Tennessee Firearms Assoc. Inc.

http://www.johnsoncitypress.com/News/ar ... p?ID=72427

text of the article

"Judge strikes down Tenn. guns in bars law
By Lucas L. Johnson II
Associated Press
Printer-friendly version

Email Article

NASHVILLE — A judge ruled Friday that a new law allowing handguns in Tennessee bars and restaurants is unconstitutional.
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 suit brought by a group of Tennesseans, many of them restaurant owners. The law allowed handgun permit holders to take their weapons into places serving alcohol, providing the establishment makes more than 50 percent of its profits from food.

There was no immediate word from attorneys for the state about an appeal.

The measure 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.

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.

Rep. Curry Todd, a main sponsor of the measure, said he hadn't seen the ruling but disputed that the law is vague. The Collierville Republican said he will introduce legislation in January to fix any legal problems.

Todd said he will also ask the state attorney general to appeal the ruling."

looks like the dismalcrats are successful again, they even go on to misrepresent the facts again about the permits that were revoked in the past. we need to start calling the state AG to immediately (stifling laughter and tears here) appeal this ruling. my question to the legal experts here, can we the citizens appeal this ruling without the AG? i do NOT want to go through this holiday season without any way to protect my family when we go eat.

the other thing i want to do is find a way to start challenging liquor liscences of these resteraunt owners that filed the suit, i think it's past time to make them pay for their transgressions on our rights.

So my question is simply "unconstitutional or not" the law is still on the books just like the NFA. If we are caught carrying in a resturaunt can we be charged, and with what, because the law is there there?

I have the same question. Does this officially mean we can no longer carry in establishments that sell alcohol for consumption? How can one single judge undo all the work completed by many people?

So I still have the question. The law is there reguardless of what this judge thinks. If I carry in a place that serves what can they cite, ticket, or arrest me for? Just beacuse a judge rules on a law does not mean it goes away. It is still there right?

It depends on the ruling - which I have not seen yet since I am traveling (its hunting season in 2 states)

First, if the order finds it unconstitutional then that finding is effective immediately unless the court "stayed" the effectiveness of the ruling to allow an appeal.

Second, the impact of the ruling could be delayed if a "notice of appeal" is filed AND the court grants a stay of the effectiveness of its decision.

Finally, an appellate court can reverse the court on any number of reasons but that is unlikely to happen fast enough (its already been almost 2 days!!). More likely, we need to get the legislature to pass this change in the law THE FIRST WEEK they are back!

All that this coalition of Restaurants have done is simply delay the inevitable. Right to carry permit holders WILL be able to carry their legal weapons for self defense in establishments that serve alcohol. This really cool guy I know in Heaven will be helping me on this one.
http://www.fox17.com/newsroom/top_stori ... 2043.shtml
http://www.newschannel5.com/global/story.asp?s=11543069

How can someone file a lawsuit without revealing their names. I always thought you had to be threatened with dire death threats in order to get the identity protection offered under this lawsuit.
If I knew who they were I would "out" them in a heartbeat. I would like to know who they are so I cam simply exercise my right to make an informed decision as to who I do business with. If they support this lawsuit I don't want to "support" them or their livelyhood.

I would like to file a lawsuit against these plaintiffs for violating my civil rights. They have effectively stripped away my ability to protect my family which is my right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

BOTTOM LINE IS THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW WHO THEY ARE SO YOU DON'T KNOW WHICH RESTUARANTS TO BOYCOTT.... THEY GET THE BEST OF BOTH WORLDS, OUR MONEY TO SUPPORT THEIR POLITICS WITHOUT WORRY OF LOSS OF INCOME.

I think that "if" (heaven forbid) a person get killed, robbed, raped, muggged, or otherwise injured because they are unable to defend themselves against the criminals use of weapons (which they will do despite what the "law" says), that that person (or their familys) should be allowed to sue the plaintiffs for damages that they caused.

so where are we stitting on either an appeal or a stay against this ruling?

I wouldn't count on any help from the attorney general regarding an appeal from the Bredesen administration -- it/they are nearly as anti-gun as Judge Bonneyman.
Not sure I'd count altogether on the legislature again, either. Any languague less 'vague', in Judge Bonneyman's language, may be too direct for some legislators to strenuously support it.
We will see, I guess, come January (or March, or May, or not at all). In the meantime, an ultimately concealable 'pocket pistol' may have become a must-buy in Tennessee.