New Bill introduced proposing CCW in establishment serving liquor

[Guest Jamie]

In my days of working at the jail, I have NEVER seen a BAC test given for Public Intox.

I'm not surprised, since BAC testing is supposed to be done prior to carting the individual off to the jail.

Seriously though, public intoxication is generally one of those "add on" charges around here. And if you look at the law you quoted, it does dictate the person would have to be causing some other problem to be charged - creating a disturbance, endangerment, public nuisance, etc. - so it's generally held to a lesser standard, and more often than not, dropped altogether..

Also, those are all things a person could be charged for even if they were sober, in most cases.

Back to the DUI thing, I've had to take a kid to the local hospital for a blood test when he claimed that no, he hadn't been drinking, that he had "only smoked a joint" before he left his friend's house...

( He was under the impression that he could only get charged with DUI if he was under the influence of alcohol. )

J.

Edited March 15, 2008 by Jamie

[Fallguy]

LOL....ok well I know blood is drawn at the hospital before the person is brought to jail. So I didn't mean I literally didn't see or did see a BAC test given.

I just know from talking with deputies and riding some that I have seen it when a driver was arrested for DUI that all passengers in the car that had even one drink arrested for PI and not given a sobriety test or a BAC test and then put in jail. Not saying it's right or wrong, just that is has been done.

I still hold to that if a LEO knows he can't legally even consume alcohol armed, I doubt he is going to think it is ok for you to. Of course doesn't mean he can or will do anything about it either.

Also...not exactly sure how driving laws under Title 57 apply to criminal laws under Title 39 and/or weapon laws under Chapter 17, Part 13.

[Fallguy]

Here is a case where a person was convicted under 39-17-1321 without being given a sobriety test or a BAC test. The conviction was upheld on appeal.

State of TN v. Boylan

EDIT: ....and granted this is 10 years old, but here is an AG opinion that even says being on your own property or in your own home is not a defense to 39-17-1321. AG Opinion 98-151. Another thing to remember is that in general this AG was more favorable to firearm owners than the current AG.

Edited March 15, 2008 by Fallguy

[mdmoseley]

Rutherford County SO doesn't even do breathalizers anymore due to drug DUIs not registering anything. If they fail the field sobriety test then they go to the hospital first for a blood alcohol/drug level test.

[Guest 2HOW]

SAY WHAT?

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

That's not entirely correct. Technically, you can have a drink and still carry, under the law you quote, so long as you don't cross the legal limit. ( And thereby be "Under the influence". )

The new bill, if I understand correctly, would make it illegal to consume any alcohol while carrying in an establishment that sells it.

It might sound like splitting hairs, but it would make a world of difference in court.

J.

Jamie - Thanks for the clarification. I don't drink at all so my interpretation of "under the influence" is the same as "consuming" - Probably a good think I didn't write that law eh?

[Marswolf]

That's not entirely correct. Technically, you can have a drink and still carry, under the law you quote, so long as you don't cross the legal limit. ( And thereby be "Under the influence". )

Jamie, I can't agree with you.

I think you are thinking about the standards for driving a vehicle.

55-10-401. Driving under the influence of intoxicant, drug or drug producing stimulant prohibited — Alcohol concentration in blood or breath. —

(a) It is unlawful for any person to drive or to be in physical control of any automobile or other motor driven vehicle on any of the public roads and highways of the state, or on any streets or alleys, or while on the premises of any shopping center, trailer park or any apartment house complex, or any other premises which is generally frequented by the public at large, while:

(1) Under the influence of any intoxicant, marijuana, narcotic drug, or drug producing stimulating effects on the central nervous system; or

(2) The alcohol concentration in such person's blood or breath is eight-hundredths of one percent (.08 %) or more.

Note that you can not operate a motor driven vehicle if you are under the influence of drugs or alcohol if you BAC is .08 or greater. The law makes a distinction between alcohol and other drugs.

But for carrying a gun there is no such distinction. The way the law is written, it appears that you can not be under any influence of alcohol of other controlled substance. Not up to .08 or even .0000001. You just can't be under the influence - at all. The rules are different for driving a vehicle and packing a gun.

39-17-1321. Possession of handgun while under influence — Penalty. —

(a) Notwithstanding whether a person has a permit issued pursuant to § 39-17-1315 or § 39-17-1351, it is an offense for a person to possess a handgun while under the influence of alcohol or any controlled substance.

