NASHVILLE - The Tennessee House today voted 69-27 to override Gov. Phil Bredesen’s veto of a bill allowing handgun-carry permit holders to bring loaded weapons into restaurants and bars selling alcohol.
That was more than the 66-23 margin when the bill originally passed.
The bill’s Senate sponsor, Sen. Doug Jackson, D-Dickson, has said he intends to bring the measure up before the chamber on Thursday.
The House action was the chamber’s first override of a Bredesen veto and also the first since 2001, when lawmakers overrode then-Gov. Don Sundquist, who vetoed an appropriations bill.
House Speaker Emeritus Jimmy Naifeh, D-Covington, urged lawmakers to uphold Gov. Bredesen’s actions, noting lawmakers “should listen to the police chiefs. We should listen to our local attorneys general, our sheriffs, all of our law enforcement, all of these people are opposed to the bill.”
But House Republican Caucus Chairman Glen Casada of College Grove argued that, under the current law, only the “bad guys are bringing guns in restaurants and killing people.” The bill says permit holders are not allowed to consume alcohol and restaurants can post signs banning them from bringing weapons in.
For complete details, see tomorrow’s Times Free Press.
Text Size:
How many "bad guys" really are bringing guns into restaurants and killing people? Are there any facts and figures to support why this bill is so necessary? And is this the will of the people of Tennessee or just what a bunch of legislators are focused on because of special interests? I may be remembering incorrectly, but it seems like I read where there are about 250,000 permit holders in the state of nearly 6 million people.
signalmtnman, yeah, I was shocked to see that quote, too. Sounded like hyperbole, to me.
But a lot of permit carriers do see danger everywhere, hence the permit. So I guess that's his true perspective, whether or not it's supported by the facts.
This is why people hate cops, because the cops mentioned in this story are against the liberty of the people. The cops mentioned in this story are against GOOD CITIZENS carrying their own property in their own pockets/holsters. These cops (mostly elitist police chiefs and prosecutors) are too stupid and arrogant to realize that bad guys don't go get carry permits. The cops mentioned in this story have an attitude of "we should have all power and should be ABOVE the regular citizen." Elitist cops have no place in a free society. They work for US.
If you missed the portion of the story I'm talking about, here is the extremely disturbing quote:
"House Speaker Emeritus Jimmy Naifeh, D-Covington, urged lawmakers to uphold Gov. Bredesen’s actions, noting lawmakers “should listen to the police chiefs. We should listen to our local attorneys general, our sheriffs, all of our law enforcement, all of these people are opposed to the bill." This twit makes it clear that most government enforcers are against the liberty of the people. I know he doesn't speak for ALL cops, but WE WON'T HEAR ANY COPS COME OUT AND PUBLICLY CONDEMN HIS ELITIST COMMENTS ON THEIR BEHALF! IF ANY COPS ARE READING THIS, YOU'LL KNOW WHY MANY MANY PEOPLE HATE COPS. YOU LET YOUR ARROGANT POLICE CHIEFS AND PROSECUTORS SPEAK FOR ALL COPS.
Whether perceived or real, danger has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue.
As law-abiding citizens it is our individual right to "keep and bear" unless individually limited by a court of law. We need give neither a reason nor an excuse to carry. It is no different than our individual rights to speak or worship as we wish. The SCOTUS has recognized the right "to keep and bear" as an individual right...not as far-reaching as our carry law, but it is getting there.
Our legislature is finally recognizing that fact now that Naifeh is out on his ear and relegated to emeritus status.
Recognition of individual rights -- all of them, not just a select few -- is far more important than anything else the legislature can do, bar none. They are, after all, the bases of our freedom; take any of them away and we are closer to chains.
The override of the Governor's veto is a collective right exercised by our legislature -- free government in action.
Watch the other conservative-voting states follow our lead and Montana's on this important issue.
Mr. Sher: Once again, a well written news article.
Thanks again for clearly saying that restaurants that sell alcohol and bars are two different things. That is not a small issue.
I commend the TN House on their veto of this biased and unconstitutional veto
I like and respect guns, but - It's not about criminals it's about some moron having way too much to drink and upping the potential for violence.
What about the legislature's stand on gay marriage and abortion if it's all just a matter of individual rights?
Elitist cops? Really? I have a hard time with that representation. Elitist legislators maybe, but cops? Come on.
mkelley...it is illegal for permit holders to consume just one drop of alcohol while carrying. No permit holder who spent so much money and time obtaining a permit is going to risk his/her right to carry by taking a drink of alcohol.
And also, as far as "This is why everyone hates cops" so much of this debate has been around the idea that only law abiding citizens gain anything from this law because they are the ones with permits, the above comment is evidence of why the law concerns me. Obviously a "GOOD CITIZEN" with no respect for the law and a true "elitist" attitude that his rights are above the law. The anger expressed in the comment is exactly what I fear when you start letting folks pack heat in places where alcohol is served and issues often get heated quickly.
brandon said, "No permit holder who spent so much money and time obtaining a permit is going to risk his/her right to carry by taking a drink of alcohol."
I could understand if you said "few permit holders". But "no" permit holders is going to risk it?
Do you really have unfailing faith in permit holders?
Here is the operative portion of the bill:
(A) Authorized to carry a firearm under § 39-17-1351 who is not
consuming beer, wine or any alcoholic beverage, and is within the confines of a
RESTAURANT that is open to the public, serves alcoholic beverages, wine or beer,
and is not an age-restricted venue as defined in § 39-17-1802.
(B) As used in this subdivision (c)(3), “restaurant” means any public
place kept, used, maintained, advertised and held out to the public as a place
where meals are served and where meals are actually and regularly served, such
place being provided with adequate and sanitary kitchen and dining room
equipment, having employed therein a sufficient number and kind of employees
to prepare, cook and serve suitable food for its guests. At least one (1) meal per
day shall be served at least five (5) days a week, with the exception of holidays,
vacations and periods of redecorating, and THE SERVING OF SUCH MEALS SHALL BE THE PRINCIPAL BUSINESS CONDUCTED.
No age restricted venues
Specifies "restaurants"
no mention of bars or lounges
Defines "restaurant" for the purpose of the bill. How many "bars or lounges" meet that requirement? Darn few I would bet.
Here's where people on the 2A side have a problem with the media and guys like Chief Cooper. The article, as have been the majority, is titled "guns-in-bars." Cooper used the term "restaurant" once and followed it immediately with "and bars". ALL other references he made during the video were to "bars". I see that as disingenuous at best and the deliberate fomenting of hysteria at worst. Resorting to this kind of hyperbole doesn't inspire confidence in either Cooper or the media. I guess the adage applies "If it bleeds, it leads"
Oops the senate version removed the "no age restricted venue" part. No idea what effect that will have - been a lonnnng time since I've noticed a "no one under 21" sign.
Marriage is NOT a right; the right "to keep and bear arms" IS.
The "freedom-of-choice" [abortion law] is based solely on Roe vs Wade which is based in turn on a creative and byzantine construct by the SCOTUS to a "right to privacy". This example of rampant judicial activism -- the kind Sontomeyer[sp] will give us -- was NOT based on existing law or common observance but was literally plucked-out-of-the-air; sooner or later it will be overturned...it is already close.
Anyone having a drink of alcohol in a bar while carrying a gun is NOT a law-abiding citizen, moonpie, by definition. His permit is automatically invalidated then and there and he becomes just another guy illegally packing a gun.
Literally anyone can carry a gun into a restaurant or bar, drink himself into a stupor, get in a fight and shoot the place up. Do YOU trust people that much?