The Legislature is back to work in Nashville..

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

Thanks Medic908. Reading through the proposed amendment SA0830, I personally am comfortable with that, but I am not an alchohol drinker at all and I don't hang out at sports bars so I can see how the "revenue derived from 50% food sales" could be a sticking point for some TN gunowners.

[saintsfanbrian]

I would still prefer it to say where less than 50% of revenue is derived from selling alcoholic beverages for ON SITE consumption.

[Fallguy]

I would still prefer it to say where less than 50% of revenue is derived from selling alcoholic beverages for ON SITE consumption.

Me too...It finally came to me last night a place I was thinking of. A bowling alley that serves beer. The amendmeant as written would still prevent you from carrying in there because I doubt greater than 50% of the alley's revenue is from food, but I am just as sure that less than 50% of the revenue is from alcohol sales.

Although I read somewhere that it has a good chance of passing in the Senate without the amendmeant. The tough fight will be in the House the person said.

Also I recived an e-mail saying the Tennessean (www.tennessean.com) will be running an editorial Wednesday, January 16 2008, against Senator Jackson's bill. It suggest writing a calmly written but well stated) lettter(e-mail) detailing why it is necessary and reasonable to allow permit holders to carry in such restaurants.

[threeshot]

I do not believe amendment SA0830 is enforceable given that the public will not know for a given establishment where they are making the most profits. The public will certainly not know that 50% or more profits are coming from the sale of food.

Need an example? Try Cookeville TN. Most of the mainstream restaurants would not open a location in Cookeville due to they were a dry county. Guess where the restaurants make most of their money? From the sale of onsite alcohol consumption. Once Cookeville finally dropped the being a dry county or at least sell by the drink, the mainstream restaurants began opening in Cookeville.

Amendment SA0830 is trying to prevent people with Handgun Carry Permit (HCP) from carrying into bar establishments. It seems that the legislatures believe that anyone who is going into a bar that has their HCP, is looking for trouble and/or be involved in a shooting even if they stay sober.

[Fallguy]

The amendmeant has been withdrawn. Below is an e-mail I got form Sen Jackson.

Hi Steve,

I am opposed to Senator Berke's amendment and he has agreed to withdraw it. The bill will be presented on the senate floor tomorrow and I do believe we have the votes for passage as filed.

Thanks for writing. Let's stay in touch.

Doug Jackson

[Guest Boomhower]

Also I recived an e-mail saying the Tennessean (www.tennessean.com) will be running an editorial Wednesday, January 16 2008, against Senator Jackson's bill.

Unless it was headed off, I can't find anything on their website......Anyone else?

[molonlabetn]

It was supposed to be in today's issue. I don't see it. It's possible that our letters/e-mails made a difference.

[Fallguy]

The only thing I see is a pro-restaurant carry letter to the editor.

http://tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080116/OPINION02/80115071/1007/OPINION

[Marswolf]

The Tennessean would be opposed to sensible gun law change?

I am shocked --- truly shocked.

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

Me too...It finally came to me last night a place I was thinking of. A bowling alley that serves beer. The amendmeant as written would still prevent you from carrying in there because I doubt greater than 50% of the alley's revenue is from food, but I am just as sure that less than 50% of the revenue is from alcohol sales.

Although I read somewhere that it has a good chance of passing in the Senate without the amendmeant. The tough fight will be in the House the person said.

Also I recived an e-mail saying the Tennessean (www.tennessean.com) will be running an editorial Wednesday, January 16 2008, against Senator Jackson's bill. It suggest writing a calmly written but well stated) lettter(e-mail) detailing why it is necessary and reasonable to allow permit holders to carry in such restaurants.

You make a good point about the wording, but I see now that someone said the amendment was withdrawn. I also heard from Senator Beavers that it has a good chance of passing the Senate but that it might see more push back in the House. I guess we will just wait and see.

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

I just watchend the Senate hearings on this, it passed 24 to 8 (or something close to that). the point is that it passed. now we get to see what happens in the House.

[Fallguy]

...now we get to see what happens in the House.

Which is where the real challenge is going to be!!!

Call your Rep.s Vote YES on HB0702!!!

