Loading ...
Statewide “Guns In Bars” Law Overturned By Judge
Written by Pulse StaffNovember 21, 2009 – 9:02 am
A Nashville judge has ruled a law that allows handguns in Tennessee bars and restaurants is unconstitutional. Chancellor Claudia Bonnyman ruled Friday that the law, enacted earlier this year over the veto of Gov. Phil Bredesen, is “fraught with ambiguity.”
She ruled in a suit brought by a group of Tennesseans, many of them restaurant owners.
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.
There was no immediate word from attorneys for the state about an appeal.
The measure took effect July 14. Thirty-seven states had similar legislation at the time.
Posted in Breaking News, News Feature |
|
|
29 Comments »
“Fraught with ambiguity.” Couldn’t she have provided a less ambiguous decision? What exactly does she think needs more clarification in the bill?
I think the drunker a person is in Tennessee, the more loaded guns they need.
Now, if your food starts moving on your plate, you’re just going to have to pick up your fork and stab it.
Oh well, guess what. They’ll probably over-turn the law yet again….
It’s still perfectly legal in Virginia……
I assume this means the judge cannot drink without acting like an ass and she assumes everyone else is the same way.
Hey, I feel nekkid without my gun out in public.
Now I can’t enjoy a porterhouse and some fine Knob Creek with my lady without protecting ourselves from a drunk fool?
Or a robber?
That’s unAmerican.
Thank God! there have been soo many killings because of this stupid laws. Those freakin stupid rednecks just cant stop shooting up restaurant/bars. It’s all I hear about. Wait. Wut?
judges like her are the reason the bill was passed so that an anti-gun politicians like her wouldn’t be able to intervene. Those permit holders have spent alot of money to be able to carry and aren’t about to get drunk at dinner and start to shoot up the place. The main worry is the one who doesn’t abide by the law and carries without a permit as they don’t care what the law says.
How can providing for a constitutional right be unconstitutional?
I think there is a difference between a concealed carrier getting something to eat in a place that happens to serve alcohol and one going out drinking. Seems like a reasonable distinction to me.
“fraught with ambiguity” … did she remember to articulate the “ambiguity” she’s referinceing in making this desision?
Or is it just a statement to cover a desision overrule a law enacted by enough elected public represinitives that they were able to overrule the Govener’s Veto? What’s that need, at least a 2/3rds SuperMajority? You’d think that any “ambiguity” would have been writen out on it’s way to convence so many politictions mindful of their constituints that overriding the Governer is a Good Idea.
You’d think.
If the place makes more than 50% of its sales from FOOD…It’s NOT A BAR!!! It’s a RESTURANT!!!
Umm, how is it unconstitutional?
Did she actually read the constitution?
So, in these 37 states which allow guns in drinking establishments, where can those of us with knowledge of guns and drunks (from years as a trauma surgeon) take our families to eat? Can’t the restaurants decide themselves whether to pander to the drunk gun-wielder, or merely to the butter-knife armed drunk? The way restaurants and bars used to do with smoking? Can there be a shooting and non-shooting area of seating in my favorite bar?
I think some good Samaritan should set up some private clubs that serve reduced price alcoholic beverages, that only admit people when they are packing.
That way they can all shoot each other and get rid of this nonsense.
The law said you had to not drink in the bar if you carried your gun.
Does Tenn have a line in their constitution that says “Thou shall not make laws allowing people to carry guns in certain places?”
Bet you 10 dollars this gets overturned on apeal due to the judge being a dumbass.
The biggest area of ambiguity is probably how the right to carry law interacts with the right of the bar or restaurant owner to ban guns from his private property.
I’m still waiting for a single documented case where a concealed permit holder walks into a bar and shoots the place up. Until then, it seems this judge’s understanding of constitutional law is “Fraught with ambiguity.”
Another hippy judge makes the list. Keep em coming libtards.
So, wait a minute. A law that allows guns, supporting the 2nd amendment of the Constitution, is unconstitutional?
Here is a tip: if you do not want to enter a bar without a gun, there may be something wrong with the bar, or yourself.
If you’re going into a bar that you find so damn seedy and sketchy that you feel the need to protect your person, than maybe you should drink elsewhere! Seriously! WTF? Real licensed gun owners don’t hang out in seedy joints, and probably wouldn’t argue about the law. So who’s left? The thug with a gun that’s got the serial number scraped off!
Restaurant owners and any business owner should have the right to make rules on whether they want guns in their establishments. In places where there are lots of intoxicated people it is highly inappropriate to have loaded weapons. Drunk people will grab the guns, or start fights that escalate into gun battles when they normally would end with bloody noses.
You don’t need your darned gun everywhere you go. If you do, then you are in the wrong neighborhood and you should stay indoors.
This is good because people in those other 37 states make it a habit of getting drunk and shooting up the bars, right? /sarcasm
When I’m in Tennessee the old law still doesn’t stop me from carrying in a restaurant that serves alcohol. I don’t go to places like crapplebees to drink and I will gladly take the misdemeanor offense (if caught) if it means I have the ability to protect myself and my family, thank you…
Yet another example of MegaCorpGov sticking its gangrenous nose where it doesn’t belong.
In Nashville it is legal to carry a gun on your hip. It doesn’t have to be concealed. I go to Starbucks and here comes a guy with a gun on his hip in full view. Why, oh why, does a guy need a gun at Starbucks? I agree with carrying anywhere you want. But does it have to be out in the open? Isn’t that just advertising for a problem?
Like most of you, I would like to see what part of the Constitution this utterly asinine ruling allegedly “violates.”
The most dangerous thing in this otherwise great nation is any libtard twunt with the power to make, enforce or interpret laws of any kind.
I was not surprised to hear of the ruling from a female judge in Nashville who said the recently passed Bill to allow guns in bars was unconstitutional. This so-called judge is not only wrong but apparently also uneducated in the U.S. Constitution she swore to uphold. The 2nd Amend says directly that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” The only restraint indicated in the Constitution is when a person is held for a crime under the 5th Amend. This judge shows her liberal bias moreover by ignoring the fact that those who are allowed under this Bill to carry weapons in bars have gone through background checks. We certainly have an element within the judicial community within this State and Country that are imbued with a certain degree of judicial imprudence. I would include here Mr. Gibbons who supported Mr. Bredesen’s veto of the Bill.
Actually, the 2nd Amendment reads “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”. Many would argue that the words “regulated” and “militia” may not apply to someone packing heat at the local TGIFridays.