 | |
|
| |
| Robert Hogan | |
As Tennessee lawmakers ponder their next move in the guns in bars tangle that ended last week with a veto from Gov. Phil Bredesen, local clergymen are questioning what the legislation is supposed to accomplish.
“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.
If the bill’s supporters thought they were courting the religious right, Mr. Hogan said they missed the mark.
“You’re not courting us by allowing something like that,” he said. “The religious right doesn’t condone violence. You’re not courting us by giving the possibility of more violence and bloodshed.”
Following the governor’s veto Thursday of the bill allowing handgun-carry permit holders to bring loaded firearms into establishments selling alcohol, supporters said they would seek an override vote in the Tennessee General Assembly that could come as early as this week.
Overriding a veto in the 99-member House and 33-member Senate requires a simple majority. At least two Hamilton County lawmakers say they plan to support the expected override.
“I would vote to overturn it,” Rep. Richard Floyd, R-Chattanooga, who supported House Bill 962, said Friday.
Sen. Bo Watson, R-Hixson, said he has supported the legislation for the past two sessions. “I suspect I would support (the override),” he added.
Sen. Andy Berke, D-Chattanooga, and Rep. JoAnne Favors, D-Chattanooga, said they will back the governor’s veto.
“I think the governor did the right thing by listening to the concerns of professionals in the law enforcement community and doing what we can to stop this bill from becoming law,” Sen. Berke said.
Local clergy disagree over whether the bill’s support was, at least in part, a move to regain GOP support from the religious right, but they do agree that they don’t think guns belong in bars.
“If Republicans are trying to find a way back to the right through that, that’s not the way to it,” said Dr. Steve Granger, pastor of Mount Carmel Baptist Church on Signal Mountain, adding that the bill never sat right with him.
“I’m all for the right to bear arms and Second Amendment rights, but I don’t think that’s the place to be carrying firearms,” Dr. Granger said.
The Rev. Mike Feely, director of St. Andrews Center and pastor of East Lake United Methodist Church, said the bill “defies common sense.”
“A bill like this doesn’t have anything to do with the religious right or the religious left,” he said. “The governor did the right thing, and I hope (legislators) uphold his veto.”
Dr. David Bouler, pastor of Highland Park Baptist Church, said he thinks it’s a stretch for anyone to think the bill was Republican state lawmakers’ way to try to win back lost religious support. On the other hand, he said, he does not think guns should be allowed in bars.
“I’m an ex-Marine, and I’m a strong believer in right to bear arms,” he said. “But I see it as questionable to have guns where you have alcohol flowing.”
The Rev. Joseph Brando, pastor of St. Jude Catholic Church, said he sees it as “a justice issue.”
“I would think the folks who are in favor of this bill, they’re really choosing guns, and they’re picking that over people’s lives,” he said.
As for whether lawmakers considered their votes as something courting religious favor, Father Brando thinks is a moot question.
“I think they’re losing favor with lots of people,” he said. “They may have won a legislative victory in passing it, but I think it could have some backlash.”
Two other Hamilton County area lawmakers said it’s possible they may reconsider their support.
Rep. Vince Dean, R-East Ridge, a retired Chattanooga police officer, said he plans to back a veto override “unless I get calls and e-mails convincing me otherwise. I’m doing what my constituents tell me.”
Rep. Jim Cobb, R-Spring City, said, “I can’t say just because I voted for the bill I would override the veto. He (Bredesen) asked us to reconsider, and I will.”
Staff member Andy Sher contributed to this story.
Text Size:
“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."
Wow, does no one bother to read these bills anymore? This bill will not allow people who are consuming alcohol to carry guns. It will still be illegal, as it always has been, for a permit holder to consume alcohol, while carrying a weapon. I don't perceive that anyone who went through the long and expensive process to obtain the right to legally carry is going to risk this right by drinking while carrying. Weapons permit holders are some of the safest law abiding citizens in the state.
