Enjoying Dinner or Breaking the Law

[saintsfanbrian]

I was wondering. Some restaurants allow patrons to bring in alcohol to consume even if they do not sell it. Would one be breaking the law carrying in this establishment or not? Alcohol isn't sold for consumption on premisis, but alcohol is being consumed on the premisis?

My opinion is that you would be well with in your rights and the law to carry here.

[molonlabetn]

That would make it illegal for me to carry anywhere there might be alcohol being consumed...

As I understand the current wording, it must be sold there for consumption to bar carrying firearms... not simply sold there, and not simply consumed there.

[Guest Boomhower]

That's my understanding as well.

[bteague2]

a similar situation but not the one mentioned in the thread, what if you ate at a restaurant that serves alcohol but you sit outside? I would assume it would be the same as eating inside, but where do they draw they line? If you can walk by whats the difference?

[robbiev]

TN law seems to say the following:

(a) It is an offense for a person to possess a firearm within the confines of a building open to the public where liquor, wine or other alcoholic beverages, as defined in § 57-3-101(a)(1)(A), or beer, as defined in § 57-6-102(1), are served for on premises consumption.

It says "served" not "sold."

[Guest Voodoo_1]

I was wondering. Some restaurants allow patrons to bring in alcohol to consume even if they do not sell it. Would one be breaking the law carrying in this establishment or not? Alcohol isn't sold for consumption on premisis, but alcohol is being consumed on the premisis?

My opinion is that you would be well with in your rights and the law to carry here.

My opinion is that you would be well within your rights to carry your firearm in the above situation. The eating establishment is not serving the alcohol, the patron personnally brought it into the establishment for personal consumption. As a law abiding permit holder, it is not your responsibility to guess if someone might have brought a flask or bottle into the restaurant. It is only your responsibility to know if the restaurant serves alcohol on its premisis.

[Guest db99wj]

Do those establishments have a beer or liquor license? I assume not, because of they did they would be serving it. The law above says "served for on premises consumption" these places are not that, they just allow you. Interesting.

[Marswolf]

What if you just carry concealed and ignore a dumb law because self-preservation is of higher order than law observance?

[DaveTN]

I’m not up on Tennessee liquor law, but I would guess it is illegal for a restaurant that does not have a liquor license to allow the consumption of liquor on the premises.

I doubt you could be held responsible for that. However, if it was a restaurant that I wanted to frequent I would mention it to the owner. I would guess that would be the end of it.

[TGO David]

My opinion is that you would be well within your rights to carry your firearm in the above situation. The eating establishment is not serving the alcohol, the patron personnally brought it into the establishment for personal consumption.

I think this would be a gray area of the law. I'm the eternal pessimist I guess, but I tend to think that whenever there is any amount of slack in the way a law is worded, that slack can and will be used by an overzealous prosecutor to hang you.

I prefer laws with concise, specific verbiage. Unfortunately we don't have too many of those anymore.

What if you just carry concealed and ignore a dumb law because self-preservation is of higher order than law observance?

I think that all boils down to acceptable risk. You have the risk of being caught vs. the risk of being unarmed when you might really need to be. Personal preference only can dictate which is more acceptable to you.

Again, we really need to force our legislators to get this damn restaurant restriction lifted so that people wishing to arm themselves for self defense aren't criminalized.

[Marswolf]

I think that all boils down to acceptable risk. You have the risk of being caught vs. the risk of being unarmed when you might really need to be.

Again, we really need to force our legislators to get this damn restaurant restriction lifted so that people wishing to arm themselves for self defense aren't criminalized.

As we keep telling people, a gun left in the nightstand (or car) can't help you.

10-4 on the need for a law change. Yes...I know they are eliminating 10 codes.

[TGO David]

As we keep telling people, a gun left in the nightstand (or car) can't help you.

10-4 on the need for a law change. Yes...I know they are eliminating 10 codes.

Agreed on both points! But of course, I'd never break the law.

[Marswolf]

Did you know that a Kel-Tec P3AT will fit in the back pocket of your jeans?

[Guest Voodoo_1]

I think this would be a gray area of the law.

I don't see this as a gray area at all. Facts:

1. The establishment does not stock liquor.

2. The establishment does not sale liquor.

3. The establishment does not serve liquor.

Given these (3) facts, what else do you need to qualify as a carry zone?

that slack can and will be used by an overzealous prosecutor to hang you.

What am I being prosecuted for? Did the CCW police do a raid on the restaurant, pat everyone down and take the handgun carry patrons to jail? I believe this is a little dramatic and over the top! If I'm being prosecuted for using my firearm in a self defense situation in this restaurant, I'm damn glad I had it with me instead of in the car because this would have to be a life or dealth situation. As far as the overzealous prosector, I've got a defense attorney that would tear this prosecutor a new arshole with the above facts.

Again, we really need to force our legislators to get this damn restaurant restriction lifted so that people wishing to arm themselves for self defense aren't criminalized.

I agree with this one 100%

[DaveTN]

I've got a defense attorney that would tear this prosecutor a new arshole with the above facts.

As any Defense Attorney would; but he would do it on your dime.

[TGO David]

What am I being prosecuted for? Did the CCW police do a raid on the restaurant, pat everyone down and take the handgun carry patrons to jail? I believe this is a little dramatic and over the top! If I'm being prosecuted for using my firearm in a self defense situation in this restaurant, I'm damn glad I had it with me instead of in the car because this would have to be a life or dealth situation. As far as the overzealous prosector, I've got a defense attorney that would tear this prosecutor a new arshole with the above facts.

Easy... we're on the same side. There are a multitude of ways that you could end up having to employ your defense attorney because it became apparent that you were carrying in an establishment where alcohol was being consumed on premises. You could have been printing and got made by an off duty cop who was also eating there. You could have bent over to tie your shoes and your weapon slipped into view of some worrisome nosy nancy who used her cell phone to report a "man with a gun" in the restaurant. It's called a gray area for a reason. Not because it's right or wrong, but because it could be either depending on the local juris-dick-ion and how they choose to railroad you with it.

I've seen really good defense attorneys go against a corrupt system and get their butts handed to them, too.

[robbiev]

I don't see this as a gray area at all. Facts:

1. The establishment does not stock liquor.

2. The establishment does not sale liquor.

3. The establishment does not serve liquor.

Given these (3) facts, what else do you need to qualify as a carry zone?

"Stocking" and "selling" are irrelevant, especially in relation to this original post. The original post was asking about restaurants that don't sell alcohol but allow patrons to bring it in themselves. I have personally been to a restaurant that allows this, and the waiter will take your bottle and serve the alcohol (as opposed to allowing the customer to pour it for themselves).

The law says "serve" and does not mention the other two.

However, I agree with the theory. If a business itself doesn't not serve liquor, it shouldn't be illegal.

[Guest RN MEDIC]

I'm active in TFA as many others here are and ALL SHOULD Be. The trouble with trying to get this exception into our law here in TN is we have been opposed in the state legislature by the lobby by the TN Resturant Assoc.

Actually the law we want is that already in place in some other states that basically says one may carry in a eating place where alcohol is sold for consumption with the meal on the premesis as long as the one carrying the gun does not drink alcohol. States with that law don't report any significant problems with the combination as long as the permitted person carrying the gun abides by the law.

In TN the percentage every year of people with a permit who have a problem with the law such that their legal ability to keep that permit is FAR less than 1%, that's EVERY YEAR. I'd say thats very Very VERY good.

CARRY YOUR GUN. Now be sure that when you carry in a resturant where we are now prohibited that you do so very discreetly as you maintain a LOW PROFILE/DECORUM. Just enjoy your meal, tip generously, be on your best manners, and the resturant isn't going to care what you carry. They do want our business.

I've been in a little Mexican resturant in a small town where I was pretty sure that EVERYONE in the place had a gun, knife, or both, BUT: nobody cared, nothing happened. Everyone just had their meal with their friends, paid and left. The hispanics running the place didn't care. No harm done. Now we still need to work Work WORK to get that needless restriction repealed, but till then, DON'T risk your life by not being armed. I carried before permits came into being, I carry now with my permit, and I'll still carry after permits are gone; and anybody (I MEAN ANYBODY) who tries to hurt me or take my gun and I'm going to start blasting. I'm just too old and in too much severe pain with bad health (heart surgery, back surgery, neck surgery, shoulder surgery, etc. etc. ) to get beat up or go to jail. I don't EVER start ANY trouble with ANYBODY. I've already been in a number of situations where I could have (and very nearly did have to shoot a bad guy/guys), but used avoidance, de-escelation, and just running like a scared panther, to get away and NOT fire a shot.

Please forgive me for rambling on. Just hope something I've said is helpful to someone.

Respectfully, RN

[saintsfanbrian]

Very helpful mr. medic. I will take this to heart. Come on new job, I could use a kel-tec for the pocket.

[Marswolf]

I could use a kel-tec for the pocket.

... ...

[Guest Voodoo_1]

"Stocking" and "selling" are irrelevant, especially in relation to this original post. The original post was asking about restaurants that don't sell alcohol but allow patrons to bring it in themselves. I have personally been to a restaurant that allows this, and the waiter will take your bottle and serve the alcohol (as opposed to allowing the customer to pour it for themselves).

The law says "serve" and does not mention the other two.

However, I agree with the theory. If a business itself doesn't not serve liquor, it shouldn't be illegal.

Merely working the equation backwards, you can't serve alcohol if you don't sell it, and you can't sell it if you don't stock it.

As you stated, you personally saw a waiter take the bottle brought in by the patron and "serve the alcohol (as opposed to allowing the customer to pour it for themselves)". If this waiter does not have an alcohol serve permit, they have just broken the law. The restaurant also broke the law for allowing this waiter to serve without a permit. If the restaurant does not have a liquor license, they have probably broken the law by allowing the waiter to serve the patron.

I know how I will handle a situation like this, but I believe it is up to each individual to decide, on their own, what they will or won't do.

[towerclimber37]

+1 on the pocket keltek

[Guest jackdog]

Golly gee guys we would never bend the law just to be safer, would we ?

But oh how I love my Kel-Tec, it also fits nicely in the front pocket of your jeans, but I still perfer the back pocket.

[Mousegun]

Do you guys know that even police are legally prohibited from carrying at a restaurant that serves while ON DUTY if they are not performing that duty (like having lunch).

The state Attorney General made two rulings on that issue alone.

How many police officers have been arrested for carrying while eating lunch????????? Not too many I bet.

I do get a kick out of nicely mentioning this to any officer I see in a restaurant that serves if he has his firearm on, and they all do. For the most part, they don't even know that law because it so stupid.

Another one that should go is any establishments ability to post a no guns sign and make you a criminal if you enter. They effectively "write the law" in that situation. In many other states, a sign does not get you convicted unless you are asked to leave and you refuse. Then it becomes a disturbing the peace violation.

Both of these will be a long hard battle with Jimmy Neifth as Speaker of the House of Reps.

[Guest 0down]

Has anyone heard of anyone being charged or losing their permit for carrying in a restaurant that serves alcohol?