( A violation of this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

[Fallguy]

Mars you and are starting to agree on a few things....kinds of scares me. :)

[waynesan]

OK guys and gals, we're about to find out how much influence we can have on the State Legislature. This Wednesday will tell the tale. IF you haven't called yet, don't put it off any longer.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=3666

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

Jamie, I can't agree with you.

I think you are thinking about the standards for driving a vehicle.

55-10-401. Driving under the influence of intoxicant, drug or drug producing stimulant prohibited — Alcohol concentration in blood or breath. —

(a) It is unlawful for any person to drive or to be in physical control of any automobile or other motor driven vehicle on any of the public roads and highways of the state, or on any streets or alleys, or while on the premises of any shopping center, trailer park or any apartment house complex, or any other premises which is generally frequented by the public at large, while:

(1) Under the influence of any intoxicant, marijuana, narcotic drug, or drug producing stimulating effects on the central nervous system; or

(2) The alcohol concentration in such person's blood or breath is eight-hundredths of one percent (.08 %) or more.

Note that you can not operate a motor driven vehicle if you are under the influence of drugs or alcohol if you BAC is .08 or greater. The law makes a distinction between alcohol and other drugs.

But for carrying a gun there is no such distinction. The way the law is written, it appears that you can not be under any influence of alcohol of other controlled substance. Not up to .08 or even .0000001. You just can't be under the influence - at all. The rules are different for driving a vehicle and packing a gun.

39-17-1321. Possession of handgun while under influence — Penalty. —

(a) Notwithstanding whether a person has a permit issued pursuant to § 39-17-1315 or § 39-17-1351, it is an offense for a person to possess a handgun while under the influence of alcohol or any controlled substance.

( A violation of this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

I feel like Homer Simpson... "So there I was, completely right as usual - and not knowing it"

[Fallguy]

OK guys and gals, we're about to find out how much influence we can have on the State Legislature. This Wednesday will tell the tale. IF you haven't called yet, don't put it off any longer.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=3666

E-mails sent. However...check the calendar for the sub-committee at http://www.legislature.state.tn.us/bills/currentga/CalendarOrders.asp?vCalendarID=1706&vChamber=HC there are other bills we need to support besides the one's mentioned by the NRA, such as the parks carry bill and others.

[saintsfanbrian]

Message sent:

rep.janis.sontany@legislature.state.tn.us; rep.henry.fincher@legislature.state.tn.us; rep.eddie.bass@legislature.state.tn.us; rep.rob.briley@legislature.state.tn.us; rep.judd.matheny@legislature.state.tn.us; eric.watson@legislature.state.tn.us

Upcoming Legislation regarding firearms.

Dear Honorable Representatives,

It has come to my attention that several important bills are up for debate in your committee on Wednesday March 18th. I would like you to take a moment to consider each of these peices of legistlation and how they affect the people of this state.

As you all are aware, the crime problem in Memphis has become outrageous in the past few years and recently has spilled over to the people that are sworn to protect us and defend us from crime. This was from our state senators all the way down to city council and now to the officers on the street that are sworn to uphold the law.

The city has also been over run by gang activity. What used to be quite neighborhoods are now having to turn to gates and private patrols to keep the thugs from coming in and taking things that don't belong to them. I have taken a moment to outline the bills that are up for debate and my personal reasons for why they should pass or not.

House Bill 702, sponsored by State Representative Joe McCord (R-08), allows a person who has a valid Right-to-Carry permit to carry a firearm into restaurants where alcohol may be served, as long as the permit holder is not consuming alcohol or is not otherwise prohibited by posting provisions. As I am sure you are aware, this measure passed the State Senate with a vote of 24 to 6 in January clearly showing that the citizens of this state want this bill passed.

The recent episode at The Windjammer is proof positive that if this bill were allowed to pass, lives could be spared. A Sheriff's officer ILLEGALLY carried his weapon in to this establishment and used it to intimidate another patron of the bar. An innocent bystander intervened and ultimately lost his life. Had this person had the ability to defend himself properly the incident might not have happened. Face it, carry permit holders are usually very responsible people. We have taken the responsibility for defending our own lives because we know that when seconds matter, police are only minutes away.