The problem isn't if it is legal to carry if you are carrying, the problem is the proximity of the liquor. Temptation, how many legal carriers will say, "I'll just have one beer"? It's not the gun, it's the booze.
Why would someone be carrying a weapon AND be in a bar if they WEREN'T drinking? And what about the drinkers who don't have weapons but are given access to a weapon carrier in the bar...
The law still doesn't make sense.
As brandon83 said: "does no one bother to read these bills anymore?"
The story sounds like another piece of biased journalism trying to drum up support for a stupid veto. The so-called leaders the reporter interviewed certainly do not represent the vast majority of those of us on the DHS Domestic Terror list. I guess you can never expect honest reporting from biased reporters.
Well this bill just got another flat tire. Now we have the NRA in one corner and the ET Baptists in the other with referee Bredesen in the middle.
Trying to keep the controversy stoked eh NFP? Does anybody really have anything new to contribute?
To answer ctfpfan08, this bill is not just for bars, but for family style restaurants where alcohol is served. Blame the media for misconstruing the information. As it stands, I can not take my family out and legally carry in Chili's, Logan's, Olive Garden, Moe's, etc simply because they serve alcohol. Why would I be in those places and not drinking? Well...typically I go to restaurants to eat. The presence of alcohol does not tempt me so much that I can't resist ordering a beer. I have carried my weapon in plenty of restaurants (or bars as the media likes to say) in states which allow carry and have had no issues enjoying a nice dinner with my family. Also, I do not walk down the beer aisle at the grocery and automatically have to have a beer, why should a restaurant any different. As an aside, I am legally allowed to carry in grocery and liquor stores. In fact, I may have been in line behind you or walked past you in the store with a concealed weapon and you wouldn't even know it.
And the opinion of ET Baptists is just as credible here as it is in abortion and LGBT issues. NOT!
Sailorman- got to agree with you. We've shot this horse to death long enough. The ball's in Nashville court now.
Do any of you people really believe that permit holders have not been carrying into restaurants before now? And are you really so naive as to believe that none of them would go back to the truck to get their weapon if they so desired? Puhleeze....
No, we permit holders don't carry into restaurants that serve alcohol. We've gone through too much trouble to lose our right to carry by being idiots. We also respect the law too much and follow the rules to a T. The problem is that the guns in restaurants are not those of permit holders but people who carry illegally because they have no regard for the law in the first place.
I, as a permit holder, who spent a lot of time and money obtaining my permit, do not carry into places where it is outlawed. From what I understand, the majority of my fellow permit holders act in the same manner. These laws really only hurt law-abiding citizens since criminals will still carry guns in places where they are not allowed.
Thank you, brandon and daddygluv, you've both proved my point: that permit holders know the rules very well, thank you, and abide by them. To all those that believe that allowing permit holders in establishments that serve alcohol will suddenly reduce them to Old West barroom shoot-outs, please listen to these gentlemen and all the rest of us like them.
brandon83 said, "These laws really only hurt law-abiding citizens since criminals will still carry guns in places where they are not allowed."
I can agree with this in part. But legally carrying guns into bars does place others at risk, as well.
The part I don't agree with is the "only". I think passing this law places law-abiding citizens at risk.
I'm most worried about a gun-owner either
1) losing control of his/her weapon, or
2) about the permit holder not backing down from a beligerent drunk or laughing off a heckler and therefore making violence more likely
3) missing and hitting a law abiding citizen like me or my daughter.
It's not about the permit holder drinking. It's about the gun in a bar.
Of course, the criminal will take a gun into a bar. But currently that's illegal. And to borrow an argument from people who support this legislation when asked about permit holders who break the law: those people should be punished when caught.
All that being said, I'm okay with the law saying you can carry in a state park.
moonpie...you seem to have some valid concerns and here are my thoughts on your 3 points.
1) I have never known of a fellow permit holder to lose their weapon when out in public. Holsters are pretty well made these days and lots of people are carrying around $500+ guns. It's not something you just "lose track of". I have worn mine running around, while on my back fixing something under a car, moving furniture, etc and have never once had my firearm work itself lose from its holster. Granted, this will depend on holster design, but most, if not all permit holders are very aware of where their weapons are at all times.
