Tennessee Senate Overrides Restaurant Carry Veto

[Capbyrd]

Yeah that is pretty much what I was trying to say. Just not quite as well thought out.

[Worriedman]

They are going to adjourn till 3:30, kind of seems there will be no action on SB 3012 today.

[Volzfan]

Crap!

[GLOCKMEISTER]

well it wont be today then....

Fri, Sat, or at the latest Monday

[Guest jackdm3]

well it wont be today then....

Fri, Sat, or at the latest Monday

"or at the latest Monday" because they're not allowed to convene beyond that for weeks/months?

[Worriedman]

Maybe Todd will be in for the afternoon session at 3:30, and he can at least get it on notice today.

[Guest Doc44]

Why adjourn from 10:30 til 3:00 when there is stuff to be done. Oh, maybe one of Raybourns "resturants?" is having an early Happy Hour today.

Doc44

[GKar]

Both caucuses, the Budget subcommittee, Education (special meeting) and Calendar/Rules are all meeting before 3:30, apparently with the intent of bringing several bills to the floor...so my guess is the 3:30 session will be a long one. They dispensed with Personal Orders, various resolutions and the Consent Calendar prior to recess. IIRC the orders within the House (previously posted here), that would still allow SB3012 to be placed on notice in this afternoon's session if necessary. And, if not necessary, it would allow introduction of the motion to override.

Somebody asked earlier about the hesitation to suspend the rules specific to the 24 hour notice: if I had to bet, there are several Dems that don't want to go there, even though they may be inclined to vote for the override. And since suspending the rules takes a 2/3 majority, supporters may have to spend a little political favor to entice enough suport - an effort that may not be worth it just to suspend the rules if its really not necessary to do so.

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

My bet is that one way or another, the veto override will be just about the very last thing that gets dealt with this session. The powers that be will pull every political string they can to make sure that it just barely makes in through on the tail end. Regardless of their agenda, HexHead has a point that there is obvious delay and has been throughout the entire 2 year process of getting this legislation passed. I am betting we won't have the right to carry into Restaurants with alcohol until the middle of next week - by the time we wait for the override and signatures etc... I am also betting that by the end of next week Rayburn will file his silly "unsafe workplace' lawsuit and try his absolute best to get this legislation tied up in court again like last year. If he can DELAY (yea, I said it) it in the court system then that is a win for him.

[mikegideon]

Are you serious?

No Sign? No Dine! | Facebook

Idiots. They have a whopping 46 supporters so far.

[Guest jackdm3]

What's our score?

[Seaslug]

Idiots. They have a whopping 46 supporters so far.

We've actually got our own now...

Welcome to Facebook | Facebook

[mikegideon]

What's our score?

Was 40, I think. I haven't hit the button yet. I want to make sure I have time to deal with any dumbass comments when I do.

[mikegideon]

We've actually got our own now...

Welcome to Facebook | Facebook

yep. got it bookmarked

[Worriedman]

I am also betting that by the end of next week Rayburn will file his silly "unsafe workplace' lawsuit and try his absolute best to get this legislation tied up in court again like last year. If he can DELAY (yea, I said it) it in the court system then that is a win for him.

Been thinking about this possibility.

Would this suit not have to attempt to remove ALL weapons from the location to give any relief from an "Unsafe Work Environment"?

39-17-1305 would have to be repealed, because an owner could give permission to an individual who could create a problem in the workplace. Owners themselves should be stripped of their right to be armed in such an establishment as well, if there is a push to make sure there is no chance a firearm could be misused.

And, if the potential for an unsafe work environment would exist due to HCP carry, would it not then be endemic on the Owners to ascertain that NO weapons enter into the premises? Would they not have to install detectors and hire security to pat down every one coming into the venue?

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

Been thinking about this possibility.

Would this suit not have to attempt to remove ALL weapons from the location to give any relief from an "Unsafe Work Environment"?

39-17-1305 would have to be repealed, because an owner could give permission to an individual who could create a problem in the workplace. Owners themselves should be stripped of their right to be armed in such an establishment as well, if there is a push to make sure there is no chance a firearm could be misused.

And, if the potential for an unsafe work environment would exist due to HCP carry, would it not then be endemic on the Owners to ascertain that NO weapons enter into the premises? Would they not have to install detectors and hire security to pat down every one coming into the venue?

I like your line of thinking but I still don't' think the point of the lawsuit is to actually win. I honestly think the point of the lawsuit is to once again simply tie the matter up in the court system and possible have a judge rule it unconstitutional again.

[Guest HexHead]

I like your line of thinking but I still don't' think the point of the lawsuit is to actually win. I honestly think the point of the lawsuit is to once again simply tie the matter up in the court system and possible have a judge rule it unconstitutional again.

