Thu
Jun 4 2009
04:22 pm
According to an AP report, the Senate override of Bredesen's veto of guns in bars does not take effect for 40 days, or until July 14th.
Apparently this is based on an Attorney General's opinion (not cited) that laws cannot take affect until at least 40 days after they are passed.
Neither the Tennessee Constitution nor state law seems to say this. State law says that a vetoed bill become law immediately when a veto is overridden. I believe this particular bill has no effective date.
Can someone explain?
UPDATE: Tom Humphrey explains.
|
|
Discussing:
- Rep Burchett (4 replies)
- Knoxville stays among top-10 US cities for rising home prices, most realtors expect continued increases over the next year (4 replies)
- How the Cost of a Burger Stacks Up in Every State (1 reply)
- Judge blocks Biden administration rule capping credit card late fees at $8 (1 reply)
- Private equity ownership of hospitals made care riskier for patients, a new study finds (24 replies)
- Labor Dept. says Tennessee firm employed minors to clean meat saws, head splitters at slaughterhouses (3 replies)
- Yowza! That was some storm last night (2 replies)
- Why are prices still so high? Corporate greed, some say (4 replies)
- UT pro-Palestine protests (7 replies)
- Boeing was once known for safety and engineering (11 replies)
- Walmart is closing its health centers and virtual care service (5 replies)
- Accidental shooting at local park? (4 replies)
TN Progressive
- Toons (RoaneViews)
- Appeals court: Wildlife officers’ warrantless searches of private property are unconstitutional (RoaneViews)
- Friday Toon (RoaneViews)
- Kimmell Destroys Trump in Monologue (RoaneViews)
- Chef steals food to serve at restaurant? (BlountViews)
- Blount County, TDOT make road deal for gun mfg ignoring town of Louisville,TN, (BlountViews)
- It's voting time again. Let's get out the vote. (BlountViews)
- Winter at the Big Rocks (Whitescreek Journal)
- Maryville Daily Times Home Delivery changing again (BlountViews)
- Secrets from My Radio Days (Joe Powell)
- Fall 2022 (Whitescreek Journal)
- Mmmm, A Fresh Hot Cup of Joe (Joe Powell)
TN Politics
- Biden celebrates ‘the power of an education’ on Brown v. Board 70th anniversary (TN Lookout)
- Stockard on the Stump: Lee stays on Trump bandwagon despite legal battles (TN Lookout)
- As states loosen childhood vaccine requirements, health experts’ worries grow (TN Lookout)
- U.S. House panel debates voting by noncitizens, which is already illegal (TN Lookout)
- Independent presidential candidate Robert Kennedy, Jr. makes brief, late stop in Nashville (TN Lookout)
- U.S. Senate GOP tries to block states from spending some of their COVID relief cash (TN Lookout)
Knox TN Today
- Beaver Creek Flotilla is Saturday (Knox TN Today)
- Tracking down joy (Knox TN Today)
- Cruising with Headricks, Crockers (Knox TN Today)
- Opening soon: New Harvest Dog Park (Knox TN Today)
- What’s new at Kern’s Food Hall (Knox TN Today)
- Come meet the world’s greatest eater (Knox TN Today)
- College + Industry developing new degree programs (Knox TN Today)
- Research shows effects of chemicals downstream (Knox TN Today)
- Bullhead melody (Knox TN Today)
- Honey Badger gets spectacular shot of northern lights (Knox TN Today)
- Spring brings whirlwind to Realty Executives (Knox TN Today)
- Find some treasures at Vintage, Etc. (Knox TN Today)
Local TV News
- Joey Chestnut takes title of Bologna Eating Champion in Knoxville (WATE)
- Some Knox County Schools graduations rescheduled for inclement weather (WATE)
- Police: Two fatal shootings near North Broadway 'directly connected' (WATE)
- North Carolina couple searches for video of proposal in Market Square (WATE)
- After son nearly dies in crash, East Tennessee mother urges drivers to look twice for motorcycles (WATE)
- East TN man gets 8-year term in connection with boy's death, abuse suffered by girl (WBIR)
- Planned Parenthood looks to reopen Knoxville location two years after fire (WATE)
- Roane County couple accused in children's deaths face key court hearing Tuesday (WBIR)
- Family of fallen Knox Co. deputy Tucker Blakely attends 2024 Tennessee Law Enforcement Officers' Memorial Service (WBIR)
- Tennessee Theatre hosts first-ever Marquee Awards to honor high school musicals (WBIR)
- 'We are heartbroken and grieving' | Zoo Knoxville humanely euthanizes 46-year-old elephant Tonka (WBIR)
