Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27

Thread: Carry where alcohol served will again be legal

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The south land
    Posts
    1,230

    Post imported post

    http://www.newschannel5.com/Global/story.asp?S=12599196

    Some of the comments on the Commercial appeal site are ridiculous--those people would do well to live in Kommiefornia...


    The antis couldn't be happy with the previous carry bill, so now we have this one--I wonder what the antis are thinking now.





  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    So is this currently in affect or is there a date set?

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    129

    Post imported post

    I would wait until 1 July 2010 unless you hear something else definitive. I did see on TGO or TFAOnline (don't remember which) that, although according to the text of the law it should go into effect right away, the Tennessee Secretary of State's office isn't going to consider it in effect until 1 July 2010...probably as a delaying tactic. :X
    If the public are bound to yield obedience to laws to which they cannot give their approbation, they are slaves to those who make such laws and enforce them.--Samuel Adams as Candidus, Boston Gazette 20 Jan. 1772

    Veteran--USA FA
    NRA Benefactor Life
    Tennessee Firearms Association Life

  4. #4
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    I think it always will be legal - it will now be more clearly legal in pure bars.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    falcon1 wrote:
    I would wait until 1 July 2010 unless you hear something else definitive. I did see on TGO or TFAOnline (don't remember which) that, although according to the text of the law it should go into effect right away, the Tennessee Secretary of State's office isn't going to consider it in effect until 1 July 2010...probably as a delaying tactic. :X
    OK, thanks. I haven't seen the actual text of the bill yet. From the summary it appears that it makes it legal to carry into an establishment that is licensed as a "restaraunt" that serves alcohol. This is still defioned as a business that serves at least one meal a day, at least 5 days a week (such as O'Charlies, Logans, Red Lobster, etc). That much didn't seem tochange.

    In my neck of the woods we have a few beer joints that DO NOT serve meals. That would, as I interpret the bill, make them still off limits for carrying arms.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    Finally found the text of the new law (or amendments to TCA 39-17-1308) SB3013.

    I does state that the amendments take affect July 1, 2010.

    The first change I see removes the definition of "a restaraunt" as a busines that serves at least one meal a day 5 days a week and has sanitary kitchen facilities and personal to prepare meals and replaces the language to say a business "licensed as a restaraunt by the alcoholic beverage commission (ABC) ." So if the beer joints here near me are licensed by ABC as restaraunts they are good to go for carry, unless they post appropriate signage barring firearms.

    Man, Now I see why the anti-gunners are so lame. They keep shooting themselves in the foot. What is it now? Twice? that they've succeeded in blocking progun policies, only to have better progun policies inacted to replace what they blocked?

    They blocked Bush's EO to allow CC with a permit in NP and NWP, that appeared to only allow CC. Then congress passes a (new and imporved)law to allow carry of sidearms in accordance with the state laws in which the units are located, which means CC and OC.

    Then they blocked the new TN law last year allowing carry in "restaraunts" that served alcohol and the TN Legislation passes a revised version (over riding a veto a second time) to allow carry in anyplace that serves alcohol, providing they don't post signage barring firearms.

    You know, it could be argued that the anti-gun crowd is helping us get more pro-gun laws. Don't you know their doing some serious head banging right now.

    :celebrate

    editd to correct spelling errors


  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The south land
    Posts
    1,230

    Post imported post

    If you take a look at a couple of the amendments--the amendments state that the takes affect immediately upon becoming law--which according to one story I read, could be as early as Friday---but I would advice carefully reading the entire bill--amendments and all to make sure--and maybe calling the Sec. of States office in Nashville.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605

    Post imported post

    When does the new Law take effect..., arbeit I assume it will take effect on July. 1, 2010?

    Furthermore, how, if at all, does this effect the Decision rendered by The Davidson County Chancery Court?

    Surely, this Legislative Override, and re-enactment,will hold the prior Court Decision moot.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    SB3012 is "An Act" to amend TCA 39-17-13; sections 57-3-204 and section 57-4-203. relative to permitting or prohibiting the carrying of firearms in certain places.

    At the very end of the text of the bill it states that this act will take effect July 1, 2010. However there are certain sections in this text that will take effect at later dates.

    Section 3 of this act, which pertains to posting of NFA signage and penalties for violating the NFA warnings will not take effect until Oct 1, 2010. Any notice posted prior to the effected date of this act that is in substantial compliance with the provisions of this section as it existed prior to the effective date of this act shall remain valid and in full force and effect until then.

    Section 4 of this act simply adds requirements for handgun safety instructors to spend at least one hour of the class room portion of the course instructing on alcohol and drug use and effects of such , etc. This goes into effect beginning Sept 1,2010.

