.png)
NRA is feeling betrayed. Another one of their endorsed politicians has broken his vows. (Guys, guys, guys...)
Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen vetoed a bill that would allow concealed carry permit holders to retain their firearms in establishments that serve alcohol.
“The notion that this bill would permit one to carry a concealed weapon into a crowded bar at midnight on a Saturday night defies common sense, and I cannot sign such a measure into law,” Gov. Bredesen said.
This despite a weasel-worded campaign pledge to support "such a measure".
Yes, I would support such legislation. (I would support any such measures as long as they contained provisions to adequately protect the safety of the public.)
Jeez, it's not like you couldn't drive a beer truck through that hole.
There is a lot of confusion over what the bill would do, and much of that is intentional. Opponents want to portray it as an invitation for drunken maniacs to open fire in saloons. Proponents point out that many family restaurants serve beer and wine, and those dining there should not have their defenselessness dictated to them by a state that has neither the capability nor the legal obligation to protect them.
Perhaps we should look at the bill summary:
As introduced, allows person with handgun carry permit to carry in restaurants that serve alcoholic beverages as long as such person is not consuming alcoholic beverages and such restaurant is not an age-restricted venue.
That's it. Any abuse of these clear conditions is a violation of the law. Which makes you wonder why those opposing it resort to such...well, since we're dealing with a man of the cloth in this example, I'll say "misrepresentations":
“When you put a gun in the hand of someone who is under the influence of alcohol, you’re really mixing a bloody cocktail,” said the Rev. Robert Hogan, East Tennessee Baptist Association moderator and interim director of missions...
“The religious right doesn’t condone violence. You’re not courting us by giving the possibility of more violence and bloodshed.”
Read the bill Robert. And explain why doing things your way doesn't allow for "the possibility of more violence and bloodshed":
My husband was gunned down on April 2 right in front of me at Jonny's Sports Bar on Nolensville Road here in Nashville. There is a very important bill that has passed the House and Senate called the Restaurant Carry Bill....
I support this bill.
I am a permitted gun owner here in the state of Tennessee. If I could have been allowed to carry my gun that night, perhaps I could have saved my wonderful husband...
Still, the theme that "guns and alcohol don't mix" has been exploited by, among others, "police officials." Yet when the Tennessee Firearms Association asked its members to help identify who these officials were "to compile information members can use to question local officials about the officers' foray into public policy or whether to vote in the future for elected officials who support the veto," the opposition did what people who want to see you disarmed usually do--they started screaming and calling names:
Gun Freaks Acting Like Schoolyard Bullies
The hysterical convolutions in the minds of state-worshipers are truly amazing. I guess that's one way to describe citizens who wish to know which public officials advocate denying them their rights so they can take measures to lawfully protect their rights.
But don't make the mistake of thinking that just because some politically motivated police appointees find it career-enhancing to oppose citizen self defense that it's universally supported by all cops. While it's true there is an exemption for "Anyone in the actual discharge of official duties as a law enforcement officer" this does not extend to off-duty officers. Per the Tennessee Attorney General:
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1305(c)(1) grants an exception to persons who are "in the actual discharge of official duties as a law enforcement officer...." (FN2) This exception does not generally permit off duty officers to carry weapon on such premises.
While I've never been a proponent of "Only One" exclusivity, think what that means: An off-duty cop will be just as helpless at responding to a threat from someone who does not obey the rules as anyone else.
That's really what this...uh...distills down to. All the talking, all the legalese, all the photo ops and all the political maneuvering notwithstanding, not one thing proposed by the citizen disarmament clique will do anything to stop a bad guy from being bad. What it will do is ensure that at least the "law-abiding" at mandated locations will be defenseless.
And the argument that guns and alcohol don't mix? As I type this I have access to both. There is literally nothing stopping me from getting up right now and draining a bottle of single malt and loading up the M1 Garand. Nothing except the fact that I'm a responsible and self-controlling human being, and deserve-- under the law --to be treated that way until I prove myself untrustworthy. As do millions of gun owners who may also have adult beverages on their premises. If we're too dangerous to be entrusted with the combination in restaurants, what makes people think we can be entrusted in our homes?
Of course, we know that for some, that's what it's all about.
But back to the bill. It ain't over 'til it's over. Look for a veto override effort.
Check out other Gun Rights Examiners:
- Atlanta: Georgia has more places off limits to bearing arms than California
- Austin: Justifying deadly force (Part 1)
- Boston: Boston Police Department, Peace Officers or Paramilitary Group for Ingsoc?
