Tennessee Senate Overrides Restaurant Carry Veto

[Oh Shoot]

Quick question, probably already covered. I know with this new bill the gun slash sign is legally binding for establishments serving alcohol. Does this also carry over to places such as malls, and other non-restaurant facilities, or do they still have to post the full law to be legal?

Everywhere.

It modified 39-17-1359, the statute about posting in general.

Applies everywhere except parks, which must still have exact verbiage and minimum size.

- OS

[Guest (BH)]

It modified 39-17-1359, the statute about posting in general.

Applies everywhere except parks, which must still have exact verbiage and minimum size.

And that is the problem my friend. Now the "rules" will become laws in these places. I personally don't know if it's even going to be a good thing if this passes. It could end up meaning that we will be restricted in many more places than before. Ugh.

[G27]

It could end up meaning that we will be restricted in many more places than before. Ugh.

Not could, WILL.

[Guest 270win]

Conceal your handgun in case you miss seeing one of those signs! I do and it helps a lot.

[RobD]

I can't legally carry or even have a firearm in my vehicle at work (I work at a satellite campus of a private college), can't carry in state buildings, can't carry in restaurants where booze is served, etc. While I can't say that if this law is overturned I won't care any longer whether or not it is legal and while I will make every effort to remain legal in carrying a firearm, I do understand your frustration. With all the 'must have a permit to carry but you can't carry here and you can't carry there' nonsense - with the 'here' and 'there' that we can't carry sometimes being the places we might have the most need of a defensive firearm, I do sometimes wonder what the heck that $50 plus $115 plus a day out of my life plus getting fingerprinted, having a background check, etc. was for in the first place.

AMEN, I wish we could get the same laws passed here as they have down in Florida....

[tnhawk]

I really have to wonder how does someone that incompetent and unreasoning rise to a state office??

Incompetent politicians (local, state, federal) are usually elected by uninformed, stupid voters who are told how to vote by community organizers, pastors and union leaders.

I neglected to add editors like those from The Communist Appeal in Memphis!

Edited June 2, 2010 by tnhawk

[Guest friesepferd]

I can't legally carry or even have a firearm in my vehicle at work (I work at a satellite campus of a private college), can't carry in state buildings, can't carry in restaurants where booze is served, etc. While I can't say that if this law is overturned I won't care any longer whether or not it is legal and while I will make every effort to remain legal in carrying a firearm, I do understand your frustration. With all the 'must have a permit to carry but you can't carry here and you can't carry there' nonsense - with the 'here' and 'there' that we can't carry sometimes being the places we might have the most need of a defensive firearm, I do sometimes wonder what the heck that $50 plus $115 plus a day out of my life plus getting fingerprinted, having a background check, etc. was for in the first place.

+1 to that! Honestly I havn't been carrying a fraction of the amount that I used to since I moved to TN. Considering I cant carry at work and I cant carry at resteraunts, I pretty much can't carry. I rarely go anywhere outside the home other than those two places. I hope this passes just so I have the chance to actually start carrying again.

[Fallguy]

And that is the problem my friend. Now the "rules" will become laws in these places. I personally don't know if it's even going to be a good thing if this passes. It could end up meaning that we will be restricted in many more places than before. Ugh.

Well the rule will only become law if there is a sign with the symbol or wording as in the law.

The Rule 7 - No Guns on a list of mall rules etc... will still not be a legal posting.

However I agree that the way 39-17-1359 was changed is the one slight downside to this bill. But overall, at least in my area, I haven't seen many places with just a international symbol sign that would now become legal. I don't really think (again in my area) any more new places will post it now just because of the law change.

Shoot outside of a restaurant owner or two in Nashville and few gun owners I doubt many people are really keeping up with this and for sure don't know the details.

The whole focus in the media has been about restaurant/bars not the posting law.

[Daniel]

I see the circle slash plenty.

[Fallguy]

I see the circle slash plenty.

Guess it sort of goes back to all of us living in different areas around the state.... Population size etc....

Reminds me of when everyone keeps talking about the ABC doing something and I say that is fine for places that serve liquor, but in the dozens of dry counties where only beer is served, any ABC changes wouldn't mean a thing.

[Guest HexHead]

Shoot outside of a restaurant owner or two in Nashville and few gun owners I doubt many people are really keeping up with this and for sure don't know the details.

The whole focus in the media has been about restaurant/bars not the posting law.

Good points.

As a result of them being uninformed, we'll probably see some handwritten "no guns allowed" signs taped by the door like we did last year. Then we can play the "not-legal sign" game again.

[Fallguy]

Good points.

As a result of them being uninformed, we'll probably see some handwritten "no guns allowed" signs taped by the door like we did last year. Then we can play the "not-legal sign" game again.

Well I have to agree...

When the media does mention posting...the just say a "No Guns" sign...and I'm sure a few places will think that is all that has to be done.

