Tennessee Firearms Assoc. Inc.

The suit filed by Randy Rayburn, et al, to have the Restaurant Carry Law overturned is on the docket for Chancellor Claudia Bonnyman's courtroom
in the Historic Court House at 9:00AM Friday, 20 November 2009. Here's a link to a .PDF of the docket:



And this link is to the Chancery court page:


More when I find it out!

David

Thanks, David.

I plan on being there.

From what I gather, it sounds like our liberal activist judge decided to rewrite the law today.

What options (appeals, further legislation, etc.) do we have at this point?

well that sucks.

We need the Legislature to re-write the law, taking the “vagueness” out. Something to the effect that HCP Holders are allowed to carry anywhere alcohol is served, irrespective of the nom de plume of said establishment, under the same restrictions, no drinking while carrying. Make the proprietor post if that be their desire, it was the wish of the Legislature that legal, law abiding HCP Holders be able to bear their arms for their own defense.

In concert, we need to push the Legislature to assign responsibility to those entities that do post, making them responsible for their patron’s safety, dollar wise. They are making a profit off the customer; they need to be held liable if they deny Constitutional Rights.

Thirdly, the Legislature needs to stop the “big tent” designation of bars as restaurants. If they primarily make their living serving alcohol, designate them as bars, with the resulting increase in insurance premiums.

If our current Legislators are not willing to step to the plate to perform this, throw them out and get ones that will! As is the case of this judge, they need to be reminded they work for us, they are not our rulers!

This brings up another question, what can be done to remove this judge from office? if her jurisdiction is statewide, wouldn't the State Senate have that authority?

http://www.theleafchronicle.com/article ... 9/1002/rss

NASHVILLE — Tennessee's new law allowing people with handgun permits to be armed in bars and restaurants that serve alcohol is unconstitutionally vague, a judge ruled on Friday.

Chancellor Claudia Bonnyman said the law, enacted earlier this year over the veto of Gov. Phil Bredesen, is "fraught with ambiguity."

She ruled after an hour of arguments in a lawsuit brought by a group of plaintiffs, many of them restaurant owners.

Tennessee previously banned handguns in all locations where alcohol was served. The new law made an exception for establishments that serve at least one meal on five days per week and that "the serving of such meals shall be the principal business conducted." Tennessee has no legal definition to distinguish bars from restaurants.

Plaintiffs' attorneys argued that it would be difficult for patrons to know what restaurants met the exceptions, which would put them at risk of breaking the law.

"What citizen could ever know that?" attorney David Raybin asked during the hearing. "It's not within the knowledge to know that fact. It's criminal if you make the wrong choice."

However, Assistant Attorney General Lyndsay Fuller Sanders said patrons who have concerns "can just ask."

"Common sense should not be thrown out the window," Sanders said.

But Bonnyman eventually ruled that language in the current law is "unfairly vague."

Sharon Curtis-Flair, a spokeswoman for the state attorney general's office, said attorneys will study the opinion and decide whether to appeal.

Rep. Curry Todd, a main sponsor of the measure, said he hadn't seen the ruling but said he will ask the state to appeal. The Collierville Republican said he plans to "re-pass" legislation in January to fix any legal problems.

Plaintiffs' attorney David Smith said Bonnyman's ruling will stand unless overturned by an appeals court or the Tennessee Supreme Court. However, he said the state Legislature could pass a new law.

"But then that would create a new debate," Smith said.

Sen. Doug Jackson, D-Dickson and the chief Senate sponsor, said he expects the law to be restored either through appeals or through legislation.

"I anticipate the first of next week you're going to see legislation filed and we'll establish a clear standard," he said.

Tennessee's new law took effect July 14. Thirty-seven states had similar legislation at the time.

Many restaurants across the state opted out of the law under a provision allowing them to do so. The legislation retained an existing ban on consuming alcohol while carrying a handgun.

Randy Rayburn, who owns three Nashville restaurants, said the judge's ruling is mainly a victory for Tennessee residents who "are opposed to this law because it is vague ... and defies common sense."

Nevertheless, critics complained that guns and alcohol in close proximity are a dangerous combination.

Of the roughly 218,000 handgun permit holders in Tennessee, 278 had their permits revoked last year, records showed. Since 2005, state records show nearly 1,200 people have lost their permits.

I have not seen the opinion but my experience as an attorney tells me that Judge Bonnyman is typically pretty competent as a judge. Please do not suggest that her decision was politically motivated until we have had a chance to review the opinion in detail.

Let me suggest this, the current version of the law defined the term "restaurant" to perhaps be less expansive than the prohibition thus some places could be off limits because they served alcohol (e.g., Tootsie's) but because the state ABC or the local beer boards were not enforcing state law, these places might have failed the definition of a restaurant that was put in the restaurant carry law. Perhaps the way to fix this is to model on this theory as a sample

-- General law - firearms are prohibited in places .... (that serve alcoholic beverages for on premises consumption). This prohibition shall not apply to
a) persons authorized to carry weapons pursuant to TCA 39-17-1351
b) (other exemptions)

While we are at it, if the judge thought the restaurant law was "vague" what would she do with the parks bill and the local option? I say while we are fixing vague laws, let's demand that the legislature strip the local option on parks before someone else comes along and has that law declared unconstitutionally vague.

Sometimes, there are silver linings in storm clouds - let's see what develops.....

I received two replies from my email to all senators and legislators, one from Frank Nicely and Curry Todd. Frank replied back: "Ben, I think it is time for Tennessee to adopt the Vermont model and let anyone who is not a Felon, carry anytime, anywhere. No permit, no fee. We can retire several people at the dept of saftey."

I replied back: "I agree whole heartedly! And I thank you for your support, however, a permit may still be needed so Tennesseans could carry in other states that would not honor such a law."

It's a shame time, energy, and money is having to be spent on a no-brainer self defense issue.

I would defintiely support Vermont (or Alaska) style free carry for all law-abiding Tennessee citizens. This would be precisely pursuant to the enumerated right to carry arms for our common self-defense (Article I, Section 26, Tennessee Constitution's Declaration of Rights). The only "delegated power" is that the legisalture shall have power to regulate the WEARING of arms with a view to prevent crime. That is, the State can only legislate HOW one carries, not whether.

My understanding of the lawsuuit against the restaurant bill was that those of us who exercise our RIGHT to armed self defense in establishments serving alcohol are a "public nuisance". Shouldn't the judge's ruling have been limited to that allegation and shouldn't the plantiffs had to have produced evidence proving their accusation beyond a reasonable doubt?

These repeat problems caused by non-permit holders may at some point convince the legislature that trying to micromanage permit holders really is not where their time should be invested.

I believe that Florida's laws don't allow for posting of a place open to the public (other than those belonging to the Feds). If that is working for them we can use that example for Tennessee.

Yesterday was a setback but I believe our Legislators will get this fixed. It's frustrating for all of us who worked so hard for this Law. This is far from over. We just have to keep pushing. We can't become too discouraged. This just means we have to talk to more Lawmakers and talk to the public and educate those that don't understand. Word of mouth is very very powerful. Use it.
http://www.fox17.com/newsroom/top_stori ... 2043.shtml