Comments on: Restaurant Carry Legal Challenge http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2009/07/restaurant_carry_legal_challenge.html defending our rights from the ramparts Sat, 13 Mar 2010 02:46:15 -0500 hourly 1 By: walls of the city http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2009/07/restaurant_carry_legal_challenge.html/comment-page-1#comment-2687 walls of the city Wed, 01 Jul 2009 18:46:50 +0000 http://www.wallsofthecity.net/?p=1660#comment-2687 <strong>counting is not hard</strong> 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... 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…

]]> By: Sailorcurt http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2009/07/restaurant_carry_legal_challenge.html/comment-page-1#comment-2686 Sailorcurt Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:52:17 +0000 http://www.wallsofthecity.net/?p=1660#comment-2686 The primary basis of their complaint is that no other state <i>expressly</i> 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 <i>expressly</i> mention bars at all. Their own premise (i.e., that the law has to <i>expressly</i> 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. 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.

]]>