2)This will vary from person to person, but permit holders are taught in class that the best course of action is to walk away. I've always thought and told others that I carry a weapon to increase my risks of not getting shot or injured, not for the sole purpose of making sure I shoot someone. I have taken a few defensive firearms classes as well and this point is stressed. Your first course of action should be to remove yourself and your loved ones from the situation. If this is not an option and you feel imminent life threatening danger for you or your loved ones, then you can take appropriate action to neutralize a threat. Also, I have never in my life encountered a belligerent drunk while just out for dinner at a casual, family-style restaurant, but that's not to say it can't happen and if it did I would remove myself from the situation as quickly as possible.
3) Permit holders are taught and realize the fact that they are legally and financially responsible for every bullet that leaves their firearm. This is covered quite extensively in the state-required training (both classroom and range time).
There are so many what if's and all I can do is state what I believe and what I have learned throughout my training.
I keep thinking that if you are so afraid of going in to a bar that you feel like you have to take a gun with you, maybe you shouldn't go to that bar in the first place.
Humphrey, again ... RESTAURANT, not bar.
I'm not "afraid" too many places I go ... but attacks can happen anytime, anywhere. Are you "afraid" of your house catching on fire? My guess is not, unless you live in a really old, rickety house. But do you have a fire extinguisher? Fire insurance? Why? Why would you have the means necessary to protect yourself from fire if you aren't afraid of a fire?
Maybe ... just in case the extremely unlikely happens and your house catches on fire? Some of us carry guns just in case the extremely unlikely happens and we are attacked by some criminal or nut case while going about our normal everyday business. That can just as easily happen in O'Charleys, on the UTC campus, or in a park as it can anywhere else.
How is it logical or reasonable for citizens to be able to defend ourselves some places and not others? I don't know about your copy of the Constitution, but my Second Amendment doesn't say "right to keep and bear arms except in a restaurant, on campus, or in a park."
And in case you actually think someone should have to feel fear to be justified in carrying a weapon ... some waitresses I know, who don't drink a drop while they are at work, are quite afraid returning to their cars in the dark after working the night shift. Come on now, somebody TRY to come up with a reason why they should be disarmed (and accept the risk of rape or murder on their way back to their cars) so you can "feel safer" about none of the law-abiding permit holders having a weapon (when the criminals do anyway). Tell THIS woman you don't think she should have a weapon:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...
OK MountainJoe, if you are so afraid to go in to a RESTAURANT that you feel like you have to carry a gun, maybe that is a sign you shouldn't go in the restaurant. Really. That should be a clue to you. Hmm, maybe I shouldn't go here.
And if you are really afraid that some random lunatic is going to pop up and o'charleys and shoot you, I'm really sorry for you. That's a shame to have to live like that.
Personally, I'd rather take my changes from the random lunatic than from a bunch of chickens running around in RESTAURANTS with a gun because they are afraid their own shadow might spook them.
Dude, in Tennessee you can't even buy a bottle of beer and a bottle of wine in the same store, and you have to have an ID if you are 90 years old. They have all kinds of regulations on how and where alcohol can be served. Not having guns around is probably one of the more reasonable ones.
I never said I was afraid. You didn't answer my question - are you afraid of your house catching on fire? My guess is no. Do you have a fire extinguisher and/or fire insurance? My guess is yes.
Having a gun is no different than having a fire extinguisher. You hope and believe you will never need to use it, but if you ever need it, you are going to need it in a hurry.
If you would rather take your chances without carrying a gun, that is fine with me. But you don't have the right to make that choice for me or any other law-abiding adult of sound mind.
Watch the video I linked. I dare you. Double dare you. Then come back and post about why no one needs a gun in a restaurant.
I carry a gun because a police officer won't fit in my pocket. Just think of it as personal protection insurance. The police can't be everywhere at once and crime can happen anywhere at anytime. I'd rather have the chance and ability to protect myself or my family since I can't always count on the police being around.