This bill states that the permit holder MUST NOT consume alcohol. Not to mention, the bar owner already has the right to legally post his property to not allow firearms. For the most part what we are asking is that when we wish to take our family to Outback Steakhouse or Applebee's that we do not have to leave a firearm in the car where it is easy prey for smash and grab artists that will break in to a car for any reason. If we go some place that has Valet, we are forced to leave a firearm in a vehicle with a person that may not have legal right to be in possession of a firearm.

Please, do not make me give up the right to defend myself just because a place serves alcohol whether I drink or not.

House Bill 3063, sponsored by State Representative Phillip Johnson (R-78), would ensure that employees are able to protect themselves as they travel to and from work by allowing them to store their firearms in their vehicles while at work. It prohibits any operator or owner of any parking lot from baring firearms in private vehicles.

Again, this has become one of the more violent cities in the nation. By allowing employers to state that I cannot have the means to defend myself locked in my parked vehicle on their property you are stating that an employers rights are more important than an individual's rights to defend themself. Forget having the firearm at work, what about the drive to or from work? There are plenty of "rough" neighborhoods in this city and others. Having to drive through them is an opportunity for some miscreant to attempt to take my vehicle by force and possibly to end my life just because he likes my car.

Do not make me choose between supporting my family with a paycheck and defending my life.

House Bill 3014, sponsored by State Representative Stacey Campfield (R-18), would authorize full-time faculty and staff with valid handgun carry permits to possess a firearm for self-defense at public schools, colleges, and universities in Tennessee upon completion of an annual firearms training course.

Personally, I think that if a student has gone through the course to get a concealed weapons permit and attends this annual firearms training course they should be allowed to carry on campus also. Again, permit holders are often more responsible than some of the people that are teaching at the university. Distinguishing between a teacher or staff member creates an us and them mentality. Then again, in the wake of Virgina Tech and Louisiana Tech and Northern Illinois, allowing some people on campus to have firearms is better than the only ones having them being the police on campus. Again, when seconds matter, police are only minutes away.

House Bill 3293, sponsored by State Representative Nathan Vaughn (D-02), would eliminate the statutory provision that prohibits a citizen who has voluntarily sought mental health treatment from obtaining a handgun carry permit. The legislation would instead create a seven-year limitation.

While I think some one who is currently under supervision from a doctor to keep them from hurting themselves or others should NOT be able to get a firearm or a permit to carry one, what happens when that person is no longer a threat to themself or another person? Is their right to life any less than a police officers or a politicians or a preachers? No, there should be processes in place where by these people could regain their right to own a firearm and carry it just as the rest of us have.

House Bill 3683, sponsored by State Representative Matthew Hill (R-07), would reduce the Right-to-Carrypermit application fee from $115 to $100.

This is really a non-issue, but being able to save $15 to get a permit would be nice. More people might get them and the streets of this state might be safer.

I would like to thank you for listening to me on these matters and I look forward to your responses.

Signed,

Saintsfanbrian

Concerned Citizen.

Memphis, TN.

All of their emails addresses in one place.

Enjoy.

[Guest GLOCKGUY]

Well i sent all 6 of them a email

[GLOCKMEISTER]

Heres the one I sent the members and others...

Honorable Representatives,

It has come to my attention that several important bills are up for debate in your committee on Wednesday March 18th. I personally believe the peoples of the State of Tennessee should the ability to defend themselves. I especially think it imperative they retain that ability when out in public where they can be victimized by a growing criminal element.

House Bill 702, sponsored by State Representative Joe McCord (R-08), allows a person who has a valid Right-to-Carry permit to carry a firearm into restaurants where alcohol may be served, as long as the permit holder is not consuming alcohol or is not otherwise prohibited by posting provisions. As I am sure you are aware, this measure passed the State Senate in years past and again this year with a vote of 24 to 6. The last time it was before the House its my understanding a similar piece of legislation had a majority of our House Representatives as co sponsors. This should clearly indicate the rest of the House and the citizens of this state want this bill passed.

I leave you with a Quote from one of our founding fathers on this particular subject...

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined, nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides from an unarmed man, may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

Thomas Jefferson

Thank you and please consider the voice of ...

WE THE PEOPLE...

Phillip Arrington

Goodlettsville Gun Shop

602 S. Main St

Goodlettsville Tn 37072

615-859-8822

ggunshop@bellsouth.net

www.goodlettsvillegunshop.com

[Guest GUTTERbOY]

Psst... Wednesday's the 19th.