- Charlotte: Armed self-defense: Beyond the basics
- Cleveland: Guns are the only inanimate objects blamed for crime
- DC: Virginia gun owners should crash the party on June 9th
- Denver: When do you actually own a new gun?
- Los Angeles: Police jam up Paramedics In Oklahoma.
- Minneapolis: Giving Judge Sotomayor a fair hearing
- Seattle: ‘Shoot to wound’ advocates have watched too much television
- St. Louis: Record numbers of Missourians preparing for armed self-defense
- Wisconsin: Gun rights advocates make progress
Comments
David, the override article linked to appears to state that the provisions in the original bill carving out age-resticted venues (e.g., bars) were subsequently removed. In any event, the restriction on consumption while in the establishment stands. It seems to me that politicians project their lack of self control onto others with some frequency.
Yeah, it's confusing. There was an amendment to add a curfew and another amendment after that, with negative language, and house and senate non-concurrences, etc., etc. with eyes-glazing legalese, and finding a clear copy of exactly the text that went to the gov. does not seem to be a straightforward task, although I'm sure someone who knows how to navigate that site could find it in seconds.
I spent some time going through the legislative site, looking at news articles and at the TN Firearms Assoc, site and still am not clear, so posted this with the language on the summary site. It was either that or not post. If anyone can clarify things, please do.
There is no aversion to posting corrections here.
Dang, that site is hard to figure out.
To me it says it started out with a 21 and up age restriction.
House amended it (house amendment 1) to 18 and up age restriction and limited the hours of carry
Senate got it again and changed it back to the original and deleted out the age restriction entirely (senate amendment 1).
Neither side agrees
Conference committee formed and accepted Senate amendment 1.
House adopted committee recommendation
Here we go, the Senate amendment:
Crap... can't post the link. It is on another page called bill info for SB1127 under a tab called Amendments on Bill. It is the only senate amendment listed.
Basically the entire thing was re-written.
The age restriction is gone and in it's stead is a definition of restaurant. Still got the no consumption part.
I don't understand the need for your weapons to be concealed.
I want to see who is carrying so that I can avoid that person - cross the street, leave the restaurant, park etc.
P.S. If the NRA wants more loyalty from their politicians they better up their pay and perks.
So what exactly are your qualifications to make tactical carry recommendations, Tracy Ann? Aside from having an indignant "opinion"? The predators want to know who's armed, too, so they also know who to avoid--and who is easier prey. But one of the reasons people don't open carry is because when they do, even where it's "legal," they will be arrested, many times violently.
Be honest--you're not for open carry either, are you?
But tell you what--you want to avoid gun owners? Maybe since it's your problem you can devise your own solution--wear a sign or a badge that says "I am disarmed-I do not allow guns near me."
I would fully support your right to make that choice as strongly as I would fully resist your say in limiting my choices.
Best article written on this subject to date. Very refreshing to see some actual logic employed as opposed to pure rhetoric and sloganeering (like "Guns and Booze don't mix....its a bad mix").
Keep it up!!!
I'd be interested in knowing what other types of choices you work hard to defend.
My qualifications to make reccomendations about any laws in my country?
Easy. I am a part of "we the people".
I don't interpret the second amendment to mean that everyone has a right to a gun, but if we accept your interpretation that every does, why not carry it proudly? Why the need to hide?
The NRA is a powerful lobby. If people are being arrested wrongly and violently take up that cause.
I don't think the onus is on me to prove a negative - the fact that I don't carry a gun.
My choice to not have a gun or not be around guns doesn't out anyones life at risk.
I don't live in the world of fear that you do, one full of predators and prey. (And I grew up in Detroit!)
I hope you find a way to move about securely in the world without putting others lives at risk.
In the meantime I would still like to be able to see those well meaning but misguided folks who carry guns so I can avoid them.
Quite simply, Tracy, you make a completely inaccurate assumption.
My carrying a gun daily as a back-up plan to protect myself and my family does NOT put anyone else's life at risk. I'm sure that goes for 99% of the rest of the lawfully armed citizens out there as well.
If you think it's misguided, that's just a matter of your opinion. However, claiming that good people carrying guns causes anyone else to be in danger is rediculous and not supported by any facts.
...Orygunner...
"I don't live in the world of fear that you do"
Liar. You fear lawful armed citizens.
Tracy B "doesn't live in a world of fear"?
Yet, she "would still like to be able to see those well meaning but misguided folks who carry guns so I can avoid them."
If that is not fear, then what is it. Aaah, I know - BIGOTRY!
She is a gun-bigot. If you own a gun, or want to carry it, then you are "un-clean" and she wants to avoid you.
