Guns in places where alcohol is sold for on site consumption
That’s the more accurate description. But ACK takes me to task because I say calling the bill the guns in bars is wrong. And, well, he’s sort of right. It is semantic. But in the run up, the versions of the bill had qualifiers about food, hours, age restrictions, etc. Clearly, those were designed to keep guns out of bars. Most of those restrictions have been stripped so maybe it is a guns in bars bill. My issue in the run up was the constant reference to it as a guns in bars bill when it was not. Heck, some asshat kept referring to it as the guns in saloons bill.
Meanwhile, a couple of reminders. You still can’t drink while packing and restaurants my prohibit you from carrying on their property. This bill just removes the state prohibition. The restaurant lobby opposed this bill. Probably because it would make their clients choose to put up a sign or not. And then there’s boycotts and stuff.
May 8th, 2009 at 9:21 am
Well, it’s not a ‘guns in bars’ bill since there are no bars in tennessee law. To sell hard alcohol for onsite consumption you have to be a restaurant, and it’s the same definition of restaurant that is used in the guns bill. You can get a beer only license without serving any food, so i guess thats the closest to a bar or saloon in Tennessee, and guns are still prohibited there. So, this is really the opposite of a ‘guns in bars’ bill, this is a guns in restaurants bill. And I personally am thrilled.
Regards,
Pol
May 8th, 2009 at 9:51 am
there is language in the law as passed that states “the serving of meals shall be the principal business conducted”
I think that counts out the layman’s definition of a bar.
May 8th, 2009 at 11:06 am
It’s the “no guns left in cars outside Ruby Tuesday” law.
May 8th, 2009 at 11:59 am
Could it be that restaurant owners would prefer the onus of liability remain with the state rather than on them? Without the state law, if they put up a sign prohibiting handgun carry on their premises, they would then become responsible for the safety and protection of all their clientele, thus liable if a customer was hurt or killed because they were not able to defend themselves against a thug who was not stopped by a sign on the door.
Not defending these restaurant owners by any means, just noting what could possibly be their line of thinking (However flawed).
May 8th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
If any restaurants are gonna post “no gun” signs after this bill, they need to post them now. And that ain’t gonna help because criminals will not honor their signs.
If alcohol consumption by gun permit holders will be a problem if they go into restaurants that serve it, then it would already be a problem now since alcohol is readily available otherwise.
May 8th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
“Could it be that restaurant owners would prefer the onus of liability remain with the state rather than on them? Without the state law, if they put up a sign prohibiting handgun carry on their premises, they would then become responsible for the safety and protection of all their clientele, thus liable if a customer was hurt or killed because they were not able to defend themselves against a thug who was not stopped by a sign on the door.”
IMHO, if a business owner dos’nt allow people to carry the means to protect themselves on HIS property then he IS responsible for his customers safety and SHOULD be held libel if harm comes to his customers while they’re disarmed and helpless in his establishment. Period!
May 8th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Unfortunately that’s not the law currently. Posted proprties are no more liable than non-posted properties in TN. Over the summer, I plan on putting that bug in the ears of a few state legislators and see what we can get. We went for the big stuff this year and have so far gotten what we wanted, park carry notwithstanding. Its been a good session overall.