I don't think that constitutionality is the issue this time. Last time, it was that an average person couldn't know if they were breaking the law or not. This time would strictly be whether creating an unsafe workplace is in violation of OSHA guidelines, and therefore would be prohibited. They tried this ploy last time and Bonneyman refused to consider it, preferring to focus on the vagueness issue. I'm sure Smith has a different angle this time.

Just getting it into the court system doesn't necessarily get it tied up. It didn't last year when the judge refused to issue an injunction pending a hearing.

[Bigiron]

If guns make an unsafe work environment, what about the sharp knives that come with certain foods? Some A-1 steak sauce in the eyes would produce damage also. What about Pablo the cook having hepatitis(quite prevalent in underdeveloped countries), or VD, or aids. What about poor service, enticing me to strangle the waiter? OK, I'm being facetious, aren't I?

[Fallguy]

Yep...and on reason she didn't issue an injunction was because she said they could post. Seems like that would work this time.

So that has got me to wondering if the actual end goal is to somehow make places that serve have to post...as was in the bill at one time.

[GKar]

Yep...and on reason she didn't issue an injunction was because she said they could post. Seems like that would work this time.

So that has got me to wondering if the actual end goal is to somehow make places that serve have to post...as was in the bill at one time.

But that wouldn't/couldn't end there - the natural extension would be to thus require posting (ie, prohibition) in ANY workplace where firearms might be carried in, unless the decison was extremely narrow and determined that alcohol was the only differentiating factor regardless of the law's prohibiton against consumption. In any case, it seems a real stretch of the "safe workplace" mantra of OSHA/TOSHA, particularly in that there are no/have never been any attempts by OSHA/TOSHA to actually legislate against firearms in a workplace. I'm guessing here that the Tennessee entity is not gonna be real wild about spending the effort and cost to become he trendsetter where the Federal agency has pointedly avoided wetting their feet.

Also might up the possibility of countersuit against TOSHA in that such an action would specifically run counter to the stipulations within the Tennessee constitution regarding restriction of the RTKBA??

[Guest HvyMtl]

"the natural extension would be to thus require posting (ie, prohibition) in ANY workplace where firearms might be carried in"

Kinda would make it hard to sell firearms, when you cannot have firearms in the store...

[JAB]

If guns make an unsafe work environment, what about the sharp knives that come with certain foods?

In the last few months, in China, there have been horrible, unprovoked attacks on children - some apparently as young as three. In at least one of these attacks, a knife was used and in another a kitchen cleaver was the weapon of choice. IIRC, the guy with the cleaver killed seven children and two adults and wounded eleven other children. One of the other instances saw an attacker stab 29 children and three teachers. These are numbers of dead and wounded as high as we have seen from attacks using firearms. That says to me - going by the real world evidence showing that attacks and even mass murders are successfully committed with such objects - plus the fact that 'disgruntled' employees have been known to attack coworkers - that such sharp objects create an unsafe work environment and should be kept out of these restaurants. Oh, sure, maybe the restaurants' kitchens couldn't function and the businesses would have to shut down (not just those that serve alcohol but all those that have knives in the kitchen) but shouldn't public safety take precedent?

Edited June 3, 2010 by JAB

[Guest jackdm3]

In the last few months, in China, there have been horrible, unprovoked attacks on children - some apparently as young as three. In at least one of these attacks, a knife was used and in another a kitchen cleaver was the weapon of choice. That says to me that - going by the real world evidence showing that murders are successfully committed with such objects - plus the fact that 'disgruntled' employees have been known to attack coworkers - such sharp objects create an unsafe work environment and should be kept out of these restaurants. Oh, sure, maybe the restaurants' kitchens couldn't function and the businesses would have to shut down (not just those that serve alcohol but all those that have knives in the kitchen) but isn't public safety more important?

Actually, I wouldn't mind it if the restaurants always cooked it so I didn't need a knife.

[Fallguy]

But that wouldn't/couldn't end there - the natural extension would be to thus require posting (ie, prohibition) in ANY workplace where firearms might be carried in, unless the decison was extremely narrow and determined that alcohol was the only differentiating factor regardless of the law's prohibiton against consumption. In any case, it seems a real stretch of the "safe workplace" mantra of OSHA/TOSHA, particularly in that there are no/have never been any attempts by OSHA/TOSHA to actually legislate against firearms in a workplace. I'm guessing here that the Tennessee entity is not gonna be real wild about spending the effort and cost to become he trendsetter where the Federal agency has pointedly avoided wetting their feet.

Also might up the possibility of countersuit against TOSHA in that such an action would specifically run counter to the stipulations within the Tennessee constitution regarding restriction of the RTKBA??

Well I thought that was the point of the lawsuit and the "guns and alcohol" don't mix thing all along...

Not that guns in the workplace themselves are dangerous, but that guns in a workplace where alcohol is served is dangerous.

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

It is becoming obvious to me that any lawsuit against this legislation is going to be based on 99% trumped up hogwash and outright lies and misrepresentations.