Parks and restaurant carry

imported post

Call your reps and ask them to support the parks and restaurant carry,


BUT before you do, make sure you read the amendments attached to them both--because the majority of the amendments are meant to take the teeth from the bills.

In particular as for HB 0962 which is restaurant carry--Amendments HA 0063, 0064, 0065, 0066, and 0071 are all meant to take the teeth from the bill.

One of these amendments requires restaurants to have armed guards, one requires $5 million in insurance, and they ALL basically are trying to get the restaurants to post "firearms prohibited"...

what is the use of passing the bill if they try to amend it to death in an attempt to take the teeth from it? I just don't understand the mentality of the legislators in Nashville....

imported post

Do you know if the "opt in" language is part of the park carry bill or an amendment.

imported post

suntzu wrote:

Call your reps and ask them to support the parks and restaurant carry,


BUT before you do, make sure you read the amendments attached to them both--because the majority of the amendments are meant to take the teeth from the bills.

In particular as for HB 0962 which is restaurant carry--Amendments HA 0063, 0064, 0065, 0066, and 0071 are all meant to take the teeth from the bill.

One of these amendments requires restaurants to have armed guards, one requires $5 million in insurance, and they ALL basically are trying to get the restaurants to post "firearms prohibited"...

what is the use of passing the bill if they try to amend it to death in an attempt to take the teeth from it? I just don't understand the mentality of the legislators in Nashville....

Click to expand...

who can understand the mentality of the legislators, except other legislators. :banghead:

imported post

WCrawford wrote:

Do you know if the "opt in" language is part of the park carry bill or an amendment.

Click to expand...

The Amendment HA 0095 is the "opt in" language, but the ENTIRE amendment essentially takes the bill and kills it, because the amendment, if I read it right says that even though under the bill it is legal to carry in parks--the amendment turns right around and makes it illegal again...at least if I was reading it correctly.


Read the amendment and see how it guts the whole bill....the sheer ignorance of our "dear leaders" is enormous.... http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/106/Amend/HA0095.pdf

imported post

suntzu wrote:

The Amendment HA 0095 is the "opt in" language, but the ENTIRE amendment essentially takes the bill and kills it, because the amendment, if I read it right says that even though under the bill it is legal to carry in parks--the amendment turns right around and makes it illegal again...at least if I was reading it correctly.


Read the amendment and see how it guts the whole bill....the sheer ignorance of our "dear leaders" is enormous.... http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/106/Amend/HA0095.pdf

Click to expand...

If I'm reading it right....one thing they are trying to do is distinguish between Civic Centers (and other recreational property)and Parks.

Sec 1 of the bill leaves it illegal to carry in any Civic Center (and other recreational property)in the state local or state owned. (State parks are being dealt with in another bill HB0716)

Sec 2 creates a new T.C.A. of 39-17-1313 to deal with carry in local parks only. Which basically just copies the current 39-17-1311 about carry in parks. The new 39-17-1313(b)(3) is where it says local governments can allow carry in parks it controls.

If they forbid carry in all of their parks or even all of one particular park they "may" post a sign to inform you. (Sort of the way it is now)

If the forbid carry in only a certain part of a park they "must" post a sign stating where carry is prohibited within that park.

Sec 3 amends the states preemption law 39-17-1314 that forbids local governments from making laws about carry to allow them to make laws about park carry only.

Sec 4 says the part that allows local governments being able to vote on allowing carry parks would take effect immediately on becoming law...the rest of it would not go into effect until July 1

At least that is my 2 cents worth....

imported post

Thanks for the info, I'll check out the bill.



I do wonder if the "opt in" language is constitutional. The Tennessee Constitution states the following:

§ 26. Weapons; right to bear arms

That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.

Click to expand...

Would not the "opt in" language be allowing some entity other than the Legislature have the power to regulate the wearing of arms?

imported post

I heard them talk about the bills before the Governor on channel 2. They were saying that the bill pretaining to carrying in restaurants that serve alcohol was about allowing carrying guns into bars. The reporters kept saying it, and the Governor said it several times during the report. I didn't think the bill had anything to do with carry in a bar.

Anything to twist and taint the issue. :cuss::banghead:

imported post

WCrawford wrote:

Would not the "opt in" language be allowing some entity other than the Legislature have the power to regulate the wearing of arms?

Click to expand...

Hmmmm...yes and no I guess.

Yes, local goverments would have power in their parks...but that power would be given to them by the legislature.....

imported post

Fallguy wrote:

WCrawford wrote:

Would not the "opt in" language be allowing some entity other than the Legislature have the power to regulate the wearing of arms?

Click to expand...

Hmmmm...yes and no I guess.

Yes, local goverments would have power in their parks...but that power would be given to them by the legislature.....

Click to expand...

...and with that power, you can bet certain jurisdictions, (such as Davidson County, & City of Memphis) will promptly post "No Guns". :X

imported post

ProguninTN wrote:

...and with that power, you can bet certain jurisdictions, (such as Davidson County, & City of Memphis) will promptly post "No Guns". :X

Click to expand...

No doubt....but a bill that would allow carry in local parks against the consent of the local government doesn't look it would pass.

At least this way....some local places may allow carry.

Going to mythe next Mayor and Alderman meeting here...going to try and get to know folks...that way if this bill passes I can propose them opting in and will come from a familiar face. Just trying to prepare myself for the onslaught of negativity that will come from it....lol

imported post

With Nashville Mayor, Karl Dean, it will not be possible to carry in parks in Nashville. He has already stated that Nashville will not opt in.

If the bill passes, I'm going to be consulting with a lawyer to check on possible options. A couple that I've become friendly with at work are leaning in the direction that it might be unconstitutional, but criminal/state constitutional law is not their areas of expertise.

imported post

I honestly really doubt that any locality would opt in. That would take effort on the part of the mayor / council, and they would be worried about liability (falsely, in my view, but I bet that their solicitiors would advise them that it would open the muni up to liability were someone to get hurt there). I have contacted my rep and let her know that I would rather it not pass with the opt in, and we wait another year. She said she is trying to get on the conference committee if both the house and senate bills pass, and she will push for the senate version to be the final adopted. The senate version has no opt in, and has passed the senate for the last 3 years.



regards,

Pol

imported post

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) -- People with handgun carry permits would be able to bring their weapons into Tennessee establishments that serve alcohol under a proposal that's passed the Senate.

The measure sponsored by Sen. Doug Jackson, a Dickson Democrat, was approved 26-7 on Thursday. However, it doesn't contain two amendments that were included in the companion bill that passed the House earlier this month.

if (self['plpm'] && plpm['Mid-Story Ad']) document.write('');if (self['plpm'] && plpm['Mid-Story Ad']){ document.write(plpm['Mid-Story Ad']);} else { if(self['plurp'] && plurp['97']){} else {document.write(''); } }if (self['plpm'] && plpm['Mid-Story Ad']) document.write('');



One provision would create a curfew for handguns being carried between 11 p.m. and 5 a.m., and the other would ban handguns at any establishment that enforces age restrictions.

The Senate bill does maintain current rules that prohibit alcohol consumption by anyone carrying a firearm.

The two chambers must now work out their differences.






[align=left]SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 39-17-1305(c), is amended by[/align]

[align=left]adding the following language as a new, appropriately designated subdivision:[/align]

[align=left](3)[/align]

[align=left](A) Authorized to carry a firearm under § 39-17-1351 who is not[/align]

[align=left]consuming beer, wine or any alcoholic beverage, and is within the confines of a[/align]

[align=left]restaurantthat is open to the public and serves alcoholic beverages, wine or[/align]

[align=left]beer.[/align]

[align=left](B) As used in this subdivision (c)(3), “restaurant” means any public[/align]

[align=left]place kept, used, maintained, advertised and held out to the public as a place[/align]

[align=left]where meals are served and where meals are actually and regularly served, such[/align]

[align=left]place being provided with adequate and sanitary kitchen and dining room[/align]

[align=left]equipment, having employed therein a sufficient number and kind of employees[/align]

[align=left]to prepare, cook and serve suitable food for its guests. At least one (1) meal per[/align]

[align=left]day shall be served at least five (5) days a week, with the exception of holidays,[/align]

[align=left]vacations and periods of redecorating, and the serving of such meals shall be the[/align]

[align=left]principal business conducted.[/align]
SECTION 2. This act shall take effect on June 1, 2009, the public welfare requiring it.





Big difference between Bar and Restaurant

imported post

Still not perfect, but much better language than what I've seen in the House version.

I wouldprefer toseea 51% in non-alchohol revenue provision rather than the 1 meal/day language.

With the current language there are still too many places whose primary business isn't food that may serve alcohol in addition to the primary service (sporting events come to mind immediately).

imported post

WCrawford wrote:

Still not perfect, but much better language than what I've seen in the House version.

I wouldprefer toseea 51% in non-alchohol revenue provision rather than the 1 meal/day language.

With the current language there are still too many places whose primary business isn't food that may serve alcohol in addition to the primary service (sporting events come to mind immediately).

Click to expand...

Hmmm....you know, guess I hadn't really read it close enough before. For some reason I was thinking that if the curfew and age-restricted parts were removed it would pretty much allow carry ANYWHERE alcohol is served. But you are right, it still has restaurant in there and the definition of that still wouldn't cover a few places.

'Bout near impossible to get that changed now though I'd say.

imported post

It's been my impression that this proposed legislation was intended to allow carry of handguns in places that serve full meals with alcoholic beverages, such as Olive Garden, Red Lobster, etc., or non chain fine dining establishments. It was never intended to allow carry in "honky tonks" that may only serve micro-waved pizza and sandwiches.

This curfew doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense because most of the restaraunts that serve alcohol are closing around 11PM if not earlier, if I'm not mistaken.

The thing that steams me is that the local news stations in Nashville keep saying that this legislation will make it legal to carry in bars. Yeah, they do say "restaraunts that serve alcohol" but they say bars more often. Again, I see no logic here because, the law does not allow us to consume alcohol while carrying our side arms in such establishments.So, why would we want to go to a bar, if we can't drink when carrying? It appears that the media is trying to stir opposition to the legislation with misinformation.

I did hear one Tn politicain refer to other states that allow carry of firearms in bars, that haven't seen a problem with it. He also pointed out the uselessness of prohibitions of firearms in bars by revisiting the recent shooting in a bar where a BG still carried a handgun inside andkilled someone.

imported post

suntzu wrote:

SNIP what is the use of passing the bill if they try to amend it to death in an attempt to take the teeth from it? I just don't understand the mentality of the legislators in Nashville....

Click to expand...

Its a parlimentary tactic to kill the bill.

imported post

So since it looks like there is a good chance that this will pass, does something need to be done about making it clear where you can and can not carry. AKA, do places where it's no legal to carry need to have a sign posted at the door saying that it's not legal to carry in there (like the sign businesses can currently put up to keep you from carrying.)

It's just like lawmakers to make the law so confusing...

Matthew

imported post

macville wrote:

So since it looks like there is a good chance that this will pass, does something need to be done about making it clear where you can and can not carry. AKA, do places where it's no legal to carry need to have a sign posted at the door saying that it's not legal to carry in there (like the sign businesses can currently put up to keep you from carrying.)

It's just like lawmakers to make the law so confusing...

Matthew

Click to expand...

The senate Ammendment doesn't seem confusing in defining a "restaraunt that serves alcohol as:

any public place kept, used, maintained, advertised and held out to the public as a place

where meals are served and where meals are actually and regularly served, such

place being provided with adequate and sanitary kitchen and dining room

equipment, having employed therein a sufficient number and kind of employees

to prepare, cook and serve suitable food for its guests. At least one (1) meal per

day shall be served at least five (5) days a week, with the exception of holidays,

vacations and periods of redecorating, and the serving of such meals shall be the principal business conducted.

Click to expand...

I take it that having a microwave or toaster oven is not going to suffice as a kitchen.

imported post

The problem that I see is in TN there is no such thing as a "bar" - to serve alcohol you must also serve some kind of food.

The Senate version has attempted to define a "restaurant" vs a "bar" despite the fact that no "bars" exist under TN law.

This bill would be so much easier to define and understand if we actually had bars that existed solely to serve alcohol...

Edit to add if we did have pure bars, there are plent of reasons to go to one when you are not going to drink - designated driver, play pool/darts, hang out with friends, wife/GF wants to grab a drink etc...why should I have to be defenseless if I am not drinking? The BGs are still gonna have their heat.