goomba
Global Moderator
Straight Shooter
I am the Security God of Conventions. I am everywhere, but nowhere to be found.
Posts: 2,403
|
Post by goomba on Jul 1, 2009 19:01:45 GMT -5
A Nashville restaurant owners and 9 others who asked to be parties but who asked to be included anonymously because of fear of retaliation filed suit on July 1, 2009, in Davidson County Chancery Court (Judge Bonnyman). They have asked the court to injoin the effectiveness of HB0962, which creates an exception for handgun permit holders to the general law which prohibits firearms in restaurants and other places that serve alcoholic beverages and/or beer. Oddly enough, the lawsuit does not claim that the companion law which allows on duty and off duty law enforcement officers to do likewise is also unconstitutional. A copy of the complaint is available on the TFA Forum at this link: www.tfaonline.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2327&p=8410#p8410So what are the theories. Well, to start with the complaint is not written as a typically complaint under Tennessee law containing factual allegations and a prayer for relief. It is written more as a brief of law for the news media. It contains many references to news reports, internet posts, "wives" tales and folklore. It is well written but not well plead under the rules of pleading. It claims that the legislature was mislead by representations from the NRA, TFA and others about the number of states which allow handgun permit holders to carry in restaurants where alcoholic beverages are served. Indeed, in a footnote to the very first paragraph, the plaintiffs adopt the mischaracterization of the law such as often used by Chief Serpas and Gov Bredesen as a "guns in bars" law. It claims that Tennessee is now the only state which expressly authorizes "guns in bars." The complaint claims that the change in the law by the Legislature - creates a public nuisance - effects a due process violation by somehow "taking property" that exposes "bar owners" (really, is that what they are?) to firearms "with no effective deterrent". - effects a due process violation by enacting a change in the law that is "arbitrary and capricious" - violates Tennessee's Occupational Safety and Health Act - violates various provisions of the Tennessee Constitution - violates federal civil rights laws (42 USC 1983) as a "state created danger and state created vigilantism" - violates a dues process and "fundamental right" to be "free from gun violence in 'sensitive places.'" The plaintiff urges the Attorney General, Robert Cooper, to refuse to defend the case and to instead notify the General Assembly that it is essentially 'own its own.' Its quite sad the lengths to which these individuals and interests have gone I received the above email from the TFA (Tennessee Firearms Assc.) today. |
|
osrb
Senior Forumite
Semper Fi
Mostly Harmless
Posts: 3,150
|
Post by osrb on Jul 2, 2009 8:18:38 GMT -5
This is just a BS lawsuit. All these places have to do is post a sign "In the proper format" if they do not want people carrying in there establishment. They have no/little facts to back up their argument.
|
|
|
|
Post by cadillacdude1975 on Jul 2, 2009 11:08:26 GMT -5
it was best described over on the TN gun owners forums. all these entities are so reliant on the state to tell them what to do, not one of them wants to take a stand and speak for themselves on this matter and post the complaint sign per Tennessee law. they want the state to do the "dirty work" for them, that way they can say its a state law, we have no control over this issue.
it is a lame duck issue that will fall flat on its face.
|
|
|
|
Post by gridbug on Jul 2, 2009 11:17:54 GMT -5
I am very confused. If all you have to do is put up a sign and all law abiding gun carriers can't bring a gun on the premises, then why the lawsuit? I am missing something somewhere.
|
|
osrb
Senior Forumite
Semper Fi
Mostly Harmless
Posts: 3,150
|
Post by osrb on Jul 2, 2009 14:24:11 GMT -5
I am very confused. If all you have to do is put up a sign and all law abiding gun carriers can't bring a gun on the premises, then why the lawsuit? I am missing something somewhere. Lawyers want money that is all. They are trying to justify their existents. |
|
|
|
Post by cadillacdude1975 on Jul 2, 2009 15:52:55 GMT -5
gridbug, it goes back to what i posted above. the restaurant owners do not want to accept responsibility for having to answer that they are the ones that did not want the law abiding citizens carrying. they would rather blame the state, saying it is a state law so that rids them of having to explain it any further.
true, all they have to do is post the damn sign, but that makes sense. it is a lame attempt to not lose any business. i do not go out to eat much, it is just too damn expensive, but any establishment that will not welcome me because i choose to not be a victim and carry my handgun, then i will spend my money elsewhere. the last time myself and the better half went out, we went and ate at Applebees in Fort O where i was legally allowed to be armed. guess what? while i was eating, my handgun behaved, it stayed in its holster, the chambered round never went off, and i did not get all pissed off and start taking hostages and waving my gun around.
the politicians forget that handgun permit holders in Tennessee have been able to carry in places like WalMart, Mickey D's, Wendy's, Baskin Robbins, Krystal, Bojangles, etc etc since the inception of the carry permit. the very people who are crying over this law have quite possibly been in one of the above locations next to someone legally armed and they never knew about the gun. the places in Tennessee that are off limits are very few. Courthouses, Schools, properly posted property and the Post Office and sadly, probably most parks in the metro area.
has there been any mass shooting by a legal gun permit holder in the 10+ years of allowing residents to carry? nope.
i can debate and explain and stress my thoughts on this subject until my head explodes, but the fact remains that until the court system basically tells this coalition of restaurant owners to go sodomize themselves with a retractable steel baton, we will have to hear about this crap over and over.
read the wording of the so called lawsuit. like goomba said above, it is almost like a homeless bum begging for a hot meal and a dollar. could they have begged anymore than they did? it is almost to the point of being comical. no facts to back up anything, just circumstantial happenstances and theoretical what-ifs. they make the HCP holders out to be head hunters, and that is so far from the truth.
ok i am off my soapbox, sorry for rambling.
|
|