- Tennessee Valley Fair announces Ludacris to perform in September (WBIR)
News Sentinel
State News
Wire Reports
Local Media
Lost Medicaid Funding
To date, the failure to expand Medicaid/TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding. (Source)
Search and Archives
TN Progressive
Nearby:
- Blount Dems
- Herston TN Family Law
- Inside of Knoxville
- Instapundit
- Jack Lail
- Jim Stovall
- Knox Dems
- MoxCarm Blue Streak
- Outdoor Knoxville
- Pittman Properties
- Reality Me
- Stop Alcoa Parkway
Beyond:
- Nashville Scene
- Nashville Post
- Smart City Memphis
- TN Dems
- TN Journal
- TN Lookout
- Bob Stepno
- Facing South
Your guess is as good as
Your guess is as good as mine. I was led to believe the bill would have become law effective June 1 with the governor's signature. I see nothing in the Constitution that would prevent it from becoming law effective today. The 40-day rule is a new one on me.
Next Time Out
I've simply got to find myself a good .50 caliber and some RPGs for the fall fashion season else I'll look all metro when I go out. Until then, I think I can come up with some bandoleer ammo belts and a good BushMaster ...
"If ignorance is bliss, why aren't more people happy?"
TN- the laughingstosk again.
Tennesseans look more & more like fools to the rest of the country.
jcg
What is up with this?
Don't something like 40 other states have laws similar to the one you're talking about? Have their restaurants turned into real versions of killing zones? Is actual vigilante activity on the rise in those places? If it is, then your editorial tone here might be justifiable. If not, then why the crazyass fear?
Really? The whole rest of the country? On the contrary, for better or worse, it seems like we're in step with about four fifths of it.
Back when TN was considering shall-issue, I had a conversation with a state legislator who predicted that the state would turn into "The Wild, Wild West" with the passage of that law, even though he planned to vote for it anyway. That fear has not materialized. I don't get why people like you cling to this fear. It's completely irrational.
Don't something like 40
Don't something like 40 other states have laws similar to the one you're talking about?
As my mother used to say, "If your friends jump off a cliff, will you follow?"
And, heck, something like 35 states have ratified the equal rights amendment. Not Tennessee. Tennessee ratified the amendment then rescinded the ratification.
Guns in bars, oh so important. Equal rights for women, not so much.
About 45 other states have
About 45 other states have an income tax, too.
Dozens of countries have
Dozens of countries have single-payer healthcare or national health insurance.
____________________________
Dirty deeds done dirt cheap! Special holidays, Sundays and rates!
Behold the collective cleverness.
Pretty lame dodge, folks. I guess it's symptomatic of my own crazyass irrationality that I expected better from you.
If this is actually so dangerous and scary, it should by now have produced some of the results you fear in other places. Has it?
Are "restaurants" such
Are "restaurants" such dangerous & scary places today?
Maybe I'm just dining in the wrong places.
____________________________
Dirty deeds done dirt cheap! Special holidays, Sundays and rates!
I don't think they are,...
but that's beside the point.
Again, why the fear?
If laws that liberalize firearms carry lead to increased violence, there should be ample evidence of it by now. If laws that extend that liberality into places where alcohol is served turn those places into gulches of bloodshed, there should be a demonstrable trend.
Is the fear of these laws based on evidence that they increase actual danger? The insinuation prevalent in this thread is that permit holders have made and will make society inherently more violent. Has this been the case? If it has, then your fear is founded on something real. If not, then what is it you're really afraid of?
but that's beside the
but that's beside the point.
I thought self-defense was the point. What are you defending yourselves from?
Again, why the fear?
You tell me. It's the pro-gun lobby who's saying that this is so damned necessary. Why? Are restaurants dangerous places? You say no. So what are y'all afraid of?
____________________________
Dirty deeds done dirt cheap! Special holidays, Sundays and rates!