    Sections 5 and 6 delete subsections in 57-3-204 and 57-4-203 pretaining to posting those old violation notices for retailers that sell alcohol for on or off premises consumtion. These sections take effect Oct 1, 2010.

    So, I think that what applies to us as HCP holders being able to carry into restaraunts that servegoes into effect July 1. The rest, that goes into effect at later dates,applies to the business owners and safety instructors.

    I think where the anti's got away with the "unconstatutional vagueness" thing was the former amendment that attempted to define what kind of establishments the amendment was to apply to. That has been done away with in this new amendment and appears to now include all establishments that "are licenced as restaraunts by the ABC." Since there is no such thing as a bar (defined by TCA) any place that serves alcohol for on site consumption is considered a "restaraunt." I don't know how the anti's would challenge this new amendment. It doesn't infringe on the restaraunteurs rights to bar firearms if they want to. Of course, the previous amendment of last year didn't either. But I'm sure their busy trying to find away to challenge it. At the very least they'll probably pickit the places that allow firearms, like they did Starbucks.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    32

    Post imported post

    Task Force 16 wrote:
    SB3012 is "An Act" to amend TCA 39-17-13; sections 57-3-204 and section 57-4-203. relative to permitting or prohibiting the carrying of firearms in certain places.

    At the very end of the text of the bill it states that this act will take effect July 1, 2010. However there are certain sections in this text that will take effect at later dates.

    Section 3 of this act, which pertains to posting of NFA signage and penalties for violating the NFA warnings will not take effect until Oct 1, 2010. Any notice posted prior to the effected date of this act that is in substantial compliance with the provisions of this section as it existed prior to the effective date of this act shall remain valid and in full force and effect until then.

    Section 4 of this act simply adds requirements for handgun safety instructors to spend at least one hour of the class room portion of the course instructing on alcohol and drug use and effects of such , etc. This goes into effect beginning Sept 1,2010.

    Sections 5 and 6 delete subsections in 57-3-204 and 57-4-203 pretaining to posting those old violation notices for retailers that sell alcohol for on or off premises consumtion. These sections take effect Oct 1, 2010.

    So, I think that what applies to us as HCP holders being able to carry into restaraunts that serve¬*goes into effect July 1. The rest, that goes into effect at later dates,¬*applies to the business owners and safety instructors.

    I think where the anti's got away with the "unconstatutional vagueness" thing was the former amendment that attempted to define what kind of establishments the amendment was to apply to. That has been done away with in this new amendment and appears to now include all establishments that "are licenced as restaraunts by the ABC." Since there is no such thing as a bar (defined by TCA) any place that serves alcohol for on site consumption is considered a "restaraunt." I don't know how the anti's would challenge this new amendment. It doesn't infringe on the restaraunteurs rights to bar firearms if they want to. Of course, the previous amendment of last year didn't either. But I'm sure their busy trying¬* to find away to challenge it. At the very least they'll probably pickit the places that allow firearms, like they did Starbucks.
    You might want to read the amendments which actually change this bill quite a bit. For one, the amendments changed the date from July 1st to as soon as the veto was overridden. In fact, I'm not sure anything you posted above actually got passed. The amendments removed most of that. Pretty much the bill only changed about carrying where alcohol is served (any place that's not posted is now legal) and now just gunbuster signs are legal.

    Matthew

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nashville, Tennessee, United States
    Posts
    592

    Post imported post

    macville wrote:
    You might want to read the amendments which actually change this bill quite a bit. For one, the amendments changed the date from July 1st to as soon as the veto was overridden. In fact, I'm not sure anything you posted above actually got passed. The amendments removed most of that. Pretty much the bill only changed about carrying where alcohol is served (any place that's not posted is now legal) and now just gunbuster signs are legal.

    Matthew
    Do you mind linking the amendment that changes the posting requirements to allow only the gunbuster symbol? I can't seem to locate that one.

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    We will probably have to wait for the "Public Chapter" (PC) version to be published to know what is in the final text of the law.

    One of the House amends was withdrawn and the other tabled (what ever that means) so I don't know if they change anything. The only amendments adopted were the 3 senate amendments to SB3012.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    129

    Post imported post

    WCrawford wrote:
    Do you mind linking the amendment that changes the posting requirements to allow only the gunbuster symbol? I can't seem to locate that one.
    http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/106/Amend/SA1236.pdf

    The confusion is in the Secretary of State's office. The amendment clearly states it goes into effect immediately. Getting someone to believe you might be another matter, especially if they don't like the result.