[Guest TnRebel]

AMEN, I wish we could get the same laws passed here as they have down in Florida....

amen to that , Just moving here from Florida last Jan , it is mind boggling to see this going on , and to think I used to be proud to be called a "Hillbilly from Tn." ( born and raised in North East Tn.) the mind set of some of these yokels in Nashville give it a hole new meaneing.

[dunndw]

Does anyone know if this will be handled today?

[JAB]

amen to that , Just moving here from Florida last Jan , it is mind boggling to see this going on , and to think I used to be proud to be called a "Hillbilly from Tn." ( born and raised in North East Tn.) the mind set of some of these yokels in Nashville give it a hole new meaneing.

Well, I think the problem there is that we have been 'invaded' by so many antis from anti (mostly Northern) states. Just look at Bredesen - born in New Jersey, raised in New Jersey, New York and Massachusetts and gets elected as mayor of Nashville and then governor of TN. What we need is to cast our votes, etc. in a way that will put individuals who are both true Tennesseans (or at least Southerners) and more gun friendly back in charge. "Democrat" or "Republican" doesn't mean nearly as much to me as the former qualifications.

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

The House is scheduled for a 2pm session. The 'word' is that Rep. Todd will try to get it going today but most likely it will have to sit for 24hours after he makes the motion so perhaps they will actually vote on it tomorrow. Unless they vote to suspend the rules and vote on the override today. So, in my obviously expert opinion - maybe today or maybe tomorrow?

[Guest db99wj]

Guess I can't go eat yet.....

[Guest db99wj]

Oh, I sent a letter to Bredesen.

Here it is:

Associated Press - May 26, 2010 4:35 PM ET

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) - Gov. Phil Bredesen says he won't be surprised "in the least" if lawmakers once again override his veto of bill to allow handgun carry permit holders to bring their weapons into bars and restaurants that serve alcohol.

The Senate was expected to vote Thursday on whether to turn back the Democratic governor's veto, which takes only a majority in both chambers of the General Assembly.

Bredesen told reporters that he was disappointed upon his return from a trade mission to Asia last week that lawmakers hadn't made more progress on the budget while instead focusing on issues like guns in bars and a resolution to honor Arizona lawmakers on their tough new immigration law.

In Bredesen's words: "I'd love to get some of this stuff aside that's kind of peripheral, and get on with the business of running the state."

Read SB3012 at http://capitol.tn.gov

Well then Mr. Bredesen, I guess you shouldn't have vetoed the bill then?

His response:

Dear David:

Thank you for your message about the "guns in bars" legislation. On May 18, 2010, I vetoed Senate Bill 3012. As I stated in my veto message of a similar piece of legislation last year, I believe a basic and effective rule of gun safety is one I was taught at a National Rifle Association-sponsored gun safety class almost 50 years ago: "Guns and alcohol don't mix." This legislation ignores that fundamental principle.

I am a strong supporter of the individual right to keep and bear arms, and I hold this right sacred as both an American and a Tennessean. I am a gun owner, and I exercise my rights as a hunter and in various other shooting activities. I value the constitutional right that allows me to protect my home and family. In Tennessee, this right has been exercised with reasonable common-sense rules.

Until last year, Tennessee long had prohibited the possession of firearms in bars and restaurants that served alcohol. The legislation passed last year removed this protection in a manner that I, along with many law enforcement officers and innumerable private citizens, believed to be reckless and lacking in basic safeguards to public safety.

A successful court challenge to last year's actions provided the General Assembly with a second opportunity to reconsider and adopt a more responsible approach to this issue. Instead, the General Assembly essentially re-passed that legislation in an even more expansive and dangerous form. For this reason, I could not sign the new measure into law.

Warmest regards,

Phil Bredesen

PB:jb

[Guest HexHead]

I see you got the form letter. "Warmest Regards" my ass.

[GKar]

Guess it sort of goes back to all of us living in different areas around the state.... Population size etc.....

Guess so. Up here in the fingertip, the list of businesses with any kind of posting must be quite a bit shorter than to our west. Of my own experience, couple of hospitals, the mayor of JC's lunch restaurant and a few bars (none that I would even in my wildest dreams categorize as "restaurants", not because of food sales dollars but because of quality!)...oh, and of all places, the Bristol Big Lots store (working on that one - not a corporate issue). Strange as it may seem, it would almost appear that the number of postings is directly proportionate to the number of Democratic Reps/Senators elected by the locality...hmmm...