Also, many times criminals choose to carry out their crimes in gun-free zones because they know there will be a host of unarmed victims to choose from with no equalized resistance.
I am not very afraid of my house catching fire, and actually I don't think I do have a fire extinguisher right now for that matter but we do have smoke alarms. But I don't go pouring gas on the floor or leaving lighters around for my kids to play with. I also don't go carrying a fire extinguisher with me to a restaurant even though there is a chance the restaurant could burn down.
Look, I don't have a gun at home but have had, and I can understand why someone would. That's fine, who cares what you keep in your home, I hope you keep it locked up so your kids won't get hurt.
But why would you want to carry a gun to a "restaurant" if you weren't afraid of something? Why would someone be worried a policeman isn't at the restaurant if they aren't afraid of something? It isn't like you are going to a bar to go target shooting. There isn't going to be a copperhead under the bar stool. There is only one reason to carry a gun to a restaurant and that is because you are afraid. It doesn't matter if you say you are or not, there really isn't any other reason.
I'm not making a "choice for you." If you are afraid to go in to a "restaurant" then don't go. That is your choice. I won't make it for you. What you want to do is make a choice for me. That I can't go out to a public restaurant without there being a chance that some cowboy afraid of the boogie man carrying a gun in a place where people are drinking.
I've been on this planet for over 40 years without ever having to shoot someone in civilian life. The only time I was close was in my own home, and it was probably closer than many have been as civilians. I held a hand gun on a home intruder until the police came. It has never occurred to me that I might need a gun in a restaurant, although I've seen more than one bar fight in my life and I'm glad that we were all lucky enough that some dumby didn't have a handgun to whip out and endanger every body else who was in there "because he felt threatened" and needed his personal protection insurance. Look, I wouldn't go in to a bar if I felt that uncomfortable, what is the point? Really.
Booze and guns just aren't a good mix. I'm pretty sure more people have been killed because somebody got too drunk and had a gun close by, than because some random mad man opened fire in a restaurant because no one was packing to stop him. Seriously.
brandon, noted ".... many times criminals choose to carry out their crimes in gun-free zones because they know there will be a host of unarmed victims to choose from with no equalized resistance."
I am ignorant of this data.
What are you referring to?
p.s., brandon, I appreciated your last response.
moonpie, I was mainly referencing attacks on college campuses (which is an entirely different debate) where criminals know that guns are not allowed. Believe it or not, a lot of criminals are cowards and will only attack if they know their victims are unarmed. I do not have any data or know of any that specifically covers attacks on patrons at establishments where concealed carry is not allowed.
If you were an attacker, would you choose to attack someone in a place where concealed carry is allowed and your intended victim has the chance of being armed or choose a target in a location where you know it is illegal for them to be armed and therefore your victim will be mostly helpless to your attack? Hopefully that makes sense...
moonpie - here are a couple of items for your info - gun free zones
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB11768666...
http://www.wcpo.com/news/local/story/Whe...
Thanks for posting those Sailorman...
Thanks Sailorman, thanks brandon,
I get it.
VT killer was a student there. I'm not sure he targeted a gun free zone just because it was a gun free zone. However, I am willing to concede that if a teacher or student had been packing, things might not have been so bad.
The Salt Lake Story is a good example of this.
I'll be the first to admit that if a rampage breaks out, a permit holder or someone else carrying illegally is the most likely person to quickly interrupt the spree (barring a brave mad rush, which did happen recently).
Fortunately these events are rare.
I'll also admit that I don't have any data to support my fears that I stated above. If the overturn goes through, I will abide. I can't even say that I'll avoid places that allow guns. We'll all just follow crime stats in Tennessee to see how this all pans out.
I am curious, though. For you, what would have to transpire for you to think this bill is ill-advised?
SCOTTYM answered the same question once with something like: metal detectors at every door, plus a few other provisions that I can't recall off-hand.
I got a chuckle out of that.