Sat
Jan 19 2008
01:32 pm

Check out this story, particularly the coments, and then come back and we'll discuss the ramifications of Republican legislation to allow concealed weapons everywhere, bars, schools, parks, Little League Basball games...

From what I see, gun people think a drunk guy with a gun in a restaurant is the reason there should be MORE people with guns drinking in restaurants.

O...Kay.

<grin> I'll bite...

It's been too long, WC, and I may be a bit rusty, but...

"From what I see, gun people think a drunk guy with a gun in a restaurant is the reason there should be MORE people with guns drinking in restaurants."

That may be from what you see, but if it is, you need to open your eyes (mind?) a bit wider, my friend.

First off, it ain't Republicans. I see names from both sides of the aisle as sponsors. Oh, woops, I know: If they don't see things the "right" (left?) way they can't be real Democrats. Sorry - I forgot :-) Anyway- there are Democrats and Republicans signed on as sponsors.

Second: It doesn't say a blinkin thing about more people with guns drinking in restaurants. It says people that are NOT drinking.

You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. And the FACT is that the proposed law says the OPPOSITE of your statement:
"(B) Is not consuming liquor, wine, beer or other alcoholic beverages, as
defined in this section;"

Read the whole thing - not just an emotional reaction to a half-truth - at (link...)

RB

RB,

I've read the proposed legislation introduced by and primarily sponsored by Republicans. Yes there are some Dems so sponsoring.

Now you read what I said again. Pay attention this time.

Well, heck, I did...

just now re-read, that is.

"...MORE people with guns drinking in restaurants."

The proposed legislation isn't about more people with guns DRINKING in restaurants. It is about more people with guns in restaurants, but NOT drinking (not ethanol, that is).

If you're referring to something in comments, I could find none. Not readily accessible to me. So I can't address that.

I don't see where this legislation addresses anything "to allow concealed weapons everywhere, bars, schools, parks, Little League Basball games..."

Can't re-read it any more than what I have. I tried.

RB

Tis the comments I refer to

What did you do, RB?

Have they blocked you from the comments?

Hmmmmmm? (kidding)

I dunno...

I saw a thing that said "post a comment" or something like that, clicked there, and was taken to a very generic set of pages with all kinds of comments - but could find none on this topic. I saw topics about Dick Smyser and my late friend Doc Combs, but nothing about gun carry in bars or restaurants.

RB

Here is T.C.A. 39-17-1305,

Here is T.C.A. 39-17-1305, which RB's linked bill would amend:

39-17-1305. Possession of firearm where alcoholic beverages are served. —

(a) It is an offense for a person to possess a firearm within the confines of a building 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 on premises consumption.

(b) A violation of this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

(c) The provisions of subsection (a) shall not apply to a person who is:

(1) In the actual discharge of official duties as a law enforcement officer, or is employed in the army, air force, navy, coast guard or marine service of the United States or any member of the Tennessee national guard in the line of duty and pursuant to military regulations, or is in the actual discharge of duties as a correctional officer employed by a penal institution; or

(2) On the person's own premises or premises under the person's control or who is the employee or agent of the owner of the premises with responsibility for protecting persons or property.

The comments on WC's Oak Ridger page indicate that the pro-gun commenters believe that the witnesses to the alleged Oak Ridge gun incident are concealed carry permit holders. That could be proven or disproven from public records. Anyone with more free time than me could find out by first getting a copy of the warrant, which is a public record of the Anderson County General Sessions Court. Whether a person is a carry permit holder is a public record of the Department of Safety. In fact, the Tennesseean newspaper had a searchable database of handgun permit holders, but it was only up for a few hours.

Here's the progress of RB's bill. Based on the "engrossed" line on 1/16/08, it looks like it passed the Senate after the passage of a proposed amendment to limit the new law to only "establishment[s] that derive[] at least fifty percent (50%) of [their] annual income from the sale of food." There is no requirement that an establishment publish their percentage of income from food. So will a carry holder get to guess as to whether a particular Applebees makes more money from food than it does from drinks? Will lawyers get to conduct jury trials based on this question?

I will sit back and let RB and WC run with this one.

Intriguing questions, Sir...

