News report on what new resturant carry might look like...

[macville]

Let me just start that what Doug Jackson talks about in this news report can only be defined as a** backwards and is sure to get struck down as unconstitutionally vague quicker than the last law.

http://www.wsmv.com/video/21978035/index.html

Write him and let him know that what he is proposing is unacceptable. It's still confusing and shows that obviously they don't trust us in SOME places that serve alcohol--even though alcohol is alcohol and you can get drunk just the same.

Is there a chance we will ever send smart people to Nashville???

Matthew

[johnharris]

I would like to hear from TFA members and/or gun owners on this topic. Its going to be hot to address.


Here are some of my preliminary thoughts and as this link shows, I don't favor the approach that was described in the news:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2938

[Lemonhead]

The way I heard on the news story, they're just setting up for failure. It's already illegal to carry a firearm without a permit, why does it need to be double illegal to carry where alcohol is served? Just repeal that portion of the law in my opinion. Even if they don't think a clean bill will pass I'd like to see it put through the motions. I also like your version, just adding the exemption for HCP holders where they basically have the same right to carry as LEOs.

[bill9755]

[tdfirearms]

I agree with bill9755. Also, the law should be written that we (HCP Holders) should be allowed to carry ANY place alcohol is served, restaurant or bar regardless of what type of establishment it is labeled. The key point is as long as the HCP holder does not consume alcohol. I like what Sen. Jackson proposed, stiffen the penalties for those who do drink and carry.

[Usagi]

I am in favor of no state-level restrictions on handgun carry.

Therefore, I am naturally against any locations being off limits to carry by a HCP holder.

Don't know if I can make it any clearer than that.

[tjy2001]

[johnharris]

Pay close attention to the intent and precedent of holding permit holders "to a higher standard" meaning that a permit holder who violates the law (even by accident) could be charged criminally with sanctions much higher than someone carrying illegally without a permit. Where is that coming from and what does it perhaps mean if we don't fiercely oppose the idea?

[C. Richard Archie]

I think it is typical pandering to the liberal agenda that is becoming Tennessee. I remember a statement about not wanting to "tip the cart".

I think it is time we turned the cart over, burned it and started fresh. I say we go all in, as trying to play nice and suit the other side resulted in us getting our hinneys kicked the last time. Make it non-vague. Want to up the penalty for illegal carrying, make it the same across the board. Violating the law should not result in a higher penalty for one class over another.

Crooks killing locksmiths working in the parking lot in broad daylight in Jackson, LEO shot and killed in Henderson at a grocery store during an armed robbery. I think the general population is starting to get the drift that there is evil out there, and not enough LEO's on duty to make it anywhere near safe. If we do not take the backlash against the attempt to liberalize and socialize our society that is running high at the moment and use it, we lose an opportunity that may never come back around.

Personally, I think it takes gall to try to pile on the HCP holders with this mess, instead of standing up for our Constitutional Rights. This attempt to lesson the scope of the original law and add penalties to the HCP holder class should not be accepted.

[macville]

[johnharris]

Based on the news report, it sounds like higher penalties are being proposed.

[Fencer]

There should not be higher standards (penalties) for handgun carry permit holders. As usual, this would penalize the good guys and ignore the bad guys.

Dennis Wood

[Tim Nunan]

According to Senator Southerland at our last chapter meeting Senator Jackson new bill will only apply to those establishments that have an ABC license. This is because beer permits are issued by cities/towns/counties and the state has no control over them; hence you could be barred from a pizza place or bowling alley that serves beer.

Of course the question then is why wasn't this a concern with the bill that was just voided? Is this a case of the legislature just trying to get "something" passed whether it is a good bill or not?

I'll be posting a recap of Senator Southerland's comments and observations in the Morristown forum.

[johnharris]

I think Senator Southerland is wrong. Beer permits, while issued at the county level, are regulated by state law. A state statute makes carrying in places that sell beer off limits for gun owners so a statute can easily exempt permit holders.

john

[RobertNashville]

I sent an email (text below) to Senator Jackson and CCed my actual Representative and Senator...it will be interesting to see if I receive any reply back from any of the three and what they say if they do reply.

TEXT:
Dear Senator Jackson,

I mean no disrespect but in my opinion, the new proposal for a so-called “guns in bars” bill is ridiculous; it is even more confusing than the bill that was passed earlier and is, frankly, an insult to every law-abiding gun owner and carry permit holder in the state.

Either those representing us in the state legislature trust us to be responsible with our weapons or they don’t; and it appears that you and others don't.

The is simply no logical reason to restrict any permit holder from legally carrying his/her weapon in a bar if that person isn’t drinking and there is even less of a logical reason for stipulating stiffer punishment for permit holders who break the law than any other citizen.

Simply allow those who can legally carry a handgun to carry in bars and restaurants whether alcohol is served or not - any establishment that doesn’t want permit holders to carry in their weapon in their establishment can POST IT and let the permit holder decide if they want to give their patronage to that establishment or not.

Regards,
XXX
XXX, Tennessee
XXX@hotmail.com

Cc: Representative Donna Rowland and Senator Bill Ketron

[ProguninTN]

[macville]

Here's what I sent Jackson:

Dear Senator Jackson, I just watched the news report on WSMV's website about you introducing a new "carry where alcohol is served" law for the next session and I wanted to let you that what you described I find FAR more confusing than the struck down law. What you are proposing makes restaurants which are truly "restaurants" in dry liquor counties (like Rhea County) or outside the city limits in a county (like Yea Old Stake House in Knox County or Big Ed's in Oak Ridge which can only serve beer) off limits to those of us with permits when they were not before. I ask you, why should I be able to carry in Applebees, but not Yea Old Stake House or Big Ed's? Because if what you propose goes through, that's exactly what would happen.

In my mind, here's what it boils down to. Alcohol is alcohol, correct? Liquor, wine, and beer are just different flavors of alcohol. If I am not allowed to drink while carrying, why does it matter what flavor of alcohol is served or where it is served? If a permit holder is going to drink while carrying, none of it really matter because it will still have the same exact effect on the person and they will still be breaking the law. If you are going to trust us to not drink in some places, then what is so magical about these other places which serve the same alcohol that would somehow entice us to drink? If you answer anything in this email, I would love to hear you explain that because simply put, if you can trust us in one place, you should be able to trust us any place alcohol is served. This is why I want to see no restrictions on carry where alcohol is served.

John Harris of the Tennessee Firearms Association has come up with great wording for fixing the law. It so simple that anyone who can do all the paperwork/class/etc for an HCP can figure out, not to mention LEO's, AD's, Judges, and owners of businesses that serve alcohol. Simply add to 39-17-1305 section "C" the following, "(3) authorized to carry a weapon pursuant to TCA 39-17-1351." That would allow those of us with permits to legally carry anywhere alcohol is served. Nothing else is needed.

In regards to those restaurant owners, like Austin Ray and Randy Rayburn who sued over the law, you, and the rest of our elected officials, need to tell them that you're not there to wipe their butts. They are adults and can figure out that TN 39-17-1359 allows them to post against legal carry in their restaurants. If they CAN NOT figure that out, then should they really hold a liquor or beer license?

Also, about what you said for stiffing penalties for drinking while carrying. The law needs to be better defined before we start stiffing penalties. Currently, the law only says it's illegal to carry if "under the influence of alcohol." But what does that exactly mean? Under the DUI law, it clearly states that you are only "under the influence" if you have a BAC of .08% or more. Does the law mean if I am at home, drink one beer, and then go out an hour and a half later to the store that I am committing a crime since I possibly could still be "under the influence", even though I was never legally drunk and not even close to it? We let people operate vehicles after drinking up to a certain amount, and there are FAR more people who drive than legally carry a gun. What about someone taking communion at church with wine? If the judge thought the old restaurant law was vague, what does this law mean?

Let me put it this way, if I had a beer and you couldn't smell my breath, could you tell I had been drinking at all? The very definition of "influence" says that it is, "things to be a compelling force on or PRODUCE EFFECTS on the actions, behavior, opinions, etc." If you can't tell through physical or auditory signs that a person has had anything to drink, then are they under the influence? It just strikes me as totally illogical that we will let people drive a device that weighs over 1 ton with a BAC of .08%, but so it seems that having a BAC of even .01% is illegal with a HCP--even if you are walking down a street harming no one. It makes absolutely no logical sense to me. I'm not saying that we should make it legal to drink and carry (although, that's legal in Utah up to BAC .08% and I haven't found a single report of an incident from the entire state), but we should examine what "under the influence" actually means.

Thank you for your time and I look forward to your response.

Matthew

[SomeGuy]

Go for all. If Sen. Jackson gets weak knee'd, we can find another Senator who will sponsor our bills, as they ought to be written. We played nice last year, and they beat us in court. We have the votes, go for everything.

[TacticaLogic]

[johnharris]

Do we line up the votes in the Senate so that we get a simple "individuals carrying pursuant to 39-17-1351 are exempt" or kill it?

Goodness, some of the posters over at TGO - if they do like they did last year - will endorse a "take what we can get - anything is better" attitude but that's a compromise I do not want to consider at this point.