TN Senate overrides Gov veto . . .

[mrkirker]

Senate joins House, overrides Bredesen veto of guns in bars
from Knox N-S By Tom Humphrey
Originally published 12:35 p.m., June 4, 2009
Updated 12:35 p.m., June 4, 2009


NASHVILLE - The TN Senate voted 21-9 today to join the House in voting to override Gov. Phil Bredesen's veto of a bill allowing those who hold handgun carry permits to take their weapons into establishments that sell alcoholic beverages.

Democratic Sen. Doug Jackson of Dickson, sponsor of the bill, said the override means the new law will take effect 40 days from today, or July 14.

The vote came after criticized news media depictions of the bill as "something sinister, something that would threaten the public safety."

"Nothing could be further from the truth," he said.

In the audience at Jackson's invitation was Nicole Goeser, a permit holder whose husband was shot and killed in a Nashville restaurant. To comply with current law, she had left her pistol in the couple's car. Goeser contends that, had she been armed, she could have defended her husband, Benjamin.

Jackson cited Goesner's experience as an example of how the new law can make for safer restaurants because "thugs already have guns there" while law-abiding citizens do not.

The only senator urging that Bredesen's veto be sustained was Sen. Andy Berke, D-Chattanooga. He said the governor had stood up for "common sense," rather than listening to a minority of citizens who passionately support the bill.

Hey Burger-lover, do ya feel lucky tonight!"

[pawn]

Hip Hip Hooraaay!!!

[mrkirker]

Pawn, I hate to imagine the head-lines when someone gets killed (especially if an innocent gets in the cross-fire) after this passes. It will receive an incredible amount of air-play, and right or wrong, all of the "I told you so's" will have their day.

[Marlin T]

Blood is going to run in the streets, in wal mart, in Circle K, 7/11, in bars and restaurants...

Na I doubt it very much.
Congrats to TN

[mrkirker]

We are a burger-crazed, gun-totin' society!

Seriously, I hope you guys are right, however, as a ‘native’ Tennessean and a witness to the general level of (unthinking) 'intelligence' that walks our Wal-mart stores, our burger joints, and juke-joints, I doubt it. Time will tell . . . .

[pawn]

It is inevitable there will be events that can be held up as evidence that this was a good decison and also evidence that this was a mistake. However, the people have spoken, the majority of our representatives are in favor of this measure.

From my viewpoint, it is a step forward increasing the scope in which HCP holders can protect themselves.

[mrkirker]

Perhaps, we should 'agree to disagree', eh?

[pawn]

Originally Posted by mrkirker

Perhaps, we should 'agree to disagree', eh?

10-4 Sir

[mrkirker]

Tell ya what, if I'm wrong, I'll buy the Tennessee members a 'round'!

[techoca]

This override is a good thing for us Georgia residents with Conceal Carry Permits who work and shop across the state line.

[pawn]

Originally Posted by mrkirker

Tell ya what, if I'm wrong, I'll buy the Tennessee members a 'round'!

deal!

[45nut]

Originally Posted by mrkirker

We are a burger-crazed, gun-totin' society!

Seriously, I hope you guys are right, however, as a ‘native’ Tennessean and a witness to the general level of (unthinking) 'intelligence' that walks our Wal-mart stores, our burger joints, and juke-joints, I doubt it. Time will tell . . . .

Every time a state has passed a concealed carry law, the gun grabbers have proclaimed the coming blood bath and shoot outs in the streets, road & restaurants. To date they have yet to appear, so I think they will not happen in this instance.

Although, I think the mullet quotient of TN may hurt this a bit. (running for cover.....)

[ampaterry]

Originally Posted by mrkirker

Tell ya what, if I'm wrong, I'll buy the Tennessee members a 'round'!

Make mine Coke on the rocks.
Straight.

[ampaterry]

Honestly, I can see both sides of this.

Fairbanks, Alaska, was a wide open town forty five years ago when we lived there. Lots of folks, myself included, routinely carried a pistol in a holster right out in plain sight. No one thought ANYTHING about it.
But when you entered a bar, you had to check it at the door.
Even the saloons in the old wild west did this in many instances.

Honestly, I guess I feel that there should be a differentiation between a restaurant that sells alcohol and a bar. Not too many people go into a restaurant and get loaded.