    ETA: And here should be the rest (and final chapter) of the story:

    http://state.tn.us/sos/acts/106/pub/pc1009.pdf

    This is the Public Chapter from the Secretary of State's Office.
    If the public are bound to yield obedience to laws to which they cannot give their approbation, they are slaves to those who make such laws and enforce them.--Samuel Adams as Candidus, Boston Gazette 20 Jan. 1772

    Veteran--USA FA
    NRA Benefactor Life
    Tennessee Firearms Association Life

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    WCrawford wrote:
    macville wrote:
    You might want to read the amendments which actually change this bill quite a bit. For one, the amendments changed the date from July 1st to as soon as the veto was overridden. In fact, I'm not sure anything you posted above actually got passed. The amendments removed most of that. Pretty much the bill only changed about carrying where alcohol is served (any place that's not posted is now legal) and now just gunbuster signs are legal.

    Matthew
    Do you mind linking the amendment that changes the posting requirements to allow only the gunbuster symbol? I can't seem to locate that one.
    In looking at PC1009 (final text of SB3012) 39-171359 has been deleted and replaced with Section 3 of PC1009. The text of the law regarding how NFA signage is to be posted in this title -> 39-17-1359 (b)(3)(C) will nowread, in part, as follows;

    A building, property or a portion of a building opr proerty, shall be considered properly posted in accordance with this sectionif 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).

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    falcon1 wrote:
    WCrawford wrote:
    Do you mind linking the amendment that changes the posting requirements to allow only the gunbuster symbol? I can't seem to locate that one.
    http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/106/Amend/SA1236.pdf

    The confusion is in the Secretary of State's office. The amendment clearly states it goes into effect immediately. Getting someone to believe you might be another matter, especially if they don't like the result.

    ETA: And here should be the rest (and final chapter) of the story:

    http://state.tn.us/sos/acts/106/pub/pc1009.pdf

    This is the Public Chapter from the Secretary of State's Office.
    Thanks falcon1. I figured the PC document would ahve all teh corrections for the amendments. It appears that this new law is NOW in effect.

    I suspect that the SoSO may have been going by the original text of SB3012 in saying the new law would take effect July 1.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Kingfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    1,276

    Post imported post

    Is this more of a loss or a win?

    Restaurant carry is gained but now gun buster signs carry weight.

    Probably a net gain.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    129

    Post imported post

    kingfish wrote:
    Is this more of a loss or a win?

    Restaurant carry is gained but now gun buster signs carry weight.

    Probably a net gain.
    Agreed. The "gun-buster" sign provision was a necessary evil. There were several state office buildings that were posted with such signs. Given the current finance climate, not including those signs would have given the bill a fiscal note, which under Tennessee legislative rules would have put the bill "behind the budget." The bill could not even have been considered until after the budget was adopted. That would have likely meant no bill at all. Recognizing the firearm-in-circle-with-slash signs made the bill revenue-neutral for the state, so it could be considered before the budget.
    If the public are bound to yield obedience to laws to which they cannot give their approbation, they are slaves to those who make such laws and enforce them.--Samuel Adams as Candidus, Boston Gazette 20 Jan. 1772

    Veteran--USA FA
    NRA Benefactor Life
    Tennessee Firearms Association Life

  18. #18
    Regular Member Kingfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    1,276

    Post imported post

    falcon1 wrote:
    Agreed. The "gun-buster" sign provision was a necessary evil. There were several state office buildings that were posted with such signs. Given the current finance climate, not including those signs would have given the bill a fiscal note, which under Tennessee legislative rules would have put the bill "behind the budget." The bill could not even have been considered until after the budget was adopted. That would have likely meant no bill at all. Recognizing the firearm-in-circle-with-slash signs made the bill revenue-neutral for the state, so it could be considered before the budget.
    Interesting. Very interesting.

    So the old way was that public buildings had to post but actually didn't have to post (were exempt if they had an old rule on the books.)

    Now public buildings/facilities HAVE to post for them to be off limits? Interesting.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    129

    Post imported post

    kingfish wrote:
    falcon1 wrote:
    Agreed. The "gun-buster" sign provision was a necessary evil. There were several state office buildings that were posted with such signs. Given the current finance climate, not including those signs would have given the bill a fiscal note, which under Tennessee legislative rules would have put the bill "behind the budget." The bill could not even have been considered until after the budget was adopted. That would have likely meant no bill at all. Recognizing the firearm-in-circle-with-slash signs made the bill revenue-neutral for the state, so it could be considered before the budget.
    Interesting. Very interesting.

    So the old way was that public buildings had to post but actually didn't have to post (were exempt if they had an old rule on the books.)

