! Thanks

[Smith]

You must be disappointed then, 'cause I'm a long way from being riled up.

...More than a little confused at some folk's lack of understanding of plain english, but a long way from being irritated about it... so far.

Then again, maybe that's what's throwing people off; it's not written in "lawyerese" or some arcane, dead language, that's not spoken by anyone anymore, only used by a select few...

After all, sometimes a cigar really is just a cigar.

J.

...... or is it?

[Chucktshoes]

After all, sometimes a cigar really is just a cigar.

J.

...... or is it?

I don't know, ask Monica.

[Guest Jamie]

I don't know, ask Monica.

Just don't ask Bill... he'll only lie about it.

J.

[Guest Glock23ForMe]

You must be disappointed then, 'cause I'm a long way from being riled up.

...More than a little confused at some folk's lack of understanding of plain english, but a long way from being irritated about it... so far.

Then again, maybe that's what's throwing people off; it's not written in "lawyerese" or some arcane, dead language, that's not spoken by anyone anymore, only used by a select few...

After all, sometimes a cigar really is just a cigar.

J.

Nope... not disappointed.... still laughing

[Guest sck]

Anyway, is the food at Las Palmas really that good

[monkeylizard]

yes. Some of the best chimichangas around.

[Guest Vincent]

Not if you like real Mexican food. It is pretty American/Mexican in my opinion.

Of course I am used to good Mexican food being from the left coast and having spent a good deal of time in Mexico.

It used to be the best Mexican in Nashville 6 years ago when I moved here but there is better now.

[partypilot1]

There is NO play on words, "within the confines of a building" is just that, inside of 4 walls, notice the wording with "CONFINES" . Yes, if you have to enter the patio from the inside you would be in violation at that time and a judge could find you guilty but as long as you remain outside during the entire time, you are legal. Oh, and I would also point out that you had no intent to circumnavigate the law either. You took proper precaution not to enter the "confines". I wouldn't try to question the "intent of the law" over "the wording of how the law is written" you are protected by the wording, but not necessarily the intent, a judge can interpret that.

Edited May 26, 2010 by partypilot1

[Guest sck]

Don't mean to stray from the original thread but Cantina Laredo is really good. It's located in the gulch across from Sambuca in the Ikon building. They also have outside seating available. I did not notice any "no firearms" signs posted there. Great food. They make fresh guac at your table. Kinda like Sol in Franklin Sq., but better.

[Smith]

There is NO play on words, "within the confines of a building" is just that, inside of 4 walls, notice the wording with "CONFINES" . Yes, if you have to enter the patio from the inside you would be in violation at that time and a judge could find you guilty but as long as you remain outside during the entire time, you are legal. I won't try to question the intent of the law over the wording of how the law is written, you are protected by the wording, but not the intent, a judge can interpret that.

Not exactly. The ABC considers patios/decks part of the confines of the restaurant, whether enclosed or not, for licensing purposes as does insurance etc. Codes and other city governing agencies also consider them part of the confines of the restaurant when inspecting or administering the law. LE also considers them within the confines (at least downtown) when enforcing trespassing, public intoxication, ect. I doubt in court that this one exception would be seen differently in the interpretation.

[Guest Jamie]

Not exactly. The ABC considers patios/decks part of the confines of the restaurant, whether enclosed or not, for licensing purposes as does insurance etc. Codes and other city governing agencies also consider them part of the confines of the restaurant when inspecting or administering the law. LE also considers them within the confines (at least downtown) when enforcing trespassing, public intoxication, ect. I doubt in court that this one exception would be seen differently in the interpretation.

Smith... do you think you could be arrested or fined for standing on the front porch/deck/patio of a place that is posted, reading the sign on the door?

You might get charged with trespassing, if you were asked to leave and didn't, but I'm quite willing to bet you wouldn't be charged with any weapons violation.

J.

[Smith]

Smith... do you think you could be arrested or fined for standing on the front porch/deck/patio of a place that is posted, reading the sign on the door?

You might get charged with trespassing, if you were asked to leave and didn't, but I'm quite willing to bet you wouldn't be charged with any weapons violation.

J.

Not sure about that, but we have had more than few vagrants and others hauled off for other offenses in our courtyard downtown. Again the weapons issue is a little different but most LE we've encountered interpret it that way and I don't see it being too much of a stretch for this issue to be much different. There is a difference between the letter of the law and the one that's enforced.

[partypilot1]

If you don't want to carry "outside of a restaurant where they placed a seat for your comfort" then don't, it doesn't effect me but if your suggesting that because ABC had to make amendments to their restrictions to allow patrons to drink "outside" then you are mistaken. You might find that within those amendment restrictions, they restrict entry and exit through outdoor seating area (not sure on that). I DO know that anytime "open air" restrictions exist on handguns bans, it is made C L E A R. I would use sporting events in stadiums as my prime example.

[Smith]

If you don't want to carry "outside of a restaurant where they placed a seat for your comfort" then don't, it doesn't effect me but if your suggesting that because ABC had to make amendments to their restrictions to allow patrons to drink "outside" then you are mistaken. You might find that within those amendment restrictions, they restrict entry and exit through outdoor seating area (not sure on that). I DO know that anytime "open air" restrictions exist on handguns bans, it is made C L E A R. I would use sporting events in stadiums as my prime example.

Argue the letter all you want. I carry in those places, but I'm not under the misguided premise that the letter of the law will defend me. We are talking about a very specific niche, being restaurant patios/deck ect., and I can tell you as a person who's family owns a place downtown with just such accommodations and who has dealt with the police in downtown Nashville on numerous occasions about these issues (sans gun related ones) I will tell you, LE sees them no different. You will more than likely have to argue your case in a court of law where I believe you will find very little sympathy or lenience. Now it will probably bee seen different in Brentwood, Gallatin, etc. but in downtown Nashville that is how I believe it would be enforced. Just saying.

[Guest Jamie]

Remember that we are talking about gun-related issues specifically relating to the new law, and fines or other punishment regarding it.

What standards the ABC board uses or doesn't, or what the codes people use need not apply. Especially until there is case law regarding this particular situation and this particular law.

J.

[Smith]

Remember that we are talking about gun-related issues specifically relating to the new law, and fines or other punishment regarding it.

What standards the ABC board uses or doesn't, or what the codes people use need not apply. Especially until there is case law regarding this particular situation and this particular law.

J.

True but other precedent are often used to interpret uncharted territory and there is a very LONG list of precedent if there ever were a test case. Again, it doesn't matter to me but some folks get all worked up about the letter of the law and forget their is a whole other side called application. Application tends to be much more broad and few have the resources to push the law back to the letter in small cases as this would be.