Question on rest. bill by Sam Cooper

[Pat McGarrity]

From Shelby TFA Member Sam Cooper:

Pat,
Since I still can not get on the forum could you please post this question for John to respond to and then forward the reply to me..

I have read SB 3012 and the amendment SA1236. I also watched the video of the Senate committee where this amendment was passed. Not being a lawyer, there is something I don't quite understand. So here goes.

The origional bill proposed by Jackson only amended 39-17-1305, (the code that give permit holders the privilege to carry in establishements that serve alcohol) by deleting and re-writing subdivision (c)(3) , deleting subsection (b) and substituting wording concerning the penalty, then deleting entirely 39-17-1359, (the posting requirement code) and re-writiting it.

Bill proposed by Jackson does not do away with the exception to the prohibition.

However the amendment proposed by Beavers totally deletes all language in Jacksons bill after the enacting clause and totally re-writes the bill. Her amendment totally does away with 39-17-1305 entirely and then amends 39-17-1321, (the code prohibiting possession of a firearm while under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance) by adding, "It is an offence for a person to possess a firearm if the person is both: (1) Within the confines of an establishment 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 consumption on the premises; and (2) Consuming any alcoholic beverage listed in subdivision (1) of the subsection (b).

It then goes on to amend 39-17-1359, (the posting code) and others.

The problem I see is that her amendment removes ALL verbage that gave permit holders the privilege to carry in those establishments. The current 39-17-1305 lists that the prohibition does NOT apply to persons described in subdivision (c). Jacksons bill does some re-wording of that exception but does NOT remove it. Beavers amendment totally does away with it and does nothing to put it back.

Am I missing something here?

Thanks
Sam

[johnharris]

Sam

As a point of clarification, the amendment is actually Jackson's but since it was adopted in the committee it has the committee chair's name as the sponsor since the "committee" adopted the amendment.

As for the amendment itself, it does delete entirely 1305. The effect of that is that such locations are now no different than one that has no beer or liquor license in that the statutory prohibition is gone.

What the amendment does is address the impact of posting and creates various conditions on what happens if a permit holder is carrying in various posted properties and also what the permit holder is doing in the posted properties (principally those licensed to serve beer or alcohol).

Frankly, Rep. Dennis and Sen. Bunch's bill that only deletes the alcohol statute is adequate. These other issues I think are being included in Jackson's amendment to make the change more acceptable to the news media and those whom the news media seeks to confuse over these issues.

The thing that ultimately bothers me is why is Randy Rayburn "ok" with the Jackson amendment?