If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Pulse)   One would think that packing heat in a bar is a recipe for disaster. Sadly, it took one of those crazy "activist judges" to finally use some common sense   (chattanoogapulse.com) divider line 225
    More: Followup, activist judges, vetoes, recipes  
•       •       •

11709 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Nov 2009 at 12:10 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



225 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2009-11-21 09:31:04 AM
Here is a better story.

Looks like a bad decision.

The plaintiffs are mostly restaurant owners. They are allowed to opt out of the law so it does not violate their rights. The proposed remedy does not vindicate customers' rights either -- it increases the chances of being prosecuted for having a gun in a gun free zone. The right order, if the law violates gun owners' rights by ambiguity, is to expand the places where people are allowed to carry guns.

There is no constitutional requirement that laws follow "common sense."
 
2009-11-21 10:09:54 AM
Cue the "law abiding citizens" and "protect my family/property" crowd who want to pretend it's 1880 Nevada/Arizona/Net Mexico and run around with six-shooters strapped to them at all times.

Guns + Alcohol = The reason Fark has "Dumbass", "Fail", "Stupid", and "Sad" tags.
 
2009-11-21 10:24:58 AM
I predict logical, and well-reasoned debate in this thread.

*snicker*
 
2009-11-21 10:34:36 AM
ZAZ: Looks like a bad decision.

More like bad reporting. The rationale holds well enough. To ask if the establishment makes 50% of their money off booze either puts them on the phone with foresight, or standing in violation inside a 51%+ revenue place. A law is sufficiently void for vagueness under those circumstances.

The plaintiff group does strike me as odd. Most CC laws allows business owners to post CC no entry signs no matter what their revenue was. In the more reasonable parts of Texas, they exist, these signs are all over the place at every kind of business.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2009-11-21 10:44:59 AM
mybluemake

I wouldn't call that vagueness. The criteria are clearly stated. The problem is that it may be difficult to find out that one is breaking the law. That's a common situation. In at least one state (Montana?) the courts have said that driving without insurance is a strict liability crime and due process is not offended by convicting people who honestly and reasonably believed they had insurance. There are limits to how far states can go in imposing such liability but I don't really understand them.

Here is another problem with the decision. Suppose I strap on a gun and go into a place where the new law allows me to carry a gun. I'm following the law as written. I wasn't a party to the lawsuit. My rights have been diminished by the judge's order. Normally injunctions against enforcement protect people from prosecution.
 
2009-11-21 11:29:09 AM
Exactly how many people have been shot in bars that allowed folks to have guns? (besides dumbasses trying to rob the bar and were shot by patrons)
 
2009-11-21 11:40:56 AM
real shaman: Exactly how many people have been shot in bars that allowed folks to have guns? (besides dumbasses trying to rob the bar and were shot by patrons)

scootersspace.files.wordpress.com

Here...we...go!
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2009-11-21 11:43:22 AM
If anybody can find the official decision please post a link.
 
2009-11-21 12:13:44 PM
Abstruse: Cue the "law abiding citizens" and "protect my family/property" crowd who want to pretend it's 1880 Nevada/Arizona/Net Mexico and run around with six-shooters strapped to them at all times.

Guns + Alcohol = The reason Fark has "Dumbass", "Fail", "Stupid", and "Sad" tags.


Unfortunately for you, the evidence has shown your assertion to be false. Many states allow carry in bars (some even while drinking) and blood does not run in the streets as a result. But good job with your hyperbole.
 
2009-11-21 12:14:07 PM
Allowing guns in bars is almost certainly a terrible idea, but I don't see how it could be considered unconstitutional.
 
2009-11-21 12:15:02 PM
ZAZ: If anybody can find the official decision please post a link.

This.

I'd like to know exactly how allowing people to carry firearms in bars was considered "unconstitutional." Lacking in common sense? Sure! Unconstitutional? That's a stretch.

Here in VA, open carry is allowed in all establishments serving alcohol, concealed carry in said establishments is illegal. That said, I've seen more trouble in bars from knives than I've ever seen from guns.
 
2009-11-21 12:18:15 PM
Can someone explain the law/decision to me? The article's writing is fraught with FAIL. I would think it'd be the restaurant owner's decision, not sure where the constitution comes in to play here.
 
2009-11-21 12:18:48 PM
Cue the liberals to come out and demonize people that disagree with them...
 
2009-11-21 12:21:01 PM
Seems like added legislation to cure a problem that doesn't exist. The bar owners were free to set the rules for their own property, no that has been taken away. I am sure that the armed felons will now be cursing the new laws wondering how they are going to rob, murder or rape the patrons if it becomes illegal to carry their Lorcin 9mm on the premises. What some consider "common sense" often can not be backed up with hard evidence. Show me statistics on problems created by CC permit holders and I may shut up.
 