[ponycar17]

Originally Posted by mrkirker

We are a burger-crazed, gun-totin' society!

Seriously, I hope you guys are right, however, as a ‘native’ Tennessean and a witness to the general level of (unthinking) 'intelligence' that walks our Wal-mart stores, our burger joints, and juke-joints, I doubt it. Time will tell . . . .

They can already walk your Wal-Marts, burger joints (that don't serve alcohol) and other establishments. I fail to see how the addition of the restaurants will change anything. Like I pointed out in another post, if you're already banned from carrying and drinking, how is anyone more unsafe by carrying into a restaurant that serves alcohol if they're not consuming? If there's a law already on the books I see no effect an additional restriction will have on CWP holders...

Critics have predicted mass bloodshed every time new CWP laws have been put into place. It never turns into a blood bath as predicted. When FL passed their 'Castle Doctrine' which assured that victims could stand their ground instead of running away, groups said to expect wild-west style vigilantism that would surely make tourists and residents less safe. When FL passed their "guns to work" law the critics said the same thing... The truth is that law-abiding citizens are law abiding citizens; end of story.

[Lotsdragon]

The people have spoken! WTG Tn!

[Marlin T]

Good points Pony.

I need to clarify what I said about Wal-Mart, Target, Sams Club, the grocery store…

You may think that the above places don’t “serve” alcohol but the catch is what kind of license is on the wall.

Our local Walmart has a license that is to serve, although their store policy says no drinking in the store. Therefore walmart is as good as a bar for legal purposes, and it is a felony for me to carry into a bar, or walmart.

I’m not sure how strict TN is with their liquor licenses, but I’m sure they are no better than NM is. So this new law might have more reaching meaning than just carrying into a, “BAR”.

[Marlin T]

Predicting the anti-gun response to restaurant carry bill



June 3, 6:32 AM · 3 comments



.iconpanel a { text-decoration:none; color:#006699}; .iconpanel a:hover { text-decoration:none; color:#006699} 3 comments
ShareThis
Feed

Thirty-nine states have provisions for legal armed defense in restaurants

Yesterday, the bill to remove Ohio's ban on self-defense while dining was introduced. If passed, this bill would allow a lawful citizen with a concealed handgun license (CHL) to remain armed while eating in a restaurant that serves alcohol as long as that person was not drinking. Soon, we'll see the typical responses from the anti-gun, anti-freedom crowd.
Usually the first attack on legislation like this is that they claim this will result in people getting drunk, getting into fights, and that will lead to shootings. Of course, they neglect to explain why this doesn't happen in the other thirty-nine states that do allow restaurant patrons to remain armed.
The common quip is that 'guns and alcohol don't mix.' Except that we're not mixing guns and alcohol. HB 203 would only permit concealed carry if that person was not consuming alcohol. The canned response to pointing out that fact is usually, "well, that person might drink anyway." Using that logic, we should ban alcohol from restaurants completely because that person might get drunk and try to drive home. But again, if this was an issue, why isn't it happening in every single state that borders Ohio?
This isn't some radical change. Not only does the vast majority of the country already allow ccw in restaurants, but it is currently legal in Ohio to drink alcohol outside of a restaurant while armed, provided that you're not impaired (the same standard as driving a car). Concealed handgun licensees are being responsible now, why would it be any different if they were seated in a restaurant?
Ohio CHL holders are just as responsible as those in the green states noted in the graphic above. Those states have not had a problem with armed citizens in restaurants getting into drunken gunfights, and it won't happen here either. So when you hear the hysterical predictions of blood running in the streets, remember that those same predictions were made for every other pro-gun rights reform made in Ohio and those predictions didn't come true then either. It is time to stop crying wolf.

[pawn]

+1 for Marlin. Thats good stuff

[kerk]

Originally Posted by ampaterry

Honestly, I can see both sides of this.

Fairbanks, Alaska, was a wide open town forty five years ago when we lived there. Lots of folks, myself included, routinely carried a pistol in a holster right out in plain sight. No one thought ANYTHING about it.
But when you entered a bar, you had to check it at the door.
Even the saloons in the old wild west did this in many instances.

Honestly, I guess I feel that there should be a differentiation between a restaurant that sells alcohol and a bar. Not too many people go into a restaurant and get loaded.

Have to agree, two different animals. As far as a bar, check em at the door.

I don't see any difference between alcohol and guns, or alcohol and cars. Booze alters good sense, and encourages accidents.

[kerk]

Originally Posted by Marlin T

Predicting the anti-gun response to restaurant carry bill



June 3, 6:32 AM · 3 comments



.iconpanel a { text-decoration:none; color:#006699}; .iconpanel a:hover { text-decoration:none; color:#006699} 3 comments
ShareThis
Feed

Thirty-nine states have provisions for legal armed defense in restaurants

Yesterday, the bill to remove Ohio's ban on self-defense while dining was introduced. If passed, this bill would allow a lawful citizen with a concealed handgun license (CHL) to remain armed while eating in a restaurant that serves alcohol as long as that person was not drinking. Soon, we'll see the typical responses from the anti-gun, anti-freedom crowd.
Usually the first attack on legislation like this is that they claim this will result in people getting drunk, getting into fights, and that will lead to shootings. Of course, they neglect to explain why this doesn't happen in the other thirty-nine states that do allow restaurant patrons to remain armed.
The common quip is that 'guns and alcohol don't mix.' Except that we're not mixing guns and alcohol. HB 203 would only permit concealed carry if that person was not consuming alcohol. The canned response to pointing out that fact is usually, "well, that person might drink anyway." Using that logic, we should ban alcohol from restaurants completely because that person might get drunk and try to drive home. But again, if this was an issue, why isn't it happening in every single state that borders Ohio?
This isn't some radical change. Not only does the vast majority of the country already allow ccw in restaurants, but it is currently legal in Ohio to drink alcohol outside of a restaurant while armed, provided that you're not impaired (the same standard as driving a car). Concealed handgun licensees are being responsible now, why would it be any different if they were seated in a restaurant?
Ohio CHL holders are just as responsible as those in the green states noted in the graphic above. Those states have not had a problem with armed citizens in restaurants getting into drunken gunfights, and it won't happen here either. So when you hear the hysterical predictions of blood running in the streets, remember that those same predictions were made for every other pro-gun rights reform made in Ohio and those predictions didn't come true then either. It is time to stop crying wolf.

I have no problem with that. Actually, I would have no problem with 'CUI's', carrying under the influence.

Guns and booze don't mix..........I'm adamant on that.

[pinecone70]

What about the patrons that help themselves to the non-drinking permit holder's gun? In any crowd, it may be a little more difficult to secure one's own weapon. There are so many scenarios and different personalities to contend with in making these rules, not everyone is going to be happy. Personally, I don't think too many things mix with alcohol in a safe way. Alcohol consumption has its time and place.

[ponycar17]

Pinecone, when carried concealed I doubt there's going to be anyone who even knows you're carrying a gun. We'll just have to wait and see how this legislation runs its course. I doubt we'll hear anything else of this law after it's implemented.

[bcj1755]

I wish NC would pass something similar. We can carry into a restaraunt, as long as alcohol is not served for consumption on premesis. So any place where people buy and then can immediately drink booze are off limits while carrying open or concealed. As such, I just avoid places that sell alcohol for on premesis drinking. NC also has a law that makes it illegal for a CHP holder to carry if they have had ANY alcohol. Any at all. If a CHP holder here takes one sip, they are no longer able to carry until the alcohol is out of their system. This law I do agree with. Booze and guns do NOT mix.

I agree with ponycar17 100%. Why should I, as a total non-drinker, not be allowed to be armed if I decide to go to Pizza Hut or Applebee's or Hooters? I go to restaraunts for food, not booze. If someone is not going to drink, then why should they not be allowed to carry into a restaraunt where beer is served. I would have no problem with it as long CHP holders don't drink while carrying. I'm very curious to see how this new TN law plays out.

[pinecone70]

"Pinecone, when carried concealed I doubt there's going to be anyone who even knows you're carrying a gun. We'll just have to wait and see how this legislation runs its course. I doubt we'll hear anything else of this law after it's implemented."

You must not live in small town America. In my neck of the woods, people know a lot about everybody.

I don't disagree with the issue here, but no matter what the rule, there's always some dumbarse that ruins it for everyone. Isn't that the case sometimes?