    Now public buildings/facilities HAVE to post for them to be off limits? Interesting.
    Certain government locations are prohibited locations directly by statute, e.g., courthouses. The rest had to post under the prior law as well if they desired to make the building a prohibited location. Under the prior letter of the law, the gun-buster sign wouldn't have carried any weight according to an AG opinion, but I would not have wanted to try my luck in a court in this state carrying past one into a government building. Now, of course, they do carry weight.
    If the public are bound to yield obedience to laws to which they cannot give their approbation, they are slaves to those who make such laws and enforce them.--Samuel Adams as Candidus, Boston Gazette 20 Jan. 1772

    Veteran--USA FA
    NRA Benefactor Life
    Tennessee Firearms Association Life

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    32

    Post imported post

    Certain government locations are prohibited locations directly by statute, e.g., courthouses.¬* The rest had to post under the prior law as well if they desired to make the building a prohibited location.¬* Under the prior letter of the law, the gun-buster sign wouldn't have carried any weight according to an AG opinion, but I would not have wanted to try my luck in a court in this state carrying past one into a government building.¬* Now, of course, they do carry weight.
    Close, but not quite. Courthouses are not off limits. Courtrooms (I believe which are in session) are off limits. Schools buildings are the only other state/government buildings which are off limits (couldn't find anything about jails being automatically off-limits, strange thinking there.) However, they can all post.

    Here's the rub. The posting requirements changed, not because of state requirements. It had to do with the ****, I mean restaurant/bar owner, Randy Rayburn who wanted posting to be easier. To get the bill out onto the house/senate floor, they agreed to the provision, but then didn't strip it out. So that's how we got to it. But we need to push for next session to make the posting requirements like Texas has. It's a certain sign with a certain size. Also, making no penalty if caught past a sign unless you refuse to leave. The only way you should be able to get around that would be if you have metal detectors and run everyone through it (like the city/county building here in Knoxville.)

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    macville wrote:
    Certain government locations are prohibited locations directly by statute, e.g., courthouses. The rest had to post under the prior law as well if they desired to make the building a prohibited location. Under the prior letter of the law, the gun-buster sign wouldn't have carried any weight according to an AG opinion, but I would not have wanted to try my luck in a court in this state carrying past one into a government building. Now, of course, they do carry weight.
    Close, but not quite. Courthouses are not off limits. Courtrooms (I believe which are in session) are off limits. Schools buildings are the only other state/government buildings which are off limits (couldn't find anything about jails being automatically off-limits, strange thinking there.) However, they can all post.

    Here's the rub. The posting requirements changed, not because of state requirements. It had to do with the ****, I mean restaurant/bar owner, Randy Rayburn who wanted posting to be easier. To get the bill out onto the house/senate floor, they agreed to the provision, but then didn't strip it out. So that's how we got to it. But we need to push for next session to make the posting requirements like Texas has. It's a certain sign with a certain size. Also, making no penalty if caught past a sign unless you refuse to leave. The only way you should be able to get around that would be if you have metal detectors and run everyone through it (like the city/county building here in Knoxville.)
    I don't think Randy wanted to post ANY signage. I don't believe he wanted the responsibility of making the decision to bar fire arms from his establishments.

    When the state was prohibiting the carry of fire arms in establishments that served alcohol for on site consumption Randy's carry permit holding clientele couldn't get cross with him when they had to lieve their sidearms in their cars or at home. Last years amendment to 39-17-1305 changed that. It put the onus on Randy if he had to post NFA signage to keep those "ugly guns" out of his place of business. His permit holding clientele would then have reason to be ticked at him and take their business elsewhere. Poor ol' Randy didn't like that.

    Sorry Randy, can't always have your cake and eat it too.

    Now 39-17-1305 (statute prohitibiting the carry of firearms into places that serve alcohol for onsite consumtion) is completely repealed. He has no choice now, but to post NFA signage, if he wants to keep guns out of his restaraunts. If it cost him customers, that's his problem.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    129

    Post imported post

    macville wrote:
    Certain government locations are prohibited locations directly by statute, e.g., courthouses. The rest had to post under the prior law as well if they desired to make the building a prohibited location. Under the prior letter of the law, the gun-buster sign wouldn't have carried any weight according to an AG opinion, but I would not have wanted to try my luck in a court in this state carrying past one into a government building. Now, of course, they do carry weight.
    Close, but not quite. Courthouses are not off limits. Courtrooms (I believe which are in session) are off limits. Schools buildings are the only other state/government buildings which are off limits (couldn't find anything about jails being automatically off-limits, strange thinking there.) However, they can all post.