Could make for interesting lawyering :-)

RB

I poked around a little for

I poked around a little for a case on point.

At least the following states have laws that base whether you can carry a concealed weapon into an establishment (or portion thereof) on the establishment's percentage of revenue or income from food or on the purpose of the establishment (or portion thereof): Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming.

Based on my brief search, I couldn't find a case in any of those states where someone had tried to fight a conviction based on the nature of the establishment. There might be such a case, but I will hold off on further research until TN passes this law.

How about this one...

Will patrons of certain establishments search people without cc permits to see if they are carrying illegally...or will patrons who hold cc permits be searched whenever they order an alchoholic beverage to see if they are packing heat? How about since they can't drink and carry...Will they have to submit to a search and breathalyzer before they can come in?

I would hope so.

A stupid law with even stupider consequences...And a prosperous future for our Attorney friends?

Search & Seizure...

Well, they wouldn't have to be searched unless somebody figures out how to take away their protection against unreasonable (no probable cause) search and seizure. I'm not sure patrons of any establishment have the right to search anyone.

Bottom line is responsible people are going to behave responsibly, and irresponsible people are going to behave that way, too.

I can't fathom a progressive, liberal, civil rights loving, Constitution loving individual promoting ad lib search and seizure without the establishment of probable cause that a crime is being committed. How to the two fit together?

RB

Note that RB's linked bill

Note that RB's linked bill is different than HB 2184, the bill pushed last year by my representative, Frank Nicely. HB2184, as amended by House Judiciary Committee Amendments 1 and 2, would have allowed the carrying of handguns on public parks, playgrounds, civic centers or other state, county or municipal property.

I'm still not certain that the "50% food" amendment of RB's bill was effective. The legislative history progress reported on the legislature's website is not that clear.

At this same point last time,

I don't believe the cc in public parks, etc was in there. My folks at TDEC are very concerned that it will be added again before the end of the process.

If so, I expect Bredesen to veto it, but that is something he does not like to do.

The absurdity is even thinking that more weapons equates to "safer". Even in your own home, you are 20 times more likely to shoot a member of your own family than an intruder. Translate that to a bar....

Debatable...

"The absurdity is even thinking that more weapons equates to "safer"."

"Examining crime data for 3,054 counties, Lott and Mustard found that while concealed-carry reform had little effect in rural counties, in urban counties reform was followed by a substantial reduction in homicide and other violent crimes such as robbery. At the same time, there was a statistically significant rise in nonconfrontational property crimes, such as larceny and car theft. Apparently many criminals concluded that the risks of encountering a victim who could fight back had become too high.

Lott and Mustard estimated that if all states that did not have concealed carry laws in 1992 adopted such laws, there would be approximately 1,800 fewer murders and 3,000 fewer rapes annually. Thus the adoption or improvement of concealed carry laws in more than a dozen states since 1992 may be one of several causes for the current decline in murder rates.

Of course, data alone cannot measure the benefits of concealed-carry reform. If a gun permit helps a woman feel safe enough to go jogging, her increased sense of security is an important social benefit--even if she never has to draw a gun. If she does encounter a criminal, the chances are small that she will actually have to fire, and less than 1 percent that he will take the gun away. In the most thorough study ever done on this subject, Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck found that most instances of a citizen drawing a gun in self-defense end with the assailant simply retreating."

Source: (link...)

That's a single source, and I know the issue is far to complex and far too emotional to ever be resolved here or on any other discussion board, progressive or conservative, Democrat or Republican, or whatever. But it's not a closed case (other than in the minds of people who have decided for themselves one way or the other). There is evidence admittedly on both sides of the issue. If that weren't so, it wouldn't be an issue ;-)

RB

RB,

You have amazing powers of misunderstanding.

In order to enforce theproposed law, such searches would have to occur.

You hold a CC permit and want to order a beer? Show me you don't have a weapon or I have to assume you're packing.

Can I, as an owner of a tavern, tell CC holders they can't come in? I would hope so. I would feel far less safe with them in there. (Officers of the Law excepted)

Bottom line, this is a stupid, stupid piece of legislation with very little upside for anybody except those folks who need a gun to feel whole.

