Comments on: Beale Street Lockdown

By: johnx

johnx — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 12:47:21 +0000

judging from the weekend’s news, the ban was a colossal failure-most likely because – duh- criminals don’t follow those rules.

By: Rivrdog

Rivrdog — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 23:01:35 +0000

The contract for “renting” Beale Street needs to get published so it can be perused by all. I would NOT be surprised to see that the rights claimed by the renters are made up, and do not exist as clauses in the contract.

Anyone care to do a FOIA request and get that contract?

By: damon

damon — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 00:00:54 +0000

Confiscated? Confiscated??? Yeah, I don’t think so Sparky.

I’m guessing what he “meant to say” was.. they will ask you to leave the area.

By: Linoge

Linoge — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 00:00:51 +0000

Just another reason, of very many reasons, never to bother going to Memphis. If the businesses on Beale Street so badly do not want my money, I am quite happy to oblige them.

By: Huck

Huck — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 19:05:33 +0000

If the Beale street merchants are so concerned about customer’s safety then why didnt they do this a long time ago? The answer; They’re not concerned for customer’s safety, they just want to harrass honest gun owners.

By: JKB

JKB — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 18:33:28 +0000

Nope, normally, in Norfolk, a guy lawfully carrying near a public park having an event was arrested for asserting his right to carry in accordance with VA law. I believe he eventually won but his kids saw him arrested, in cuffs and hauled off. Don’t dismiss the city’s use of police to do harassing arrests. The city attorney usually will make some unsubstantiated claim that carry can be prohibited, thus causing the police to stop and arrest. The cities know the harassment will disrupt the individual’s day, possibly terrorize their family and cost them bail money. Sure they may lose a lawsuit later but many will just not carry to avoid having their kids terrorized.

By: Illinois Vote

Illinois Vote — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 18:26:09 +0000

Does this mean that they are accepting liability and are obligated for your safety if your assaulted once admitted into these safety zones?

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:33:17 +0000

Assuming that the street does actually become a private street, are they legally allowed to actually confiscate the firearms? I would think that the worst they could do is ask you to leave or involve the police and have you arrested for trespassing. Maybe I’m wrong, but I wouldn’t think a private company can seize anything.

By: Fiftycal

Fiftycal — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:31:30 +0000

We’ve got the same problem in Texas. The law specfically says carry is permitted on publically owned land except for xxx. But the city rents a park or street to some promoter and puts up gates and says, NO CARRY. Hasn’t been a court case here yet.

By: HardCorps

HardCorps — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:46:22 +0000

“We do not want to put on our wait staff the responsibility for exercising judgment as to who�s consuming an alcoholic beverage and who�s not” -uhm you have a legal duty owed to everyone on your ‘private street’ to not serve underage or intoxicated persons. Plus now you assume the duty to provide a safe environment for your guests so if they trip on a curb that hasn’t been maintained you get the claim. It might be best to curb your liabilities by not accepting the responsibilities of street and sidewalk ownership and just screen your own premises’ guests.

By: RAH

RAH — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:43:07 +0000

Time for a lawsuit for theft or expropiation of public property

By: Rustmeister

Rustmeister — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:28:30 +0000

It’s another legacy of the (hopefully) soon-gone King Willie.

He basically sold Beale Street to developers, a constant theme in Memphis these days.

By: Mikee

Mikee — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:05:26 +0000

“Risk and liability for thee, but not for me,” seems to be the bar owners’ operating method.

If drunken behavior is so difficult to control, maybe their liquor licenses should be revoked, rather than them infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens.

By: Yosemite Sam

Yosemite Sam — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 13:44:49 +0000

“Bredesen termed the guns in bars law �fairly outrageous� and something �real people who hold political office� don�t want.”

So the bill passes by a majority, but I guess those that voted for it weren’t “real people”.

It can’t be said too many times: Phil Bredesen is an asshole.

Never, ever trust a Democrat with your gun rights.

By: Spook45

Spook45 — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 13:39:31 +0000

I hate Memephis and wouldnt be caught dead on Beale St. anyway, but it seems to me that this is an area of public domain and that this endevor would heance be ……Illegal?! If it is a public street, they are violating states rights(TN is a Shall ISsue state, our State Constitution was ammended to make our carry law) and they are also violating state law(the new one)AND they are profiling. I think some one should SUE. In fact I amy go down there and dare them to keep me out. I need the money, I will sue the crap out of them and RETIRE:)

By: ATL

ATL — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 13:38:23 +0000

Ok, how does public property temporarily revert to private property? It’s nice to see that a public street that someone can walk on any given day can be obtained by a company and be used to restrict my right of self-defense.

By: dustydog

dustydog — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 13:27:10 +0000

“650 knives seized!” will certainly draw the tourists.

Did I read that article right? Is that a private citizen saying that he’ll seize any guns found in the district? Trying to steal somebody’s gun sounds like a recipe for getting oneself shot.