[Fallguy]

I also made sure to ask them to vote against the Ammo Coding bill.

[GLOCKMEISTER]

Psst... Wednesday's the 19th.

shiet, I know... figured it out about the time I hit the "send" button... anyway , they know... at least I hope they do.

[GLOCKMEISTER]

I also made sure to ask them to vote against the Ammo Coding bill.

I made sure that bills dead a long time ago.... it wont get anywhere.

[Guest HexHead]

Dear Representatives,

Several bills of concern to licensed handgun carry permit holders are due to come before you on Wed, March 19th. I urge you to consider all these bills carefully, particularly HR 702.

House Bill 702, sponsored by State Representative Joe McCord (R-08), allows a person who has a valid Handgun Carry Permit to carry a firearm into restaurants where alcohol may be served, as long as the permit holder is not consuming alcohol or is not otherwise prohibited by posting provisions. As I am sure you are aware, this measure passed the State Senate in years past and again this year with a vote of 24 to 6.

I just returned from a trip to MO, with stops in KY, both of which states already have laws in place like HB 702. It was such a pleasant change to be able to go to a nice restaurant with my family without having to be concerned about the status of my pistol. Again, it's far more secure on my hip than left in a car in a parking lot.

I urge you to pass this bill from committee to the House floor for vote and to encourage Speaker Naifeh to allow it to come up for a vote so that your esteemed body can do the people's work.

Tennessee's licensed handgun carry permit holders have proven themselves over the years to be responsible citizens and shown they can be trusted with this additional privilege. None of the fears in the past of "blood running in the streets" have come to pass and it's still an irrational concern.

Thank You.

Sincerely,

[Guest Jamie]

Jamie, I can't agree with you.

I think you are thinking about the standards for driving a vehicle.

55-10-401. Driving under the influence of intoxicant, drug or drug producing stimulant prohibited — Alcohol concentration in blood or breath. —

(a) It is unlawful for any person to drive or to be in physical control of any automobile or other motor driven vehicle on any of the public roads and highways of the state, or on any streets or alleys, or while on the premises of any shopping center, trailer park or any apartment house complex, or any other premises which is generally frequented by the public at large, while:

(1) Under the influence of any intoxicant, marijuana, narcotic drug, or drug producing stimulating effects on the central nervous system; or

(2) The alcohol concentration in such person's blood or breath is eight-hundredths of one percent (.08 %) or more.

Note that you can not operate a motor driven vehicle if you are under the influence of drugs or alcohol if you BAC is .08 or greater. The law makes a distinction between alcohol and other drugs.

But for carrying a gun there is no such distinction. The way the law is written, it appears that you can not be under any influence of alcohol of other controlled substance. Not up to .08 or even .0000001. You just can't be under the influence - at all. The rules are different for driving a vehicle and packing a gun.

39-17-1321. Possession of handgun while under influence — Penalty. —

(a) Notwithstanding whether a person has a permit issued pursuant to § 39-17-1315 or § 39-17-1351, it is an offense for a person to possess a handgun while under the influence of alcohol or any controlled substance.

( A violation of this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

Ah, but is alcohol a controlled substance? Seems to me that 39-17-1321 is also making a distinction, though it's a subtle one.

39-17-402. Definitions. —

(4) “Controlled substance” means a drug, substance, or immediate precursor in Schedules I through VI of §§ 39-17-403 — 39-17-415;

Alcohol is legal to have/consume, provided you're over the age of 21.

Now, I'm not going to go wade through the entire list of scheduled substances, but they in general require a prescription to get, or they aren't legal at all.

Also, simply having a substance in your system isn't enough to necessarily be "Under the Influence". The person would have to be showing some sort of outward effect - slurred speech, red eyes, lack of coordination, etc.

How else would a L.E.O. have suspicion or reason to test the individual for it? And one last thing... if simply having alcohol in your system was enough by it's self to qualify as "intoxicated" or "Under the Influence".... then why set a particular level at all? Why bother stating " eight-hundredths of one percent (.08 %) or more"?

Back to the scheduled substance for a second... most of those aren't even legal to possess, much less use. So yes, if a person is found to have even the slightest amount of certain things in their bloodstream, I can understand how and why they would lose their carry permit, and/or end up in jail.

Any of that make sense, or do I need to try again later? ( It's almost 3:00am here, and I haven't had any coffee yet. )

Oh, and sorry for being so long getting back to this thread, but Sundays and Mondays aren't generally good "computer days" around here.

J.

Edited March 18, 2008 by Jamie

[Guest Jamie]

LOL....ok well I know blood is drawn at the hospital before the person is brought to jail. So I didn't mean I literally didn't see or did see a BAC test given.

Oh I knew what you meant, I just couldn't resist ribbing you for how you said it...

I just know from talking with deputies and riding some that I have seen it when a driver was arrested for DUI that all passengers in the car that had even one drink arrested for PI and not given a sobriety test or a BAC test and then put in jail. Not saying it's right or wrong, just that is has been done.

Hmm... I can't help but wonder what the conviction rate is in those instances... Sounds like the kind of situation people like "DUI Mike" ( anybody remember him?) made a bunch of money defending.

I still hold to that if a LEO knows he can't legally even consume alcohol armed, I doubt he is going to think it is ok for you to. Of course doesn't mean he can or will do anything about it either.

I'm sure most L.E.O.s will go out of their way to find a reason to arrest or otherwise make a person miserable if they find them to be drinking and carrying a gun, even if the person isn't over the limit. At least until they get called on the carpet for it by someone.

Also...not exactly sure how driving laws under Title 57 apply to criminal laws under Title 39 and/or weapon laws under Chapter 17, Part 13.

I'm not exactly sure myself... well over my pay grade. Still, there's the matter of case law, etc., and one law not conflicting with another, or reinforcing another... I know those things come into play in court, but how they effect each other... well, that's why attorneys make the big bucks.

J.

[Marswolf]

Jamie, alcohol is singled out. That's why that word "or" is in both statutes.

[Guest Jamie]

Jamie, alcohol is singled out. That's why that word "or" is in both statutes.

I understand that, and it's exactly my point. Alcohol is singled out, and "intoxicated" or "Under the Influence" is defined by a given amount.

There seems to be no such definition for drugs in general.

Alcohol is legal, though doing certain things with it in your system in too large an amount is not.

Many controlled substances are generally not legal at all. Doesn't matter if they're in your pocket, in your bloodstream, or sitting on a shelf in your house. Therefore if you have them, then you've already broken the law, no matter how impaired you may or may not be. I think the law also assumes that if you have them in your system at any level, you are automatically impaired.

Again, I'm only basing this on personal observation. The kid I mentioned earlier, going to jail for smoking a joint, probably would've gotten away with it if he'd just kept his mouth shut. Yes, we stopped him for weaving back and forth across his lane, but if he'd said "No, I haven't been drinking, I just dropped my cigarette/a CD/whatever and was trying to find it"... well, if he'd managed a field sobriety test... *shrug*

Once he opened his mouth and admitted to using a controlled substance though, it was pretty much all over for him. Refusing the blood test was a waste of time at that point and only made things worse for him.

And speaking of that, I notice a difference concerning blood tests for alcohol vs. drugs:

A test for alcohol gives the amount in a person's blood. A test for drugs only confirms they are present. ( The test which shows how much of a given drug is present takes much longer to process than the one that simply confirms a particular substance is there or not. )

Again, my point here is yes, there certainly seems to be different standard concerning alcohol and drugs, and what is legal and what is not. In one instance a person is allowed some, in the other, none.

In the case of this new bill, HB0702, it's the first instance of there clearly being a "none at all allowed" attached to alcohol for non-law enforcement and firearms, in a way that just can't be argued with.

.... which tends to make me think most cops would be all for it, despite what Ronal Surpas and others have said.

J.

Edited March 18, 2008 by Jamie

[Guest HexHead]

I have no problem with a "no alcohol, period" when carrying provision if it will help get this bill passed.

[Fallguy]

I have no problem with a "no alcohol, period" when carrying provision if it will help get this bill passed.

Not to keep this going, but the bill actually only has the "no alcohol, period" part while you are inside the establishment that serves alcohol for onsite consumption. When you are otherwise out in the public or at home the "under the influence" of 39-17-1321 would apply.

Part of me thinks the not consuming at all part of HB0702 is because we already don't expect a bartender to determine how much is too much as far as driving, public intoxication, so don't want them trying to tell how much is too much for carrying while in their place.