2009-11-21 12:22:06 PM
Abstruse: Guns + Alcohol = The reason Fark has "Dumbass", "Fail", "Stupid", and "Sad" tags.

Don't forget that killer weed ruining our nation's youth.

/Of course I mean the T in ATF. They put'em together for a reason, right?
 
2009-11-21 12:25:06 PM
su007: Cue the liberals to come out and demonize people that disagree with them...

Cue the idiots who engage in fear-mongering if their world views challenged by rational, reasonable difference of opinion.
 
2009-11-21 12:26:47 PM
It is already illegal to drink while carrying in Tennessee. Do you think simply being in a building that serves alcohol makes a person legally carrying a gun want to start shooting people, submitter? Why are you so stupid?
 
2009-11-21 12:27:19 PM
real shaman: Exactly how many people have been shot in bars that allowed folks to have guns? (besides dumbasses trying to rob the bar and were shot by patrons)

Zero. No one ever gets violent, or loses judgment and self control when they drink. Unlike Marijuana which makes you go insane and kill your parents after one joint. I don't know what all the fuss is about...
 
2009-11-21 12:28:33 PM
su007: Cue the liberals to come out and demonize people that disagree with them...

Cue the whiners who think anyone who disagrees with them is a liberal...

I wonder if the average gun owner would like to see everybody armed. I mean, everybody, even people with the hand/eye coordination of an epileptic jellyfish.
 
2009-11-21 12:28:54 PM
The problem with the law is vagueness. It says so right there in the article.
 
2009-11-21 12:29:29 PM
From TFA:
The law allowed handgun permit holders to take their weapons into places serving alcohol, providing the establishment makes more than 50 percent of its profits from food.

So it was really a "guns in restaurants" law, more than a "guns in bars" law. But "OMGZ GUNZ + BARZ = OBVIOUS RECIPE FOR DISASTERZ!!1!" is much more of an alarmist battle cry, so I can see why the 2nd amendment haters skipped that fact.
 
2009-11-21 12:30:14 PM
No_One_Special: Can someone explain the law/decision to me? The article's writing is fraught with FAIL. I would think it'd be the restaurant owner's decision, not sure where the constitution comes in to play here.

Tennessee passed a law that banned guns in anywhere that alcohol is served. They then passed a law exempting restaurants, where they defined restaurants as places that serve at least one meal a day, five days a week, and "the serving of such meals shall be the principal business conducted."

The issue is that if you're a gun owner, how could you know if serving food is the principal business conducted at any given place? And what is "principal business?" Most patrons don't have access to a venue's tax receipts to determine what percentage of revenue comes from alcohol versus food. In other words, the average citizen could not reasonably know whether he was violating the law or not, which is definitely grounds for ruling it unconstitutional.
 
2009-11-21 12:30:19 PM
Entertaining tip #24,980...

i253.photobucket.com

Liven up your next wing-ding by replacing the hot-headed and pre-emptively paranoid armed drunkard with a bust of dapper peacenik Bertrand Russell and a ficus; your guests will thank you!

Careful though, if there's an argument, a FETE might break out!
 
2009-11-21 12:30:40 PM
this is more of a tangent to the discussion than anything else, but this law sound like...

"The DUI Exception to the Constitution" (new window)

type situation.

/dangles the bait, puts on the firesuit.
 
2009-11-21 12:30:59 PM
About 40 states already allow exactly that the TN law allowed.

The mass shootings and blood running in the streets just isn't happening as the hysterical moon-bats claim.

But don't let facts get in the way of your chicken little act. Carry on.


/// and a hearty Fark you ..!.. to subby.
 
B A
2009-11-21 12:32:38 PM
Abstruse: Cue the "law abiding citizens" and "protect my family/property" crowd who want to pretend it's 1880 Nevada/Arizona/Net Mexico and run around with six-shooters strapped to them at all times.

Guns + Alcohol = The reason Fark has "Dumbass", "Fail", "Stupid", and "Sad" tags.


Let's ignore your sneering, self righteous, guns create problems, idiocy for a minute & look STRICTLY at the Second Amendment. "The right to keep and bear arms" Read the constitution & show me where it says "except as prevented by other laws" ANY law which restricts my constutional rights is a bad law & should be repealed. ANY law restricting ANYBODYS constitutional rights is, by definition, unconstitutional.
\Now, moving on to what you expect me to say. (wouldn't want to dissapoint)
I hear all you fools saying that the right is OK as long as we own them & leave them at home. That idea helped a lot at Lubys didn't it? One of the citizens in Lubys obeyed the carry law & left her gun in her car. How many fewer dead people would there be if she'd been armed? Think the Robbers/Rapists/Car-jackers/etc leave their guns at home?
 