No, restaurants are not
No, restaurants are not particularly dangerous. But for example that walk down Jackson Ave after dining at Patrick Sullivan's after dark has resulted in multiple assaults. Unfortunately, I won't be carrying their because I enjoy a drink and / or glass of wine with dinner. Carrying while consuming is illegal.
I against guns in bars but
I against guns in bars but your statement no crime in the Old City is wrong. Within the last year there has been at least one shooting in the Crown and Goose parking lot and another one in the parking lot across the street.
It still not enough to keep me from enjoying the downtown at night. The crime is still lower than out west.
Do you ever dine out at
Do you ever dine out at restaurants that do not serve alcohol? Or just venture out in public? If so, you have been in the presence of people carrying handguns. You just didn't know it. Damn lucky you didn't get caught in all of the cross-fire.
I'm in the presence of
I'm in the presence of people carrying handguns anytime I visit family which includes a smattering of permitted concealed carriers and law enforcement.
My question has been-- and continues to be-- what was the statistical evidence that showed a change in the existing law was necessary? Where are these piles and piles of news stories of people in Tennessee being accosted while standing in line for a seat at PF Chang's because the "bad guys" know they're not armed?
This constant state of fear that some carry advocates profess leaves me puzzled. They act as if they are terrified to go to a restaurant or take their children to play on the monkey bars unless they're armed to the teeth. These are the people I worry about the most and you know who I'm talking about-- the ones who fancy themselves self-appointed Deputy Dawgs out to make everyone safe at TGI Fridays.
On the whole I am quite aware that many-- hell, most-- carriers are reasonable people and do actually follow the rules. I'm just not hearing much from them over the ravings of the ones who act like every trip outside their home is a potential gunfight waiting to happen.
You first.
The point: the progressive position on this is that this law will increase violence in these places. That's certainly where this thread starts. You simply can't defend that position with anything but dogma, can you?
Your lame avoidance and deflection tactics are your declaration that you can't.
Ahem. The default position
Ahem. The default position is the law as it was before this passed. The gun lobby was taking the affirmative -- that is, that the law desperately needed to change because people were not being allowed to defend themselves.
Defend themselves against what?
Why does there need to be a law to fix a problem that doesn't exist?
____________________________
Dirty deeds done dirt cheap! Special holidays, Sundays and rates!
Depends on your dogma.
The default position is that permitting non-LEO civilians to carry firearms in any given environment will increase the violence in that environment. I assume increase it in some objectively measurable way.
I can see why you would think this way if you are dogmatically opposed to people being armed. But.
What are the objective reasons for the law prohibiting carry in restaurants and bars to have stood? What problem was it solving? What problem can it be shown to have been preventing? Can you demonstrate that there was a problem solved or prevented by the law as it was before this law passed? Can you demonstrate that a problem is likely to occur because it has passed? Or do you just think laws ought to stay the way they are because they make you feel better?
You're not disagreeing with the predictions of widespread mayhem and vigilantes abounding. I'm still wondering what that CW is based on.
Rest easy. As the Cargo
Rest easy. As the Cargo Cult is so fond of reminding us, people just go ahead and carry unlawfully all the time.
____________________________
Dirty deeds done dirt cheap! Special holidays, Sundays and rates!
Breaking News
I dined at three restaurants in Knoxville last week that serve alcohol. I didn't get shot once. No roving bands of thugs stormed the place either, even though they knew no one was armed inside.
Film at 11.
The Gun Lobby
The gun manufacturer's lobby [NRA] and their assorted group of crazies [otherwise known as men with tiny penises] win another battle.
I won guns and defend the right to won them but there are places here they need to be prohibited. Church, jail, bars, etc.
Why bars? Because the men with tiny penises get really mad when "their woman" dances with someone else and if they're drunk and packing, well, the story tells itself, stupid is a stupid does.
"If ignorance is bliss, why aren't more people happy?"
Well, we've finally identified the problem.
But there's simply no reason for it to exist.
As anyone with email knows by now, there's no need for any man to endure the indignity of a tiny penis. Solutions are available, and they're very reasonably priced.
The problem as I see it...
is not with the responsible legal carry permit holders...of which there are a great deal. The problem is that you cannot trust each and every legal carry permit holder to abide by the strictures of the law. People know that drinking and driving are incompatible and yet every day, dozens or hundreds of legally licensed drivers choose to drink, and then get in their cars and drive home. Many make it without incident, but those few who do not, ruin the lives of innocent bystanders forever.