Although there is no date set yet, first action for the house bill is in the Criminal Practice Sub-Committee..

http://www.legislature.state.tn.us/house/Committees/hsubmemb.htm#crim

[Guest bulletproof]

NASHVILLE, Tenn. - Tennessee lawmakers voted Wednesday on a proposal that would allow guns in businesses that served alcohol such as bars and restaurants.

There will be some restrictions.

The vote affects people who have state gun carry permits.

The vote was 24-6 in favor of allowing people with handgun carry permits to carry that gun into a place where alcohol is served.

Senator Doug Jackson of Dickson sponsored the bill in the Senate.

He said 34 other states allow citizens with gun carry permits into businesses that serve alcoholic beverages.

He said Tennessee should be next.

Studio guitar player Tim Calhoun agrees with Jackson.

Calhoun, who feels strongly about the security of his family, has a Tennessee permit to carry a gun.

"I don't really think about it," he said. "Just put it on and take the responsibility seriously."

He supports attempts by Tennessee lawmakers to let people with carry permits bring guns into places where alcohol is served.

"As Virginia Tech has proven any place with a large gathering of people is the exact place where some idiot might come in and do a lot of damage," Calhoun said.

Those places include restaurants and bars such as Legends in downtown Nashville.

"I've played in bars for many, many years," said entertainer Duncan Houston.

He has experience with guns and bars.

"One time we were playing in a bar and a big fight broke out and the next thing you know you hear pop, pop, pop and there's a guy who brought a gun out and started shooting randomly," he said. "Thank God nobody was hit."

Houston thinks state lawmakers are going too far.

He said he's not an anti-gun person. He believes in a person's right to carry a gun, but not where there's alcohol.

"I think it's just a bad idea," he said.

Next door at Tootsie's bartender Shawna Sessions is also against the proposal.

"For me, I don't feel safe knowing somebody could come in here with a concealed weapon and shoot the place up," she said.

Calhoun said he just wants to keep his family safe from the people she's talking about.

"If I'm somewhere with my wife and kids and something happens and I have the right to do that and I don't have it with me, something happens to my wife and kids I don't think I could live with myself," he said.

Under the proposal in the Senate the person carrying the gun into a bar or restaurant cannot drink.

Business owners can still try and stop people from bringing guns onto their property by posting a sign saying no guns or firearms are allowed.

A version of this bill is also in the House. It's still in committee. The governor must sign it before it becomes law.

[waynesan]

The arguments against carrying in places where alcohol is consumed very often follow along this line quoted above:

"One time we were playing in a bar and a big fight broke out and the next thing you know you hear pop, pop, pop and there's a guy who brought a gun out and started shooting randomly," he said. "Thank God nobody was hit."

There are those who could also say that "one day we were doing some Christmas shopping at the mall when all of a sudden, someone pulled out a gun and pop, pop, pop. The next thing you know, several people are dead and several people were injured." So let's outlaw concealed carry at malls.

There are those who could say that "one day we were sitting in Church and someone pulled out a gun and pop, pop, pop. Several dead and several wounded." So let's outlaw concealed carry in Church.

There are those who could say "one day I was sitting at a red light and some guy jumped out of his car and pulled out a gun and started shooting and pop, pop, pop. Several dead and several wounded." Let's outlaw guns in cars on the street.

The thing that is left out of all these examples is that it isn't the person who has a Handgun Carry Permit that is wreaking all the havoc. We aren't the ones going on random killing sprees or shooting up Churches or getting in gunfights over fender benders. We are the law abiding. We are the ones who took the initiative and took the classes, paid our fees, and got our State approval to carry our guns. We are the good guys! If I can be trusted to stand on the sidewalk outside of Applebees with my concealed weapon, why am I a danger to go in with my family and eat a meal? Does passing through the doorway change my personality to some "gun-toten cowboy hankerin fur a shooten?" I think not. "No drinking while carrying" is sufficient for any of us. And it doesn't matter where we are.

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

waynesan you are absolutely correct. What I have found in my discussions with people who are against this type of legislature, and all concealed carry for that matter, is that they are very simple minded about the whole thing. They really can't seem to get past the "See Spot.. See Spot Run" level of thinking with regard to the differences between Guns, Criminals with Guns and legally permitted firearm owners. As responsible gun owners and handgun carry permit holders have to keep taking a rational and logical approach to explaining these differences and eventually hope that we can teach these simpletons to think more realistically.