2009-11-21 12:33:46 PM
OnlyM3: About 40 states already allow exactly that the TN law allowed.

The mass shootings and blood running in the streets just isn't happening as the hysterical moon-bats claim.

But don't let facts get in the way of your chicken little act. Carry on.


/// and a hearty Fark you ..!.. to subby.


The problem is they would be drunken Tennesseans with guns. We can trust the drunk Texans with guns and drunk New Mexicans with guns but that lot...no way.
 
2009-11-21 12:35:06 PM
People who carry firearms lawfully (with a concealed carry permit) rarely shoot up their favorite watering holes. It's usually the armed robber who does this.

There's a big difference. The open-minded left, however, lumps everyone who carries weapons into the category of "blood-thirsty".

/Not a Republican
//2nd Amendment and all that
 
2009-11-21 12:35:33 PM
The article doesn't elaborate on whether it's the U.S. Constitution or the Tennessee Constitution that was the basis for the ruling. IT doesn't really give a whole lot of information at all. There has to be a better article somewhere, right?

/What's constitutional in one state may not be in another state.
 
2009-11-21 12:36:05 PM
Scutter: Abstruse: Cue the "law abiding citizens" and "protect my family/property" crowd who want to pretend it's 1880 Nevada/Arizona/Net Mexico and run around with six-shooters strapped to them at all times.

Guns + Alcohol = The reason Fark has "Dumbass", "Fail", "Stupid", and "Sad" tags.

Unfortunately for you, the evidence has shown your assertion to be false. Many states allow carry in bars (some even while drinking) and blood does not run in the streets as a result. But good job with your hyperbole.


Are you actually trying to say drinking and guns are a good combination? How often do we hear the phrase "Drinking was a factor" or "alcohol was involved" here at fark? No, having guns at a bar doesn't magically turn it into a John Woo flic; but its pretty well demonstrated that alcohol often increases the probability for stupid.

My time bartending in Baltimore was filled with drunken cops playing with their guns. Ah, the memories
 
2009-11-21 12:36:55 PM
altrocks: The article doesn't elaborate on whether it's the U.S. Constitution or the Tennessee Constitution that was the basis for the ruling. IT doesn't really give a whole lot of information at all. There has to be a better article somewhere, right?

/What's constitutional in one state may not be in another state.


None of the states constitutions may supersede the Constitution.
 
2009-11-21 12:39:20 PM
Abstruse: Cue the "law abiding citizens" and "protect my family/property" crowd who want to pretend it's 1880 Nevada/Arizona/Net Mexico and run around with six-shooters strapped to them at all times.

Guns + Alcohol = The reason Fark has "Dumbass", "Fail", "Stupid", and "Sad" tags.


The stupid is strong with this one. Must have too much sand in vagina, dog crap between ears.
 
2009-11-21 12:39:56 PM
Bio-nic: altrocks: The article doesn't elaborate on whether it's the U.S. Constitution or the Tennessee Constitution that was the basis for the ruling. IT doesn't really give a whole lot of information at all. There has to be a better article somewhere, right?

/What's constitutional in one state may not be in another state.

None of the states constitutions may supersede the Constitution.


Obviously, but I don't recall the second amendment talking about concealed carry permits. That's why it's a state-by-state issue, not a national one. It's the same with the regulation of certain types of guns and ammunition.
 
2009-11-21 12:41:18 PM
Clock Spider Jerusalem: su007: Cue the liberals to come out and demonize people that disagree with them...

Cue the whiners who think anyone who disagrees with them is a liberal...

I wonder if the average gun owner would like to see everybody armed. I mean, everybody, even people with the hand/eye coordination of an epileptic jellyfish.


I doubt it. Take hunters for example. The responsible ones who know how to shoot and are disciplined are probably more afraid of being shot by some drunken redneck who shoots at anything that moves than being gored by a buck. I wonder how many shooting incidents went unreported because no one was hurt.
 
2009-11-21 12:42:40 PM
I'm glad I don't tend bar anymore. Let me tell you, every now and then you get a customer who's just plain crazy.

Add guns to the mix? Great idea.
 
2009-11-21 12:43:56 PM
usera.imagecave.com
 
2009-11-21 12:44:25 PM
I hope people realize that this involves restaurants that serves alcohol not bars in general. Subby is obviously an idiot that does not understand this.
 