Human nature being what it is, there will be some (NOT ALL) legally permitted gun owners that do not abstain from drinking while carrying their weapons into public bars and restaurants. THOSE people are the ones with the potential to do the greatest harm, not because they aren't normally law-abiding citizens, but because they assume that they can handle their liquor, and that no one has the right to tell them they can't drink and carry at the same time.
I believe in the Second Amendment, but I think that there are certain situations that do NOT call for people going armed. You run more of a chance of being killed crossing the street than you do of being involved in a shoot out situation in a restaurant with an armed felon or mentally unbalanced person...there really is no reason for you to feel as if you MUST carry a weapon with you at all times.
Life is too short to live in a constant state of fear of "the other" in our society. If you want to live your life in fear and dread, feel free, but please leave the guns at home...you really don't NEED them.
_________________________________________________
"You can't fix stupid..." ~ Ron White"
"I never said I wasn't a brat..." ~ Talidapali
Isn't this
There is no question that this is true. There's no question, too, that some of these same people are under the influence of intoxicants that are not consumed in restaurants and bars. Either way, it's against the law.
When they are found to be carrying under the influence the first time, it seems reasonable that they should lose their carry permits, be bullwhipped, and then packed in salt.
Unfortunately the first time they ...
are found carrying may be the time that they shoot someone in a drunken rampage in the bar that they legally carried their firearm into.
I have known plenty of people who drive drunk quite often...but the first time they got caught at it, it was too late to save the lives of the people they killed.
Stupidity knows no bounds...it is up to government to provide those boundaries, just for the simple protection of those of us who do not feel the need to pack weapons everywhere we go. I would take a rifle into the woods or wilderness as a precaution...I don't need the same level of self-protection in Ruby Tuesday's.
_________________________________________________
"You can't fix stupid..." ~ Ron White"
"I never said I wasn't a brat..." ~ Talidapali
Yes, but...
...we don't make it illegal for people to drive. We make it illegal for them to drink and drive at the same time.
That fear you express in your first sentence is the one I'm trying to understand. You simply don't see it playing out this way in places where it's already legal for people to be armed in these locations. This isn't an instance in which you have to speculate. There are lots of other states that allow carry in these places. How many of these permit holders have engaged in drunken rampages?
We don't license automobile
We don't license automobile owners, just those who drive on public roads. Gun owners who want to carry loaded handguns are licensed in Tennessee.
as a gun owner who has had a
as a gun owner who has had a gun held to her head in a local knoxville bar by a guy who she had been discussing the talents of hank sr. with only minutes before....i would think it would be clear to all that guns in bars is a bad idea. i can also say that had i been carrying, i would have gotten myself and possibly others shot going for a gun at any point in that altercation. luckily that night, only one shot was fired and no one was hurt, but if a couple of those folks had been carrying...who knows. i am content with the 12 year sentence of the criminal and the safety of the patrons and the owner. sure, that was before the law...but seems we're just making it easier. and by the way, maybe there are more important things we should be voting on right now!
That IS scary.
But this law would almost certainly have had no impact on the situation you describe. Your story, in fact, illustrates the uselessness of a prohibitionist approach. It was, at the time your story occurred, illegal for that guy to have a gun in a bar. Under the new law, it would be illegal for him to be drinking if he were carrying, and it would certainly be illegal for him to brandish it in public and threaten anyone with it over an argument.
You might be right about the speculative shootout scenario you include in your story, but who knows? That kind of scenario should be playing out, with permit holders as shooters, in those other 38 states who allow carry in restaurants and bars if your fears are founded.
How common is this kind of event in those states?
in those other 38 states who
Where did you get this number?
I keep seeing different numbers cited with no documentation. Is this a "trust me" deal, e.g.'Trust me, I won't drink while I'm packing this gun?'
Seriously, I'd love to see some citations. Seems to me it's incumbent on those making the claims to back them up.
So, you're saying that...
...when progressives are arguing against people they perceive to be rightwing nuts, they don't need to support their claims with evidence.
Thanks. That's helps me understand what I'd thought was progressives' lack of ability to engage this argument with evidence. I see that I was wrong. It's not that you can't engage. It's just that you don't think it's necessary.
