Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Law and Order / Legislature / Politics / Woods Pith's Crack Legal Team Predicts Guns-In-Bars Lawsuit Doomed to Failure
Posted by Jeff Woods on Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 3:12 PM
The plaintiffs will allege that the bill is illegal on eight counts. Among them being, that the law is an unlawful public nuisance that threatens the life, health and safety of the public, as well as violating due process and increasing civil liability for the restaurants as well as violating Tennessee's Occupational Safety and Health Act which expressively requires as a matter of federal and state law that employers provide a safe work place for employees. While a permit holder cannot drink alcohol while carrying a loaded weapon in a bar or restaurant, the new law doesn't stop that person from having previously consumed alcohol.
So we checked with Pith's stable of crack legal analysts and, alas, they don't hold out much hope for this complaint. It seems that under state law, the legislature has pretty wide discretion to decide where Tennessee's certified licensed highly trained gunmen can and cannot go. As for restaurant liability for customers and employees, all they have to do is throw up a sign banning guns, and that will take care of that.
Showing 1-13 of 13
"...all they have to do is throw up a sign banning guns, and that will take care of that."
Son. Of. A. Bitch.
Does that mean you finally get it?
Yes Emmett, somebody at Brandon's last night had a copy of the constitution and they showed me the Second Amendment. Who knew?
Increased liability? Public nuisance? You mean, like serving people alcohol until they are sh^t-faced and watching them drive home?
The man profits off drunk drivers. He and his lawsuit are a joke...kind of like this blog.
"certified licensed highly trained gunmen."
- Don't forgot "who have EXCELLENT records with their firearms".
Loser.
Randy Rayburn has more balls than the entire legislature, the editorial writers at the MSM and Governor Bredesen COMBINED.
As for restaurant liability for customers and employees, all they have to do is throw up a sign banning guns, and that will take care of that.
Ahem, TCA 39-17-1359(b):
"Nothing in this section shall be construed to alter, reduce or eliminate any civil or criminal liability that a property owner or manager may have for injuries arising on their property."
The law spells it out pretty clearly. Posting does NOT reduce liability.
Nor does it protect you from violence.
Perhaps the issue that's been lost in all this brouhaha (and how can anything that gives me the chance to use the word "brouhaha" be all bed?) is this:
If I wake up tomorrow and decide that it would be a good day to go shoot up a restaurant/bar/park/office building/post office/school/church/whatever, is the fact that there's a "no guns" sign on the door really going to be much of a deterrent? If local or state laws prohibit me from carrying a handgun into location X, is the knowledge that really going to stop me?
If someone is crazy enough to go on a shooting spree, if someone is morally and ethically bankrupt enough to commit mass murder, is any sign on the door or any law on the books really going to stop them? All the debate, all the ranting and raving, this utterly frivolous lawsuit, it all accomplishes absolutely nothing because it cannot stop the crazy guy with a gun. In the grand scheme of things it has all been a glorious waste of time and taxpayer dollars because it is totally unenforceable.
And I say this as a gun owner and permit holder. Go figure!
Okay, trying to use italics and parenthesis in the same sentence caused a chunk of that to disappear. The last sentence in the second paragraph should be:
"If local or state laws prohibit me from carrying a handgun into location X, is the knowledge that - gasp! guns aren't allowed in here! - really going to stop me?"
Daniel Plainview says:
Randy Rayburn has more balls than the entire legislature, the editorial writers at the MSM and Governor Bredesen COMBINED.
Posted On: Tuesday, Jun. 30 2009 @ 4:20PM
-Why is that, exactly? Balls or not he is most assuredly lacking in BRAINS.
You two must have a lot in common.
The Other Scott,
-Well said.
These hoplophobic lawyers and their clients apparently believe that Tennessee residents who take the time to pass FBI background checks, fingerprinting, photos, and training to carry a legal self defense weapon are a dangerous bunch.
Maybe they are.
However, permit holders here in Utah have been allowed to carry in restaurants and bars in Utah since 1995. No criminal acts have taken place as a result.
Weasle-wording lawyers might claim that Utah law does not ALLOW permit holders to carry in bars. Our laws are written to only prohibit carrying in a very small list of places- airports, courthouses, mental hospitals, etc. We offer more than 12 years proof that permit holders are not creating any danger for patrons, employees, law enforcement, or anyone else.
"Posting" to prevent legally carried self protection guns only serves as a big "ROB THIS PLACE" sign to thugs who prefer unarmed victims.
There are so many law abiding citizens that carry in restaurants now that do so because they are forced by the do-good population to break a law to make sure their family has proper protection at all times. These are simply those that have the fortitude to defend themselves. It is always the people that have no understanding of firearms that fear what they have been told to fear.
If safety is a real concern of those wishing to prevent some from defending themselves, they should be OK with an all encompassing law to prevent texting or talking on cell phones while driving. This should also be made a criminal act while driving a three or four thousand pound SUV anywhere. The accidents that are caused by this act is a daily occurrence, but by liberal standards would be acceptable losses. Accidents will happen but should be observed before passing judgment on how this bill will work. Most of those that have carry permits walk a much straighter line than most of those that do not have the responsibility of deadly force. All permit holders have been through training of some sort and understand their responsibility. They are not “gun-slingers”.
I don't get this texting analogy. Who isn't in favor of making it illegal to text while driving?
Rayburn is just grandstanding.
Just post your own little piece of shit resaurant and STFU, Rayburn.
You have the right to make decisions only for yourself - not anyone else.
What any other business owners and/or patrons choose to do is none of your damn business.
I find this a little strange. I do remember the political aspirations of Mr. Rayburn during the last election. Is this simply an attempt to cement his "liberal" foundation?
Randy actually pays "men with guns" to frequent his establishments. This is regular and routine. Plus, he never seems to have a problem with the armed escorts of celebrities. Why are Faith, Toby, Frist, Alexander, and Dean allowed to defend themselves in Cabanna but Average Joe is not? I agree with Gilbert. This is simply grandstanding. He will make a lot of noise and eventually do nothing.
Comments (13) RSS