2009-11-21 12:45:23 PM
B A

You seem to be missing a bit from the text of the 2nd amendment. Seems that happens a lot in these ridiculous flamefests.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
 
2009-11-21 12:45:58 PM
I like Michigan CPL laws. You can carry in a restaurant that serves beer, but not in a bar that serves food.

Also remember that carrying while drunk is illegal, so why take a gun to a bar unless you have no intention of drinking.
 
2009-11-21 12:46:12 PM
Can anyone show any evidence or peer-reviewed study on EITHER side that is relevant to this? The "it's common sense that guns and alcohol will inevitably create problems" crowd does not have a leg to stand on, because there is no clear evidence to support this theory. Pro-gun people, start linking to studies showing the license to carry to violent crimes in certain places studies. It can't be that hard people.

Common sense on either side is COMPLETELY WORTHLESS. I want EVIDENCE.
 
2009-11-21 12:46:18 PM
Clock Spider Jerusalem: su007: Cue the liberals to come out and demonize people that disagree with them...

Cue the whiners who think anyone who disagrees with them is a liberal...

I wonder if the average gun owner would like to see everybody armed. I mean, everybody, even people with the hand/eye coordination of an epileptic jellyfish.


Works for me. Seems like I would certainly come out on top.
 
KNW
2009-11-21 12:46:30 PM
Drunks with guns, count me out. I see enough fights in my local bar as it is, thanks.
 
2009-11-21 12:47:50 PM
To clarify: anecdotal evidence doesn't count. I want numbers damnit.
 
2009-11-21 12:48:08 PM
Bang bang, she shot me down
Bang bang my baby shot me down


/meep meep
 
2009-11-21 12:49:07 PM
"ANY law which restricts my constutional (sic)rights is a bad law & should be repealed. ANY law restricting ANYBODYS (sic) constitutional rights is, by definition, unconstitutional."

I don't really like the idea of recidivist felons enjoying the right to liberty and arms-bearing.
 
2009-11-21 12:49:18 PM
Arnold T Pants: It is already illegal to drink while carrying in Tennessee. Do you think simply being in a building that serves alcohol makes a person legally carrying a gun want to start shooting people, submitter? Why are you so stupid?

THIS
I'm a bleeding heart pinko on most issues, but if I own a resturant or bar, I think it should be my call if people what people can or cannot do in my establishment. If the owner wants smoking fine, if he wants to ban it fine. If two people get shot inside my establishment in less than a year...well the cops and city council are gonna do their best to shut me down anyway.
 
2009-11-21 12:49:21 PM
anonwums: The issue is that if you're a gun owner, how could you know if serving food is the principal business conducted at any given place?

This isn't that hard, people. If you walk into a place and see people all over cramming hot food into their faces, it's a restaurant. If you walk in and see a buffet table and 3 drunk clowns eating microwave pizza, it's a bar.

Mountain != Molehill, Bar != Restaurant.

In the scant few places that don't fit obviously in one camp or t'other, leave your sidearm in the car or go elsewhere.

As far as the judge goes, if he found the wording vague (and face it, we're talking about Tennessee, here. Damn near as loony as it is here in Texas) then he's done what he's expected to do. Send the bill back and wring the loopholes out of it.

I personally have no fear whatsoever of anyone who has taken the time to take and pass a concealed carry safety and proficiency course carrying a sidearm wherever they wish. It's those who carry with criminal intent I worry about.
 
B A
2009-11-21 12:50:32 PM
Shwirv: People who carry firearms lawfully (with a concealed carry permit) rarely shoot up their favorite watering holes. It's usually the armed robber who does this.

There's a big difference. The open-minded left, however, lumps everyone who carries weapons into the category of "blood-thirsty".

/Not a Republican
//2nd Amendment and all that


In October 2002 my friend Joe Morreale was killed during a robbery at a local bar: The robbers were armed & he was killed by one of them. None of the customers were armed because Texas law forbids guns in establishments making more than 51% of their income from alcohol sales. Had anyone of those customers been armed I doubt Joe would be dead & I doubt the criminals would still be alive.
 
2009-11-21 12:51:13 PM
Mr.Hawk: Clock Spider Jerusalem: su007: Cue the liberals to come out and demonize people that disagree with them...

Cue the whiners who think anyone who disagrees with them is a liberal...

I wonder if the average gun owner would like to see everybody armed. I mean, everybody, even people with the hand/eye coordination of an epileptic jellyfish.

Works for me. Seems like I would certainly come out on top.


I wouldn't trust some people with the toothpick out of a sandwich.
 
B A
2009-11-21 12:52:11 PM
Shadune: B A

You seem to be missing a bit from the text of the 2nd amendment. Seems that happens a lot in these ridiculous flamefests.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


THE PEOPLE not the militia.
 
Displayed 50 of 225 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report