Welcome to the wonderful world of modern day liberals.
99% of gun owners are never involved in a crime. Often we are more responsible than the police, whom Tracy presumably trusts with their guns. Our society has been conditioned to believe weapon=criminal, so much so that gun owners with permits and licenses to carry concealed -- and no police record -- are reported to police when legally open carrying, resulting in injury or death. Tracy should be worried about the one percent who obey NO law, who she'll never see coming because they hide their guns until they're ready to rob, rape and/or kill. They don't bother with permits or restaurant policy. If Tracy Ban ever feels the need for a gun, she might get bitten by her support of restrictions like many L.A. residents during the riots. They never thought the law would apply to THEM. THEY were the good guys, for gosh sake! That's the way of it.
Tracy B Ann
Unless you live in Wisconsin, Illinois, or the District of Columbia, I doubt you would be able to avoid them anyway if you go out in public. Too many of us. Unfortunately, Texas is one of the few states that has CHL, but no provision at all for open carry. It would actually simplify some things, especially for women. Too many of them have a tendency to carry in their purse as opposed to on their person.
I would much prefer to see form-fitting Levi's with a gun-belt and holster than baggy slacks or skirts to hide a pistol. ;^)
(As an aside, surely by now we would have seen some evidence of this enhance risk. Surely SOME of these tens of thousands of CHL bearers would have accidentally shot someone, or lost their tempers in road rage, or SOMETHING. Washington State, Florida, Vermont and others have had this for decades. You can't tell me that the press wouldn't have screamed it from the rooftops had there been anything at all to report.)
I don't carry a gun to kill people. I carry a gun to keep from being killed. I don't carry a gun to scare people. I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.
I don't carry a gun because I'm paranoid. I carry a gun because there are real threats in this world.
Tracy, there are states that treat carrying exactly like driving where alcohol is concerned. Don't drive drunk, don't carry drunk. Otherwise, they treat people like (gasp!) responsible adults. And they don't have any more problems than states that ban carrying anywhere alcohol is served.
Unless you live in Wisconsin or Illinois, you are ALREADY interacting with legally armed citizens on the street, in stores, and maybe even at work. None of them presumably have shot you yet. Actual statistics on arrests of permitholders vs. non-permitholders proves they are far less likely to engage in ANY criminal activity than average citizens. And yet you fear them?
I carry a gun because as a rape survivor, I know I must be able to save myself, not hope that somebody else will do it for me.
But then I believe in personal responsibility.
Look around Tracy.
That guy behind you. Does he have a gun? A knife?
How about that lady buying junk food at the gas station?
Remember that opening cemetery scene in *Night of the Living Dead*? They're all round you Tracy. They're coming to get you.......
I got a great idea, Tracy. Why don't you grow up.
As a liberal anti-war, pro-gay marriage Democrat with an AK-47 in the closet and a concealed carry permit, I think we should carefully consider Tracy's words. To wit:
"My choice to not be around gay people doesn't put anyones life at risk...
In the meantime I would still like to be able to see those well meaning but misguided folks who are gay so I can avoid them. "
How should we mark them, Tracy? With a nice pink triangle? Perhaps sewn on their clothing?
Tracy, you're just another run-of-the-mill intolerant bigot. Ugh.
I am a gun bigot. I am also prejudiced against those who smoke around me and risk my health in that way.
I don't quite get the gay reference.
I don't fear those with guns, just as I don't fear folks I see driving while talking on cell phones. I have learned it's wise to be cautious around them both.
I've lived a long time without the need for a gun and I suspect I will continue to do so. I really don't see bogey men.
I do trust police with their guns except when they are eating donuts. :-)
And I would support your right to carry a gun perhaps if you didn't feel the need to hide it from me. (Wouldn't that seperate you from the criminals?)
I like open discourse. Doesn't seem to happen here. I really was interested in why folks want a concealed weapon. More fun to attack me than explain I guess. Doesn't win many converts though.
The arrest reference was interesting David and at least you post your picture so that I can cross the street when I see you coming!
Tracy B Ann
Fair question, so I will give you the best answer I can. In the first place, my personal preference would be to open carry. 1) It's easier, and 2) you can carry a much bigger gun. Google "Elmer Keith guns". Like him, I figure that if you're a-fixin' to put a hole in somethin', make it a hole to remember! As I said earlier, Texas does not give me that option.
Secondly, I have a wife and daughter who mean the world to me. I have never had to draw a gun in social situations - my wife has done so on 5 occasions. Two of those situations she didn't shoot when I felt it was desperately important that she do so, and no DA would have batted an eyelash if she had. She survived them, but I don't know how many other people were later hurt by those creeps. On the last one, I don't know whether one of the guy's murders was committed after he got away from her or not, and I don't really want to know.