Reckon I'm stupid, then.... It's no shock to anybody who reads

RoaneViews.

I do have the capacity to understand your statement above about a bartender potentially asking someone if they're packing before vending some ethanol.

I don't think you can tell CC holders they can't come in, but by law you CAN tell they they can't carry in YOUR establishment. Law enforcement is another story. But those who are only CC holders, you can definitely decide on your own premises whether or not you'll let 'em carry while they're in your place. That much of the law (old or new) is clearly on your side.

Apologies for the pitiful words from the board's resident dumb-ass...

RB

What law?

"I don't think you can tell CC holders they can't come in...."

RB, what law prevents this? I'm not sure why any restaurant would do this, but I don't know of any law that would prevent it. Maybe you do. This is not my area of expertise, and proving that a law does not exist is pretty difficult and time-consuming.

WE'll call it...

The "Lawyer relief and revenue enhancement Bill"

It would be years before it got sorted out and it would be a crap shoot then.

NOW you're crackin me up, WC...

had to guffaw over that one!

RB

Well, you are the practicing attorney and I'm not...

And I don't intend to dispute you. That'd be even dumber than WC thinks I am .

What I was referring to was the provision of the current law that says proprietors have the authority to prohibit those who are exercising their privilege of handgun carry from carrying their handguns in THEIR place of business.

I guess in the context of refusing service to anyone one wants to refuse service to, one could say I'm not going to allow anybody who has a carry permit (BTW - in TN is is not a CONCEALED carry permit, it is a carry permit) in my establishment. But I'm not sure how they would know a person had a permit or not. They have no way to tell that unless they're carding them before selling a drink.

But all I meant was that those running businesses do have the option of posting a sign that says people (non-law enforcement) who are carrying a gun by permit can't carry on their premises, permit notwithstanding. I didn't mean to claim - and will not claim - that there is a law that makes it illegal for business owners to not allow those with gun carry permits on their premises.

I hope I explained what I meant OK.

RB

Hey....

And I don't intend to dispute you.

Wait a minute, RB. I argue with lawyers (and Judges) all the time. You can too..It's fun. Except the judge gets to be right even when he's totally wrong.

Now if MF were representing me in a matter of Business Litigation, I admit I would smile and keep my big mouth shut...Unless I was told to look pitiful, that is.

I'm with Steve on this one

Feel free to argue away. The power of Google is surprising.

You explained.

I understand. If this thing ever passes, it'll be interesting to see what businesses choose to do. Am I correct that there is no bill proposed that would immunize restaurants/bars from civil liability from damages arising out of either (1) choosing to allow carry-holders into the restaurant or (2) prohibiting them?

Thanks, Mark -

Appreciate that.

SO FAR AS I KNOW there is not a bill in the system that would do what you mention. Of course, they have till Jan 31 to introduce legislation. Such a bill would make a very interesting juxtaposition to the Senate-passed bill we're discussing.

RB

Clarification

This is the more important question (italics is the clarification). I'm guessing the answer is the same:

Am I correct that there is no bill proposed that would immunize restaurants/bars from civil liability from damages arising out of either (1) choosing to allow carry-holders to bring their guns into the restaurant or (2) prohibiting them from doing so?

I believe that you ARE correct.

I don't believe, Mark, that there is a bill pending that would do either of the things you mention.

The way I read the Senate-passed bill as engrossed is that those with carry permits would be allowed in a restaurant that served alcohol WITH their weapons UNLESS management had the business posted with the prohibition that even those with carry permits are forbidden to carry on their premises. They have the right to do that now under the law, and I didn't see anything in the few new lines that would do away with that right. But immunity from civil liability is not, as far as I could see, mentioned in the current bill or any that are in the system.

I may have missed something, but I didn't find such.

RB

No-Guns Posting

T.C.A. 39-17-1359 allows a property owner to post a notice prohibiting weapons on the property. It also states that "[n]othing in this section shall be construed to alter, reduce or eliminate any civil or criminal liability that a property owner may have for injuries arising on their property."