[GKar]

Found this today: http://www.ck10.uscourts.gov/opinions/07/07-5166.pdf . Apparently, there have been previous, and unsuccessful, efforts to prohibit firearms possession through the OSHA route. In OK, a district court upheld an injunction against the implementation of OK's "parking lot" bill based upon some assertions that the provisions created an unsafe workplace and thus violated OSHA precepts. In Feb 2009, the 10th Circuit US COurt of Appeals overturned that district court ruling (thus allowing parking lot possession) with the following observations:

" Because the absence of any specific OSHA standard on workplace violence is undisputed, the district court correctly recognized that the only possible area of OSH Act preemption was under the general duty clause and the OSH Act’s overarching purpose. Thus, in finding preemption, the district court held that gunrelated workplace violence was a “recognized hazard” under the general duty clause, and, therefore, an employer that allows firearms in the company parking lot may violate the OSH Act. We disagree. OSHA has not indicated in any way that employers should prohibit firearms from company parking lots. OSHA’s website,

guidelines, and citation history do not speak at all to any such prohibition. In fact, OSHA declined a request to promulgate a standard banning firearms from the workplace. See Standards Interpretations Letter, September 13, 2006, available at 2006 WL 4093048. In declining this request, OSHA stressed reliance on its voluntary guidelines and deference “to other federal, state, and local lawenforcement agencies to regulate workplace homicides.” Id. OSHA is aware of the controversy surrounding firearms in the workplace and has consciously decided not 12 to adopt a standard. Thus, we are not presented with a situation where the general duty clause applies because OSHA has been unable to promulgate a standard for an “unanticipated hazard.” "

With this precedent, I would think a lower court might now have a particularly hard time swallowing the OSHA argument, knowing that such a determination has already (and recently) been overturned by the US Circuit Court. Anyone know any more about this case?

[redstategunnut]

Found this today: http://www.ck10.uscourts.gov/opinions/07/07-5166.pdf . Apparently, there have been previous, and unsuccessful, efforts to prohibit firearms possession through the OSHA route. In OK, a district court upheld an injunction against the implementation of OK's "parking lot" bill based upon some assertions that the provisions created an unsafe workplace and thus violated OSHA precepts. In Feb 2009, the 10th Circuit US COurt of Appeals overturned that district court ruling (thus allowing parking lot possession) with the following observations:

" Because the absence of any specific OSHA standard on workplace violence is undisputed, the district court correctly recognized that the only possible area of OSH Act preemption was under the general duty clause and the OSH Act’s overarching purpose. Thus, in finding preemption, the district court held that gunrelated workplace violence was a “recognized hazard†under the general duty clause, and, therefore, an employer that allows firearms in the company parking lot may violate the OSH Act. We disagree. OSHA has not indicated in any way that employers should prohibit firearms from company parking lots. OSHA’s website,

guidelines, and citation history do not speak at all to any such prohibition. In fact, OSHA declined a request to promulgate a standard banning firearms from the workplace. See Standards Interpretations Letter, September 13, 2006, available at 2006 WL 4093048. In declining this request, OSHA stressed reliance on its voluntary guidelines and deference “to other federal, state, and local lawenforcement agencies to regulate workplace homicides.†Id. OSHA is aware of the controversy surrounding firearms in the workplace and has consciously decided not 12 to adopt a standard. Thus, we are not presented with a situation where the general duty clause applies because OSHA has been unable to promulgate a standard for an “unanticipated hazard.†"

With this precedent, I would think a lower court might now have a particularly hard time swallowing the OSHA argument, knowing that such a determination has already (and recently) been overturned by the US Circuit Court. Anyone know any more about this case?

First thing, this is a federal case dealing with OSHA, a federal statutory and regulatory scheme. As I understand it, the would-be plaintiffs intend to pursue a claim under a similar but not identical state regulatory environment (TOSHA). I don't know how alike the federal OSHA and the state TOSHA may be. In any event, the plaintiffs will be traveling under state law in a state court. This alone could lead to different results. Furthermore, we live in the 6th Circuit here in Tennessee. The 10th Circuit opinion, while it could be considered persuasive, would not be binding upon the federal courts in the 6th Circuit.

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

Amazing - the House didn't have enough reps show up for a Quorum today so they session has been canceled. Reconvening tomorrow at 10am. I hate to think it but part of me really wonders if this is yet another political delay scheme to effect the veto override vote.

[GKar]

Rather, I think the rescheduling of the House session is more indicative of the state of the budget "negotiations" that are ongoing. Still some pretty big differences across the aisles, and between the chambers.

[Guest TNReb]

Amazing - the House didn't have enough reps show up for a Quorum today so they session has been canceled. Reconvening tomorrow at 10am. I hate to think it but part of me really wonders if this is yet another political delay scheme to effect the veto override vote.

Rather, I think the rescheduling of the House session is more indicative of the state of the budget "negotiations" that are ongoing. Still some pretty big differences across the aisles, and between the chambers.

I agree. They are probably still haggling over the budget and were not ready to deal with it today. They already had the session for tomorrow up before the quorum call today, so that kinda tells me they already knew they weren't going to waste one of their 90 days today so Williams sent the speaker pro tem in with a few members to get that done.