Tennessee Senate Overrides Restaurant Carry Veto

[Guest HvyMtl]

Hmm. So, any bets on how quickly the anti's file after passage?

[Guest TnRebel]

from what Nikky said tonight on AAR ... that is allready in the works.

[Worriedman]

Hmm. So, any bets on how quickly the anti's file after passage?

Filing and winning are two very different things.

[Guest HexHead]

I would prefer to be legal, given the choice. But, I'm really getting tired of this crap. If the law gets struck down again, I just don't give a **** any longer whether it's legal or not.

[Guest Usagi]

I would prefer to be legal, given the choice. But, I'm really getting tired of this crap. If the law gets struck down again, I just don't give a **** any longer whether it's legal or not.

If the law gets struck down again, that would be bad.

But... it might just be a good "silver lining."

Then we would have good reason to need the restaurant prohibition stripped - plain and simple. No additional wording for the court to take into consideration, no more games.

[Guest TNReb]

I would prefer to be legal, given the choice. But, I'm really getting tired of this crap. If the law gets struck down again, I just don't give a **** any longer whether it's legal or not.

+1

[Fallguy]

If the law gets struck down again, that would be bad.

But... it might just be a good "silver lining."

Then we would have good reason to need the restaurant prohibition stripped - plain and simple. No additional wording for the court to take into consideration, no more games.

If I'm reading your post right...that is what already happened.

This new bill comeplety repeals 39-17-1305. So unless posted you can carry anywhere alcohol is served, not just restaurants.

[Guest 270win]

I don't see any grounds for a lawsuit under the alcohol provision of the law, if this law is passed. My reason is that what is there to sue as vague when the alcohol statute is repealed? The only statutes to attack will be the revised 'under the influence handgun possession' statute and the revised 'handgun sign' statute. That's just fine. Either way, we are still legal carrying in places that serve liquor and beer when this bill becomes law.

[Guest HexHead]

I don't see any grounds for a lawsuit under the alcohol provision of the law, if this law is passed. My reason is that what is there to sue as vague when the alcohol statute is repealed? The only statutes to attack will be the revised 'under the influence handgun possession' statute and the revised 'handgun sign' statute. That's just fine. Either way, we are still legal carrying in places that serve liquor and beer when this bill becomes law.

I'm not sure you're clear as to what the proposed lawsuit will be about this time? It has nothing to do with vagueness or anything like that. The waitstaff "plaintiffs" are challenging the law under OSHA that people carrying handguns into establishments that serve alcohol, and don't post, are creating unsafe working conditions for them.

Edited May 31, 2010 by HexHead

[Fallguy]

I don't see any grounds for a lawsuit under the alcohol provision of the law, if this law is passed. My reason is that what is there to sue as vague when the alcohol statute is repealed? The only statutes to attack will be the revised 'under the influence handgun possession' statute and the revised 'handgun sign' statute. That's just fine. Either way, we are still legal carrying in places that serve liquor and beer when this bill becomes law.

My understanding is this lawsuit will say that allowing people to carry handguns where alcohol is served will create a dangerous work enviroment for servers.

Considering the previous law allowed owners and their agents to carry, 39-17-1350 allows LEOs to carry and many other states allow carrry where alcohol is served I just don't see how this suit can have any merit.

[dralarms]

My understanding is this lawsuit will say that allowing people to carry handguns where alcohol is served will create a dangerous work enviroment for servers.

Considering the previous law allowed owners and their agents to carry, 39-17-1350 allows LEOs to carry and many other states allow carrry where alcohol is served I just don't see how this suit can have any merit.

Hell, owners and their agents have always been able to carry.

[Worriedman]

I would think, that as there is a ton of precedent showing that ILLEGAL guns are carried into establishments that serve alcohol, for this suit to have any merit, there would by necessity, have to be a method to preclude ALL firearms from the establishment excepting those carried by the Owners, their assigns and LE. Only way to be sure of that would be metal detectors at each entrance, and a staff trained and present at all times to work the equipment, and require pat downs of each patron upon entry.

Having been in a few places in Mexico that had these requirements, it places a huge burden on the venue to preclude violations.

Then, should a shooting occur, the establishment would be under additional scrutiny for failure to provide efficient screening.

Part of the argument used in previous court actions is the notion that the establishments do not want the onus to check every patron, but if they go with the "unsafe workplace" they would be default, have to check every person entering.

[RobD]

so is this a done deal now? when does it go into effect?

[Guest 270win]

Yeah...that doesn't seem like it will work as an unsafe environment...also judges, armed security guards taking lunch/dinner breaks, special deputies, will seem to be legal now too...not just those with handgun carry permits in places that serve alcohol and beer. The media forgets that there are people out there who can carry handguns that are not police and also do not have handgun carry permits, like judges.

[Worriedman]

so is this a done deal now? when does it go into effect?

No, Bill was vetoed by the Governor, is in the process of being overridden, has taken place in the Senate, up for consideration in the House this week.

[RobD]

Worriedman, thanks. I got the order backwards, thought it was done in the house and on the way to the senate.

[dralarms]

Worriedman, thanks. I got the order backwards, thought it was done in the house and on the way to the senate.

They did it the other way around since it was the senate bill that was passed. If it had been the house bill I suspect the house would have gotten it first, but I'm not sure about that and probally should have kept my big mouth shut.

[Alpha13]

as a server, i want this to pass, i would love to be able to carry @ work once I got my ccw. so please do not just arbitrarily decide to not tip because of some idiots. Tips have been bad enough lately, with a recession going on and only making $2.13 an hour we depend on tips to feed our families.

Maybe NewsChannel5 wasn't so far off after all? From today's Tennessean...

If this suit gets filed, I'm going to stop tipping in restaurants. I suggest everyone do the same.

The plaintiffs will likely file as John/Jane Doe like last time and since we have no way of knowing if your waiter(ess) is the complainant, punish them all. Make them bring pressure to kill the suit.

[Oh Shoot]

as a server, i want this to pass, i would love to be able to carry @ work once I got my ccw. ...

You've always been able to carry as an employee IF the owner gives you the OK, as "employee or agent of the owner of the premises with responsibility for protecting persons or property"

I'd posit that after the law changes, you'll be "legal", but still "fireable", if your employer has a no guns policy.

- OS

[Guest HexHead]

as a server, i want this to pass, i would love to be able to carry @ work once I got my ccw. so please do not just arbitrarily decide to not tip because of some idiots. Tips have been bad enough lately, with a recession going on and only making $2.13 an hour we depend on tips to feed our families.

Be sure to let that douche bag attorney know how you feel and that he doesn't "represent" you.

[Guest HvyMtl]

"Filing and winning are two very different things." True, Worriedman...

Sadly, a filed lawsuit CAN stop the law from going into effect, until after the Court rules on it...

[Guest HexHead]

"Filing and winning are two very different things." True, Worriedman...

Sadly, a filed lawsuit CAN stop the law from going into effect, until after the Court rules on it...

Fortunately I don't think a case can be made for enough immanent danger to warrant an injunction. Just like last year.

[Worriedman]

"Filing and winning are two very different things." True, Worriedman...

Sadly, a filed lawsuit CAN stop the law from going into effect, until after the Court rules on it...

Are you saying I could file suit against the Health Care Bill and stop it till a court rules on the case?

[Fallguy]

Fortunately I don't think a case can be made for enough immanent danger to warrant an injunction. Just like last year.

+1

Are you saying I could file suit against the Health Care Bill and stop it till a court rules on the case?

You could file the suit and ask for an injunction, but it would be the court that would issue the injunction and keep the status quo until the case is decided. Of course the court doesn't have to.

[Guest friesepferd]

wow. was off tgo for the weekend. what i didnt expect to see when i got back was 5 pages on stiffing ur waiter....

if ur gonna go off on some random rant / argument, please do so on another thread or something. mentioning a possible law suit = on topic. bunch of ppl going 'aww man, what bs' or 'that has no chance' = on topic. huge argument on whether or not stiffing waiters is going to help (wow, that sounds funny just saying it) = different topic.

iv been on this forum a few weeks and im already getting dizzy from the crazy large asides that happen in any major thread.