It looks like there are a few bills in the works that would affect the posting requirements and other aspects of the gun laws discussed in this thread. Either my connection or the legislature's website is not working very well this morning, and it is time for breakfast, so here are the bill numbers and captions of these bills, as taken from the legislature's summary of bills relating to firearms:

HB3063 by Johnson P Firearms and Ammunition - Provides that owner of public or private property cannot, by posting, prohibit lawful possession of firearms on that property unless specific statutory prohibition, a correctional facility, or prohibited by federal law. - Amends TCA Title 39, Chapter 17, Part 13.

HB2485 by Bell Public Records - Makes confidential handgun carry permit records unless the holder of a permit waives such confidentiality. - Amends TCA Section 10-7-504.

Also note that there appear to be a number of different bills relating to carry holders bringing guns into places where alcohol is served.

I found the TN General Assembly website working poorly...

as well.

I looked a little further, when I could, on the topical listing of bills affecting firearms & ammunition or handgun carry permits. What I found was that all except the Senate bill that's been passed and its corresponding bill in the House are from last year's session and either died in committee, have been withdrawn, or are not currently on the schedule for any of the committees in this session to which they were assigned.

So I THINK all that's pending - as of end of last week - are the two bills we're talking about. Of course, the legislators have through Jan 31 to introduce or re-introduce a bill.

RB

I was harsh, sorry

But I do think you read too fast and miss some ideas. Relax and enjoy. We'll still have plenty to disagree on.

You certainly keep it lively here, and I appreciate that.

Does that come from...

WC,

Do you believe that the right to carry means that you are always carrying? There is this saying about assumption that keeps ringing in my ears.

"You hold a CC permit and want to order a beer? Show me you don't have a weapon or I have to assume you're packing."

Just like cowboys and their boots...there is a time to be without all things. My rights are not based on your assumption. We can not shake down everyone that orders a drink. What about their rights?

Anyway, I am not equipped to debate the laws point by point. What I can say is that if we continue to legislate every thought and action, then more and more, the only safe people will be the law breakers. I just can't understand why we think making guns illegal will cause people with no respect for the law to obey the law.

Wylamena

Well..

I just can't understand why we think making guns illegal will cause people with no respect for the law to obey the law.

Let's turn that around. Why are guns legal?

I have several of them, btw. I just don't think I need one when I go to a bar.

S

Okay...

I agree that I do not think it is wise to carry a gun to the restaraunt. Now there was a time in my past when I visited bars where a gun may have been a good thing, but over-all we agree that it is probably not a good idea. I guess, my thought is - was possession of the gun what he was charged with? Did he have a permit for it? $25,000 is a lot of bail for just being drunk and having the bad judgement of the gun in addition. I guess what I am trying to get to is that just the gun alone and the purchase of a drink, does not constitute a bad situation. Drinking to get drunk is bad. Having a gun with you while that is your intention is real bad. Being stupid enough to let someone see it while you are drunk is bad. I guess I am just confused about where do we stop with the legislating of our choice. I mean, there is a group of people that want to tell me what dog I can own on my property in my home. Where does it stop? We can not pass an ordinance or law for every nut-job out there that makes a bad choice.

Interesting Statistics from UTAH

A study in Utah, performed and published by the Department of Family & Preventive Medicine of the University of Utah produced some interesting statistics and conclusions. This was performed not by activists (although activists have quoted the results), but by physicians and public health officials. Among the findings:

"1. Murder rates decreased overall after 1995. However, there was a marked increase in the murder rates committed by males in the 10-24 age group, probably due to gang violence.
2. Assault rates decreased at an accelerated rate.
3. Rape rates do not appear to be affected by the law.
4. Robbery rates decreased at a greater rate.
5. Crimes against property involving stealth (burglary, larceny, auto theft) did not increase as predicted and do not seem to be affected by the law.
6. The unintentional firearm injury rates decreased despite a 17-fold increase in permit holders, which indicates that responsible individuals carry guns.
7. Assaults and weapons possession in elementary schools show that these schools may be developing into a more hostile environment, while secondary schools do not appear to have changed.
8. Permit revocation reasons shows that permit holders do not use their firearms to commit crime."

To read the entire published study:
(link...)

RB

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Eco Warriors and Politics

Science and Stuff

Lost Medicaid Funding

To date, the failure to expand Medicaid / TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding.