Tennessean's Editorial on Restaurant Carry / Harris Responds
Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2004 7:50 pmThe editorial is posted here
And here is John Harris' response:
To the Editor:
In a editorial on Dec. 27 (''Gun plan way off-target''), The Tennessean predictably opposes a proposal from Rep. Jason Mumpower to exempt those who are approved by the state of Tennessee to carry a handgun from a law which prohibits possession of firearms in a place that sells alcoholic beverages for consumption so long as the individual is not under the influence of alcohol.
The existing law is bad because it deprives restaurant property owners the freedom of choice to decide whether to prohibit handguns on their property. Not all restaurants that sell alcohol have atmospheres like boom-town saloons. With freedom of choice, those property owners who do not want permit holders armed on their property would still be able to post the property as ''gun free.''
The existing law is bad because it disarms law-abiding citizens, off-duty police officers and others who are legally armed from providing for their own security and that of their families. Their concerns are primarily with the chance of a criminal encounter going to and from the property. Guns should not be left unattended in parking lots.
The existing law is bad because it furthers no criminal deterrent function. It does not stop crime. It does not guarantee safety of the public.
Why does the Tennessee Restaurant Association oppose freedom of choice for its members? Why not give TRA members the option of welcoming permit holders and off-duty police into their property or posting the property ''gun free.'' Why would anyone oppose freedom of choice?
The right thing to do is exempt permit holders and law enforcement from the prohibition. Allow restaurant owners the freedom to decide whether to post their properties.
John Harris
www.tennesseefirearms.com
And here is John Harris' response:
To the Editor:
In a editorial on Dec. 27 (''Gun plan way off-target''), The Tennessean predictably opposes a proposal from Rep. Jason Mumpower to exempt those who are approved by the state of Tennessee to carry a handgun from a law which prohibits possession of firearms in a place that sells alcoholic beverages for consumption so long as the individual is not under the influence of alcohol.
The existing law is bad because it deprives restaurant property owners the freedom of choice to decide whether to prohibit handguns on their property. Not all restaurants that sell alcohol have atmospheres like boom-town saloons. With freedom of choice, those property owners who do not want permit holders armed on their property would still be able to post the property as ''gun free.''
The existing law is bad because it disarms law-abiding citizens, off-duty police officers and others who are legally armed from providing for their own security and that of their families. Their concerns are primarily with the chance of a criminal encounter going to and from the property. Guns should not be left unattended in parking lots.
The existing law is bad because it furthers no criminal deterrent function. It does not stop crime. It does not guarantee safety of the public.
Why does the Tennessee Restaurant Association oppose freedom of choice for its members? Why not give TRA members the option of welcoming permit holders and off-duty police into their property or posting the property ''gun free.'' Why would anyone oppose freedom of choice?
The right thing to do is exempt permit holders and law enforcement from the prohibition. Allow restaurant owners the freedom to decide whether to post their properties.
John Harris
www.tennesseefirearms.com