• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Carry where alcohol served will again be legal

falcon1

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2007
Messages
124
Location
, Tennessee, USA
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
 

Task Force 16

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
2,615
Location
Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
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.
 

Task Force 16

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
2,615
Location
Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
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. :banghead::banghead::banghead:

:lol::lol::lol::lol::celebrate

editd to correct spelling errors
 

suntzu

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
1,230
Location
The south land
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.
 

aadvark

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
1,597
Location
, ,
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.
 

Task Force 16

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
2,615
Location
Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
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.
 

macville

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
32
Location
, ,
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
 

WCrawford

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2007
Messages
592
Location
Nashville, Tennessee, United States
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.
 

Task Force 16

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
2,615
Location
Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
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.
 

falcon1

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2007
Messages
124
Location
, Tennessee, USA
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.
 

Task Force 16

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
2,615
Location
Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
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).
 

Task Force 16

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
2,615
Location
Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
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.
 

falcon1

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2007
Messages
124
Location
, Tennessee, USA
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.
 

Kingfish

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
1,276
Location
Atlanta, Georgia, USA
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.
 

falcon1

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2007
Messages
124
Location
, Tennessee, USA
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.
 

macville

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
32
Location
, ,
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 turd, 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.)
 
Top