This was all several years before Texas legalized Concealed Handgun lic
er, licenses. The statute of limitations has long run out. I'm nearly 50 now, I have high blood pressure, diabetic, arthritis, and had a heart attack in April. A young fit attacker could probably take me pretty easy if I'm unarmed, and certainly 2 could. Given the Kel-Tek .380 in my pocket, I become a squad problem.
I prefer to defuse situations by just walking away if possible, but I will absolutely defend my family's lives, at the cost of my own if necessary.
Tracy, is there a reason why your inquiries should have more weight than anyone else when it appears you clearly have not researched your topic at question (concealed carry)?
You came in with a bad attitude, well, some people will just give it back to you.
Armed Geek -
Thank you for your polite response!
Tracy, I usually open carry for comfort. I do have a permit to conceal and do so weather and wardrobe permitting because it adds to my protection and yours. You are not the only one who would like to know who is armed. Criminals would too, so they could only go after the soft targets. I advertise that I will defend myself but forcing everybody to advertise that will be the same as advertising who will not.
Will that make you feel safer?
and don't forget all the hysterics that accompany "open carry". Many, many times people open carrying have been arrested, had their property seized and ultimately had to spend beaucoup dollars to regains their property, secure their freedom and yet they have not committted a crime, of any kind. \
Why does this happen? Because people like you wet their pants and call 911 with "man with a gun" calls and most cops are a) uninformed on the law or b) don't give a damn that no law has been fractured if they get to play ubermenschen. So, you see, concealed carry is actually a courtesy for you and others like you. As well as an avoidance of crap no one needs.
I don't carry at all, but if I did I would do so concealed and I would do it without a permit. I don't need a permit to exercise my religion, or free speech, or security of my person, property, papers and effects, nor do I need a permit to not quarter soldiers in my home. Why should I need a permit to exercise what is mine?
Tracy, just remember that if YOU ever do need law enforcement to protect you in an emergency life-or-death (yours, or your loved ones) situation... that when you need law enforcement and seconds count, the police are usually only minutes away.
I pray that this never happens to you, so you will never know what it is like to be a defenseless victim, at the mercy of the perpetrator.
I conceal carry to protect my life, and that of my loved ones (and perhaps remotely strangers) in just such a very remotely possible scenario as above.
I do not want you, or anyone, to know that I am carrying a weapon, as I want to draw no undue attention to myself.
Apparently you value your First Amendment right, as you have exercised it here. It is unfortunate that you do not understand that your Second Amendment right is the one that enabled, and now protects, your First.
Tracy:
"And I would support your right to carry a gun perhaps if you didn't feel the need to hide it from me."
Why should concealed vs. open carry affect your support for a basic right?
Perhaps if so many people didn't have such an irrationally phobic reaction to peaceful carry of arms there wouldn't be as great a need to carry concealed. One of the primary reasons I carry concealed is to spare the tender feelings of those around me - people who see a gun and immediately lose all capability for rational thought. It's an emergency tool. There's no reason its mere presence should dominate our interaction if we should meet on the street.
I'm sure Tracy feels that anyone who is a member or supporter of MADD is fear freak shaking every time they get in a car. Thinking a drunk is going to injure or kill them. Can't have it both ways.
Tracy, what David's point is, is the NRA is alining itself with party politics and not standing firm on the Second Amendment. Keep one thing in mind Tracy, in the last century (20th) well over 100,000,000 people where put to death by their own governments once they are disarmed. A government that lies to its people is not a government for or by its people. The government we have has lied to us citizens to degrees that are beyond criminal. We do not have elections in this country what we have is a bidding process. The person who is willing to spend the most money by selling the office they are running for in bribes. When the dollar crashes and starving folks are willing to do anything to eat to stay alive. Tracy, are you going to be pray?
Thanks Vinnie, for your polite answer.
I already feel safe. Knowing who was carrying would just keep me informed. And then I could make choices from there.
There are logical and sometimes persuasive argumments to be made on all sides of this issue (yes there are more than 2 sides.
The history of guns in this country is quite interesting.
I appreciate your response.
As a WI resident I must open carry in this state as a MN carry permit holder I can carry open or concealed. Which I choose depends on my state of mind and where I am going. Generally I don't worry too much about level of concealment because I have found in WI almost no one notices anyway. 95% or more of the times I open carry no one notices the 1911 on my hip, I find it kind of amazing actually.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!