    Here's the rub. The posting requirements changed, not because of state requirements. It had to do with the ****, I mean restaurant/bar owner, Randy Rayburn who wanted posting to be easier. To get the bill out onto the house/senate floor, they agreed to the provision, but then didn't strip it out. So that's how we got to it. But we need to push for next session to make the posting requirements like Texas has. It's a certain sign with a certain size. Also, making no penalty if caught past a sign unless you refuse to leave. The only way you should be able to get around that would be if you have metal detectors and run everyone through it (like the city/county building here in Knoxville.)
    You are correct on the courtrooms...I stand corrected.
    If the public are bound to yield obedience to laws to which they cannot give their approbation, they are slaves to those who make such laws and enforce them.--Samuel Adams as Candidus, Boston Gazette 20 Jan. 1772

    Veteran--USA FA
    NRA Benefactor Life
    Tennessee Firearms Association Life

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    5

    Post imported post

    macville wrote:
    >snipped<
    But we need to push for next session to make the posting requirements like Texas has. It's a certain sign with a certain size. Also, making no penalty if caught past a sign unless you refuse to leave. The only way you should be able to get around that would be if you have metal detectors and run everyone through it (like the city/county building here in Knoxville.)
    I'll politely suggest another solution:

    Strip 39-17-1359 in its entirety, so that we can join the MAJORITY of states that do not allow the business owner the undue privilege of deciding who might be a criminal by posting a mere sign.

    Trespassing laws are on the books already, and will suffice quite nicely, thank you!

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The south land
    Posts
    1,230

    Post imported post

    Usagi wrote:
    macville wrote:
    >snipped<
    But we need to push for next session to make the posting requirements like Texas has. It's a certain sign with a certain size. Also, making no penalty if caught past a sign unless you refuse to leave. The only way you should be able to get around that would be if you have metal detectors and run everyone through it (like the city/county building here in Knoxville.)
    I'll politely suggest another solution:

    Strip 39-17-1359 in its entirety, so that we can join the MAJORITY of states that do not allow the business owner the undue privilege of deciding who might be a criminal by posting a mere sign.

    Trespassing laws are on the books already, and will suffice quite nicely, thank you!
    I'll politely suggest an even better solution--Amend the Tennessee Constitution in such a way as to give the people of this state the right to bear arms virtually unrestricted and then amend Tennessee Code Annotated in such a way as it only puts the pressure on the criminals who prey on people in this state instead of on the law abiding people. Meaning that LEOs can no longer stop you merely for carrying a firearm.

    Also Amend T.C.A such that any business which restricts the right of the people to bear arms must be financially liable for any harm that comes as a result of restricting our rights while on their property.

    Amend T.C.A to allow for campus carry, and Amend T.C.A to allow for carry into any public park in this state---not this piecemeal thing they have now.

    Amend T.C.A to provide complete preemption and take away the ability of cities and counties to restrict firearms--even pre-empt the Pre -1986 ordinances which can still be enforced.

    Meaning we would be a FREE state with virtually unrestricted carry.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    5

    Post imported post

    suntzu wrote:
    Usagi wrote:
    macville wrote:
    >snipped<
    But we need to push for next session to make the posting requirements like Texas has. It's a certain sign with a certain size. Also, making no penalty if caught past a sign unless you refuse to leave. The only way you should be able to get around that would be if you have metal detectors and run everyone through it (like the city/county building here in Knoxville.)
    I'll politely suggest another solution:

    Strip 39-17-1359 in its entirety, so that we can join the MAJORITY of states that do not allow the business owner the undue privilege of deciding who might be a criminal by posting a mere sign.

    Trespassing laws are on the books already, and will suffice quite nicely, thank you!
    I'll politely suggest an even better solution--Amend the Tennessee Constitution in such a way as to give the people of this state the right to bear arms virtually unrestricted and then amend Tennessee Code Annotated in such a way as it only puts the pressure on the criminals who prey on people in this state instead of on the law abiding people. Meaning that LEOs can no longer stop you merely for carrying a firearm.

    Also Amend T.C.A such that any business which restricts the right of the people to bear arms must be financially liable for any harm that comes as a result of restricting our rights while on their property.

    Amend T.C.A to allow for campus carry, and Amend T.C.A to allow for carry into any public park in this state---not this piecemeal thing they have now.

    Amend T.C.A to provide complete preemption and take away the ability of cities and counties to restrict firearms--even pre-empt the Pre -1986 ordinances which can still be enforced.

    Meaning we would be a FREE state with virtually unrestricted carry.
    I will agree with all of this...

    Sounds great!

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •