Restaurant Carry Lawsuit: Thoughts from a lawyer

I just got off the phone with John Harris, Executive Director for the Tennessee Firearms Association. John was in the courtroom today (sitting right behind Kasey Dread) and offered his thoughts:

“Most of the issues they raised were not very good, but they made a decent argument that [Chancellor Bonnyman] has authority to consider whether or not the law is vague, and therefor unconstitutional. She did not address the issues. She basically said ‘If it is vague, then I can rule on that, and we’ll have a ruling on that in 90 days.’”

I asked him about Kasey Dread’s comment about the “issue deserv[ing] a full hearing on the merits”:

“She’s got to make a finding on that merit issue. What that means, in laymans terms, is that she’s got to make a finding that the change in the law is so poorly written that a person of average intelligence doesn’t know what is criminal conduct and what isn’t.”

I asked him if the change to the complaint, that the new law is somehow unfair to carry permit holders, was the reason the lawsuit wasn’t completely thrown out:

“She was clearly, I think, irritated by the fact that they came in here at the last minute and tried to turn the whole thrust of their case from where they initially were, all this nuisance stuff, over to this vagueness doctrine, because the law is pretty clear. She can’t grant an injunction on that issue, but then they asked her to do it anyhow.”

On his thoughts about how things might go in 3 months:

“In the big scheme of things, if you make silly arguments you lose credibility. And I think, even though they had five law firms on their side, they lost credibility when they made those arguments.”

I asked him about specific arguments that were made. He said that the plaintiffs split up their 30 minutes between 4 lawyers. The state made the case, and Bonnyman agreed, that for now “they can just put up a sign, and we can deal with the vagueness issue later.”
He concluded the call saying that he was going to send out a TFALAC Alert, and when I finished my commute home it was in my inbox. Here is the relevant portion:

The court refused to grant an injunction. The change in the restaurant law goes into effect at 12:01 A.M. July 14, 2009.
What did happen in court? The plaintiffs are now represented by at least 5 distinct law firms. While it is possible that none of the attorneys are being paid, it is unlikely. Furthermore, all of the attorneys involved are either named partners or very high up the chain.
The hearing took a turn which seemed to irritate the court. The court had ordered that the case would be set for an expedited hearing on the issue of whether the court could and should issue a preliminary injunction that would stop the change in the law from going into effect. While that is the main thrust of the original complaint, the plaintiffs had filed an amended complaint in which they now argueto protect the interests of handgun permit holders that the law is so vague that a person of common intelligence cannot understand what is and is not criminal conduct and therefore the law is “void” because of its “vagueness.”
Ultimately, the court held that the plaintiffs had completely failed to establish any of the legal requirements for an injunction and that the matter of whether the law was “void for vagueness” was not properly before the court at this time. Therefore, the end result was that the court denied the injunction.
The case is reset for a hearing in approximately 90 days on whether in fact the law is too vague to be understood.
What should a permit holder do in the meantime? We have pushed for “family restaurant” relief for many years. If the restaurant is not posted and truly appears to be a “family restaurant” and you are not drinking beer or alcohol, then the change in the law protects you.
What is the risk? Apparently, a key element of the plaintiffs’ argument is now going to be that there are many “restaurants” in the state which do not comply with current state law regarding their beer or liquor license and that these places – which are already in violation of the law – pose risks for permit holders because while they might look like a restaurant they sell too much alcohol or beer. I wonder, if in discovery, the plaintiffs plan to turn over the names and addresses of these law violators to the state?

Who wants to go to Ruby Tuesday tomorrow?