HB3125

[tnxdshooter]

Interesting. Perhaps I dont understand how procedure works but I could have sworn they voted to not have the symbol in there. That was the whole damned point of the bill.

[tnxdshooter]

The notice required by this section shall be in English, but a duplicate
notice may also be posted in any language used by patrons, customers or
persons who frequent the place where weapon possession is prohibited. In
addition to, but not in lieu of, the sign set out in subdivision (4), notice may also
include the international circle and slash symbolizing the prohibition of the item
within the circle.


According to the amendment yes they can have the international circle and slash but must have the tca in it as well. The circle and slash can accompany the tca sign but cannot be in lieu of according to what I read in the amendment. Correct me if I am wrong.

[GKar]

Read this one: amendment 1 to the corresponding Senate bill...

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/106/Amend/SA1236.pdf

[tnxdshooter]

[C. Richard Archie]

The amendment tells you twice that it is an either or choice:


In section one (1), it says either or
(1) Notice of the prohibition permitted by subsection (a) shall be accomplished by displaying one (1) or both of the notices described in subdivision (3) in prominent locations, including all entrances primarily used by persons entering the property, building, or portion of the property or building where weapon possession is prohibited.

Then down to Section three(3) (C)where it describes what the posting shall be to be legal.
(C) A building, property or a portion of a building or property, shall be considered properly posted in accordance with this section if one (1) or both of the following is displayed in prominent locations, including all entrances primarily used by persons entering the property, building, or portion of the property or building where weapon possession is prohibited:

(i) The international circle and slash symbolizing the prohibition of the item within the circle; or

(ii) The posting sign described in this subdivision (3).

(ii) list the sign as described in Section Three(3) A, but it also allows for the "substantially similar " junk. All that is required is one or the other, does not require both.

[David Lewis]

[GKar]

[johnharris]

As I understand it from the drafting of the amendment they had been advised by various state agencies that the state agencies had misread the existing law to allow either the sign or the circle slash and that there are state building in Nashville that use only the circle slash at present. If the amendment was written to clearly prohibit only the circle-slash it could result in a fiscal note that would now delay and potentially kill the bill.

I don't know who misread the old law but most likely a taxpayer funded salaried position.....

[SteamnSteel]

I do more reading than posting and I am in favor of this bill not making it, the circle slash sign is almost everywhere.

[tnxdshooter]

[ProguninTN]

[johnharris]

[GKar]

John - interested in your opinion RE today's Sen Jud cmte action, which seems to have been a clear signal that this legislature is not even remotely willing to consider any possibility of allowing any consumption while carrying. Was this somewhat embarassing revelation today actually an unstated intent of HB2694, or was it an unforeseen consequence from an inadequately prepared legislative effort ?

[C. Richard Archie]

Well, it appears now that those who are inclined, can consume some amount of alcohol while in possession of their weapon. Attorney for the Senate says so!

Being under the "influence" allows a person to "throw back a few" according to the Lady in the Hat, an apparently Sen. Jackson as well. I am sure we can all tell the nice officer we just had a "few", and not fall under the restrictions in TCA 39-17-1321. Up to each of us now I guess, as to how much alcohol consumption mandates being under the influence.

I am sure that there are plans for SB 3192, but I have to confess, what I saw today with regard to the actions of the Senate, makes me quail to think they are so in charge of my life!

[SomeGuy]

They did not want to pass it. it comes down to that. It is well known that you cannot drink per the other regulation. What does being under the influence mean if not drinking?

[TNReb]

Letter I sent today to my senator, Bill Ketron, concerning Senate Bill SB3012, the companion bill to HB3125:

Senator Ketron:

It was my pleasure to support you in your election to the Senate and to have you serve in that capacity. I write you now to urge that you vote to pass SB3012 to allow licensed permit holders to carry in restaurants where alcohol is served. This bill comes to the floor for a vote on Thursday, April 29th. As I have supported you, I hope that you will support me and the hundreds of thousands of permit holders who look to you for leadership.

Contrary to what has been presented in the media and by opponents, this bill has nothing to do with “guns in bars” or “mixing guns and alcohol.” What is does do is protect the rights of all parties involved. Permit holders would be allowed to carry, with criminal sanctions if they consume any alcohol while doing so. Property and business owners would be able to post their premises against carrying. I would note, however, that the bill should be passed in its original form, and without the two amendments, SA1236 and SA1281, which were added in committee. Please do everything you can to pass the original bill without these amendments.

Although opponents and the media will never say so, this is a good bill which protects the rights of all concerned. And what we are really talking about here is allowing honest, law-abiding citizens to exercise the rights already granted them. Criminals will not care what is done since they don’t follow the law anyway. Being forced to choose between protection of ourselves and our loved ones, in addition to innocent victims of criminals, and violating the law ourselves, is unfair. This law will correct that problem without forcing anyone to allow weapons on their property. Please support and help pass this much-needed law. Many thousands will be watching, and we will know who stands for us, and who stands against us. I know we can count on you to stand on the side of freedom.

Sincerely,

[C. Richard Archie]

Well done, TNReb.

[C. Richard Archie]

When did this Amendment to the Senate Bill get put up?

[ProguninTN]

[TNReb]

I have tried to put together what passed today, with the amendments in their proper places, so that we can see what the law actually says. Please check me on this and correct anything that needs correcting.



First, § 39-17-1305, which made it illegal to carry anywhere alcohol was served is gone. I believe this would effectively do away with any need to pursue appeal of Bonnyman's ruling.



§ 39-17-1321 would read as follows:





39-17-1321. Possession of handgun while under influence -- Penalty.

(a) Notwithstanding whether a person has a permit issued pursuant to § 39-17-1315 or § 39-17-1351, it is an offense for a person to possess a handgun while under the influence of alcohol or any controlled substance.

(b) It is an offense 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 this subsection (b).

(c)

(1) A violation of this section is a Class A misdemeanor

(2) In addition to the punishment authorized by subdivision (1), if the violation of subsection (a), occurs in an establishment described in subdivision (b)(1), and the person has a handgun permit issued pursuant to § 39-17-1351, such permit shall be suspended in accordance with § 39-17-1352 for a period of three (3) years.



§ 39-17-1359 would read as follows:



39-17-1359. Prohibition at certain meetings -- Posting notice.

(a)

(1) An individual, corporation, business entity or local, state or federal government entity or agent thereof is authorized to prohibit the possession of weapons by any person who is at a meeting conducted by, or on property owned, operated, or managed or under the control of the individual, corporation, business entity or government entity.

(2) The prohibition in subdivision (1) shall apply to any person who is authorized to carry a firearm by authority of § 39-17-1351.

(b)
(1) Notice of the prohibition permitted by subsection (a) shall be accomplished by displaying one (1) or both of the notices described in subdivision (3) in prominent locations, including all entrances primarily used by persons entering the property, building, or portion of the property or building where weapon possession is prohibited. Either form of notice used shall be of a size that is plainly visible to the average person entering the building, property, or portion of the building or property, posted.

(2) The notice required by this section shall be in English, but a duplicate notice may also be posted in any language used by patrons, customers or persons who frequent the place where weapon possession is prohibited.

(3)

(A) If a sign is used as the method of posting, it shall contain language substantially similar to the following:

AS AUTHORIZED BY TCA § 39-17-1359, POSSESSION

OF A WEAPON ON POSTED PROPERTY OR IN A

POSTED BUILDING IS PROHIBITED AND IS A

CRIMINAL OFFENSE.

(B) As used in this section, “language substantially similar to” means the sign contains language plainly stating that:

(i) The property is posted under authority of Tennessee law;

(ii) Weapons or firearms are prohibited on the property, in the building, or on the portion of the property or building that is posted; and

(iii) Possessing a weapon in an area that has been posted is a criminal offense.

(C) A building, property or a portion of a building or property shall be considered properly posted in accordance with this section if one (1) or both of the following is displayed in prominent locations, including all entrances primarily used by persons entering the property, building, or portion of the property or building where weapon possession is prohibited:

(i) The international circle and slash symbolizing the prohibition of the item within the circle; or

(ii) The posting sign described in this subdivision (3).

(c)

(1) It is an offense to possess a weapon in a building or on property that is properly posted in accordance with this section.

(2) Possession of a weapon on posted property in violation of this section is a Class B misdemeanor punishable by fine only of five hundred dollars ($500).

(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to alter, reduce or eliminate any civil or criminal liability that a property owner or manager may have for injuries arising on their property.

(e) The provisions of this section shall not apply to title 70 regarding wildlife laws, rules and regulations.

(f) This section shall not apply to the grounds of any public park, natural area, historic park, nature trail, campground, forest, greenway, waterway or other similar public place that is owned or operated by the state, a county, a municipality or instrumentality thereof. The carrying of firearms in those areas shall be governed by § 39-17-1311.



Other sections would be amended to require training in permit classes on the effects of alcohol and the penalties for violation of § 39-17-1321, together with removal of previous forms of posting for package stores and places with on-premises consumption.



Therefore, it appears that drinking while carrying would be a Class A Misdeamenor, which would be punishable by up to 11 months and 29 days in jail, a fine of up to $2,500 or both, and if you have a permit, it would be revoked for three years. Carrying on posted property, which could be accomplished by signage or the international circle/slash emblem, or both, without consumption, would be a Class B Misdemeanor punishable only by a $500 fine.



The senators who voted against the bill were Berke, Burks, Ford, Harper, Haynes, Henry, Kyle, Marrero and Stewart. For more information on them, including contact and district information, go to: http://www.legislature.state.tn.us/. If any of these are your senator you need to start working now to get them out when they stand for re-election.



Also, please contact your House member and urge them to vote to adopt SB1302 instead of HB3125 so it can go on to the governor. It may not be a perfect bill, but it is our best hope for passage in time to override a likely veto. Also, it is better than HB3125 as that bill was amended.



Other than being able to carry in more places, one of the best things about this bill is that it would force all the gutless wonders hiding behind the law and Bonnyman's ruling out into the open. While I don't intend to do any business with his restaurants, one thing you can say about Randy Rayburn is that he has the courage of his convictions and took a public stand on them, unlike the anonymous cockroaches who signed on to his lawsuit but scurried away from the light. If you want to post you should be able to, but at least have the courage of your convictions.



Onward and upward! Get on the horn to your Representative and the governor now and often!