You must've attended private schools, then.
Depends on what the meaning of the word is is.
Questions remain.
Not even if you're postverbal?
These claims are all sophism
These claims are all sophism anyway, Betty.
To the NRA, any restriction (commonsense or otherwise) is infringement, as in the "shall not be infringed" part of the 2nd Amendment.
And when you start talking about this from the position of defending your rights, you start to talk in terms of being victimized and as a member of an oppressed minority (as if white guys with guns are underrepresented).
Fact o' business is that this is an emotional argument that they're making, at least if they're being honest. These folks don't feel safe and feel like they need to be protected and have their feelings hurt if anyone questions this insecure feeling. Every moment they walk around carrying a weapon that nothing happens to them, they feel vindicated. It must be the guns that keep things that way. There's so many feelings that it might as well be one big Dr. Phil segment.
____________________________
Dirty deeds done dirt cheap! Special holidays, Sundays and rates!
You are the King of Hilarity.
This is dripping with rich, creamy hilarity:
If anyone is arguing from emotion, it's your side. You're afraid of a bloodbath that simply has not materialized in the states that permit carry in places where alcohol is served. If your fear is well placed, you should be able to demonstrate it, right? Can you? Or won't you?
To put it another way, if the argument that legalizing carry by permit holders in places that serve alcohol is unlikely to lead to an increased amount of gunplay in those places is an exercise in sophistry, you should be able to demonstrate the inherent falseness of the argument very simply and decisively by pointing to the dramatic increase in violence in states with similarly liberal carry laws. In fact, this humiliating debunking should be easy for you. Please do it. Please, please, please!
This article, from a
This article, from a resturant publication, indicates there were 13 states that did not allow permit holders to carry where alcohol was served, before Georgia changed its law:
(link...)
It's actually a guess.
I haven't spent a lot of time trying to chase down a definitive citation. The counts I've seen vary from 33 to 38, so I honestly don't know precisely. And it really doesn't make that much difference. Take the low end. Just pick one or two of these states and measure the depth of the blood in the streets and get back to me.
Seems that way to me, too. That's kind of what I was asking for when I first posted in this thread. Randy Neal's shrill language on this issue sets forth an implied argument that this law will increase danger to the public and that it will deepen a our vigilante culture. So far, I've seen no evidence to back up this propaganda. Not a bit. The best thing you can say about it is that it's just progressive conventional wisdom. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it's pure, unadulterated fearstink.
This seems to be a fair and reasonable study..
(link...)
BL's
BL's humor/satire/sarcasm/irony circuit seems to be shorted out.
At any rate, the first part of the headline suggests sarcastically there is not a problem with gunplay in restaurants. Most rational people would concur. Now we are asked to prove that there is. I'm confused.
Anyway, the issue is not so much who is carrying where legally or whether it will increase violence (probably not, but there are certain to be isolated incidents) but rather why the urgent need to pass these bills that seem to be solutions looking for problems when there are other more pressing issues.
Oh, wait, I think we all know the answer to that. It's NRA-fueled pandering to extreme conservatives.
P.S. And there is a vigilante culture among gun fetishists. And as for "fearstink," most of us are saying we are fine going to restaurants without guns, so who's afraid of what? I'm confused again.
Mmm-hmm.
Your headline also suggests sarcastically that violence in restaurants will increase when this law goes into effect because they'll be loaded up with vigilantes, who are by definition violent and lawless.
But if I'm wrong about that, all you're really saying is, "I'm not opposed to permit holders carrying guns in bars, I just wish they had their priorities in order over in Nashville." Seems unlikely.
Who's afraid of what? You're afraid of non-LEO civilians who are armed. You think they tend towards vigilantism. I'm fine with you going to a restaurant without a gun, too. I'm also fine with you carrying one, if you want to. You're a grownup. You can make your own decisions, and your reasons are none of my concern. Now the law gives you one more option. What is the problem with that?
NRA-fueled pandering to extreme conservatives? Maybe so. Who cares what the rationale is? Freedom is a good thing, and more freedom is a better thing. Restricting it should have a better rationale than, "I don't see any need to do that. Why should anyone else?"
Roving vigilantes being
Roving vigilantes being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to drink and bear arms shall not be unhinged.