How about this for some logic: It is currently illegal to bring cocaine into an establishment that serves alchohol. So using the logic of the anti-ccw crowd, we are obviously safer in bars because at least nobody will be cranked up on coke while they are in there right? Wrong - They can make laws that punish a persons actions, but not necessarily prevent those actions , and they will never be able to legislate away the criminal intent.

[saintsfanbrian]

They can make laws that punish a persons actions, but not necessarily prevent those actions , and they will never be able to legislate away the criminal intent.

You are almost right here.

They can make laws punishing a persons actions but you can never (barring committing everyone to prison) prevent some ones actions. You can only possibly change the way people think about something but that takes years.

[Guest Tombstone]

I would gladly pay the extra $15 if they would also pass SB 0023. Having to disarm everytime I go out to eat is simply ridiculous. The criminals don't do it, but the law abiding citizens do. Of course I am preaching to the choir on this I know. Sorry just had to vent.

Another story to back up what you have said above. I haven't read the entire thread so if I am repeating what was all ready stated, I apologize. But not too long ago there was a shooting at a Hooters not to far from here. A rough looking character became a problem and was asked to leave. He should have been happy because he didn't have to pay for his food. As he neared the door, he removed a firearm (don't remember what it was) from his back pack and began shooting. If I remember correctly there were some fatalities.

I haven't heard anything else about it so I am not sure if the LE has even caught the guy.

The frustrating thing to me is that if it was legal to carry where alcohol is served, then it is possible that someone might have been carrying and stopped the situation before people were hurt or killed.

Why can't our law makers see the importance of this?

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

The frustrating thing to me is that if it was legal to carry where alcohol is served, then it is possible that someone might have been carrying and stopped the situation before people were hurt or killed.

Why can't our law makers see the importance of this?

I agree with you, and I think the real disconnect comes from what you describe here. People (anti carry types) immediately get visions in their heads of wild shootouts between the criminals and the 'good guys' that have carry permits and dream up scenarios where hundreds of innocent bystanders are killed in the crossfire. Basically they have just watched too much TV and can't separate their immagination from reality. its the same argument they posed years ago when CCW first started trying to be passed. They said "there will be shootouts in the streets just like the old West". Time has proven that they were wrong then and eventually time will prove that they are wrong this time. Contrary to what some lawmakers, like Senator Marero, think - people who carry guns legally simply have no desire to run down to the local bar, get tanked and have a shootout anymore than Police Officers do.

[dralarms]

Another story to back up what you have said above. I haven't read the entire thread so if I am repeating what was all ready stated, I apologize. But not too long ago there was a shooting at a Hooters not to far from here. A rough looking character became a problem and was asked to leave. He should have been happy because he didn't have to pay for his food. As he neared the door, he removed a firearm (don't remember what it was) from his back pack and began shooting. If I remember correctly there were some fatalities.

I haven't heard anything else about it so I am not sure if the LE has even caught the guy.

The frustrating thing to me is that if it was legal to carry where alcohol is served, then it is possible that someone might have been carrying and stopped the situation before people were hurt or killed.

Why can't our law makers see the importance of this?

Well to update you, the guy killed 1 customer, wonded the manager. Was caught 1 or 2 night later and killed by poice when he refused to pu t down his gun (S) (some reports said he had 2). Oh and BTW it was a glock. He actually left the building, squatted in the parking lot and removed the gun from his backpack. did his shooting from the parking lot through a locked door.

[saintsfanbrian]

The frustrating thing to me is that if it was legal to carry where alcohol is served, then it is possible that someone might have been carrying and stopped the situation before people were hurt or killed.

Why can't our law makers see the importance of this?

Rather than worrying about what another citizen "might" have done, let us say it is less likely that this individual would have taken this route because there was a greater chance that there were armed individuals in the establishment.

People are using the same old scenario's... The streets will run red with blood. Permit holders will shoot the place up when they are drunk. No one needs a gun in there anyway.

We all know this to be untrue, unfortunately - 250,000 of us have to convince 6,038,803 (estimated figures) that this would not be the case.

[Guest SomeGuy]

It will never pass the House (sadly).

It was not very good to see that Berke was going to be as awful a Crutchfield replacement as I expected. His excuse was LE was against it.