The legal complaint is here.
Some highlights:
- They state that no other state allows carry in “bars,” then in the footnotes list 23 states that do.
- Their entire argument seems to be that writing an exemption for carry permit holders equates to specifically allowing guns in bars, and no other state specifically allows it.
- They falsely state that Carry Permit Holders can carry while drunk
- “Petitioners aver that the law violates due process and amounts to a taking of property that exposes bars and restaurants that serve alcohol to guns with no effective deterrent to carrying guns on posted premises and increases civil liability for shootings.” Hoookay, then.
- The new law is somehow an abuse of police power.
- The new law somehow violates workplace safety laws.
- The new law is unconstitutional, because it is “for the benefit
of individuals inconsistent with the general laws of the land.” I don’t think that means what they think it means. - Bars are “sensitive places,” in reference to Heller. They think bars and Federal Buildings are the same thing. Interesting…
- Bars are really, really dangerous and violent places without guns.
Pardon the pun, but they seem to be taking the shotgun approach here. It should be struck down because its dangerous, no one else does it (even when they do), it only applies to carry permit holders, and bars are special.
More later, maybe.
related posts:
Restaurant Carry Piece on the BBC | Restaurant carry lawsuit live blog | Cause and Effect |
The primary basis of their complaint is that no other state expressly allows the carrying of firearms into bars.
But…neither does Tennessee’s new law.
Tennessee’s law allows for the carry of firearms into, variously, “establishments” or “restaurants” that serve alcohol for on premises consumption. It doesn’t expressly mention bars at all.
Their own premise (i.e., that the law has to expressly state that guns are allowed in “bars” in order to count) undermines their entire argument.
Of course I’m no lawyer and, as everyone knows, common sense and clear meanings have no bearing on legal cases; so who knows where this will go…especially if they were smart enough to shop the case around to find a court that will be sympathetic with their cause.
I predict that the law will eventually be upheld, but the initial ruling will be to grant a temporary injunction preventing implementation, then the law will be ruled unconstitutional, but that ruling will be overturned on appeal.
The end result will simply be that the law is delayed in taking effect.
counting is not hard
Just to clear up some misconceptions that are being forcibly propagated by an idiotic lawyer here in Tennessee (and piggyback on the news WizardPC beat me to), it is a fact that there are currently 40 states that allow law-abiding…