Tennessee Firearms Assoc. Inc.

I met with Walt Baker (CEO of Tennessee Hospitality Association) for about 1.5 hours. Mr. Baker has been on the local news speaking as someone who is NOT a supporter of the Restaurant Carry Law as it is written. He was a very nice man and I appreciate him giving me the time to speak with him regrading the new Restaurant Carry Law. Mr. Baker is Not a HCP Holder nor does he own a gun of any sort (that is a personal decision on his part). Mr. Baker is very well known in the Nashville Community and beyond. He has done marketing for Convention Centers, Hotels, multiple restaurants such as Shoney's etc etc....I told Mr. Baker about my husband's murder at Jonny's Sports Bar and explained to him why I support the Restaurant Carry Law and why posting is a bad idea. Of course I believe Restaurant Owners do have the right to post, however....I don't believe it is "smart". It invites criminals to come in and do whatever to whoever, knowing there is nobody in that establishment that can defend themselves. Here is the basic break down of what Mr. Baker and the Coalition of Restaurants including Randy Rayburn want by this lawsuit they have filed.

One of the 3 choices
1. Make Restaurants "Opt In" instead of opting out. (I don't agree)

2. Retract the law all together for Vagueness. (The law could possibly use some revamping-maybe IN THE NEXT LEGISLATIVE SESSION). I do not believe the Law is "Vague" to the point that a HCP Holder would bring their Gun into a place they should not. The Bill clearly says what qualifies as a place you can carry. I however am someone who believes you should be able to carry just about everywhere. Crime occurs everywhere. But sometimes you have to take babysteps to ease these people. There probably needs to be a clear line drawn as to what is a restaurant and what is a bar. We have no "bars" in Tennessee right now. Maybe it is time to change that? There are many places that just pay the fine because they are not selling enough in food to carry alcohol. They should NOT be allowed to do this. So it really comes down to are they operating the way they should or just getting by under the radar? What a mess. (Not HCP Holders fault).

3. Make it so the Restaurant has zero liability if a HCP Holder is served a drink unknowing to the bartender that they are carrying. (I think this is fair). If a HCP Holder chooses to drink the bar should NOT be liable and they simply want it stated in the law itself to protect them.

Bottom line.......it is ALL ABOUT $$$$$$. It is NOT about personal safety of the patron. It is about MONEY. Money makes the world go round. Round & round & round.

I could go along with #3, if we had a provision in there making it clear the zero liability ONLY applied if the restaurant was entirely unposted.

IOW, if you post, you assume liability, lots of it.

Miss Nikki,

I would like to personally thank you for your tireless efforts to support and uphold our rights.

Hope you do not mind, but I hold you up as an example to my children, and my acquaintances, as to the choices one has in the wake of calamity, either roll over and take it, or go about the business of attempting to change a bad situation. Hitch up the britches so to speak, and work to make a positive difference instead of just accepting bad luck.

You have my gratitude for all you do!

personally if i find an HCP holder drinking in public while carrying, I will put my foot up their a** , I have yet to meet any Hcp holder less than stone cold serious about their permit and retaining their right to carry, you have to be careful about words, they can leave loopholes, the way it stands now, I see nothing wrong with the statute, the punishments for drinking while carrying are well defined in the shall issue statute, I believe it's just the liberal fear monger's being calculating ,as in, if great wealth is required to back up your right to carry, then suddenly there are very few who can muster loads of cash. personally I dont agree with any of it.Those who put themselve's above the law are apt to be judged by it. It was said the shall issue statute is for the prevention of crime, not mentioning the loss of innocent life by being able to defend yourself from a dirt bag, however, it is quite obvious!,,, just as the restaurant carry is obvious, only problem? it doesn't fall in line with liberal leftists and their incessant urge to control anyone and everyone!

The law can be easily fixed by deleting the definition. Then the law would say - blah, blah, blah - "permit holders excepted."

I could agree with eliminating liability for allowing guns, the others definitely no way.

1. The law is not vague. Either they are stupid, or are deliberately misrepresenting the law. (I'm inclined to believe the latter.)
2. Opt in ? Our justice system is based on the premise that an act is legal until specifically outlawed. (Laws are passed to ban something, not allow something. This new law merely repealed on old one.)

we need to make sure this candidate sets at home and watches the outcome of the election on TV and knows exactly why they did so.

It would interesting to see how a sobriety test would look with a fake gun. I wonder if they will ever attach the Blood Alcohol Level to CHP holders. I personally don't drink. Even if I still did I wouldn't want to subdue my senses while armed away from home. I have friends that drink a beer or two on occasion and I'll be happy to watch their back but this day and age it is not good to let your guard down. Stay home to drink.
I totally agree that instead of suing our legislatures they need to force bars to define themselves as bars. If you put up any sign at all put one up at the entrance to the bar area of the restaurant. Respect my right to defend myself while I enjoy your cuisine.
I think that if you open an establishment to the public you should have to respect their constitutional rights period. No opting out! On the same note. If a park is paid for by tax dollars we do not have the opportunity to opt out of paying for it so they should not be allowed to opt out on our constitutional rights. There needs to be a law that states if any entity restricts or limits an individuals rights to defend their selves and family then that entity must provide reasonable security to that person. Better take out the "reasonable" part. We know they don't know how to use they word. You have a right to go to a public park. You also have the right to security while there.
Since it is all about $$$$ then there should be a clause, that any person holding a public office that votes to restrict an individuals rights for personal protection then they must contribute x amount of $$ to a fund that provides 24 hour security to public areas restricting the carry of fire arms.

Lastly, how did the CEO respond to your arguments. Did he even seem the least bit receptive?

Rich