We have talked about Randy Rayburn here at “walls of the city” a few times before, but his most-recent load of gos-se deserves some renewed attention:
What is the statute of limitations on a bad idea that is historically unsound policy for public safety, has unintended consequences for our state’s second-largest industry — hospitality and tourism — and impacts future economic development?
I do not know, Randy… it is probably the same statute of limitations on an idiotic argument that is entirely based on emotion, has the blatant consequence of infringing on law-abiding citizens’ rights, and impacts individuals’ decisions on how they will protect (or not) themselves and their families.
Phil Valentine stated (in his Aug. 9 Tennessean op-ed column) that nothing has happened in one month. In mid-July, a man killed one man and shot another at a karaoke bar in Tellico Plains. That is in addition to the three shootings in restaurants this year by permit carriers in Tennessee, according to recent research by the Knoxville News-Sentinel.
You know, this particular quote is cute… In the very next paragraph (quoted below), Randy accuses Mr. Valentine of “restating a common fabrication” – in short, lying. Ironically, in the above quote, Randy is intentionally misleading the reader: yes, there was a shooting at a restaurant/bar in Tellico Plains. However, no, the indivual in question was not a handgun carry permit holder, and, interestingly, the police have released him without charges. For those unfamiliar with the way Tennessee law works, a justifiable shooting is an “affirmative defense” to carrying a firearm without a permit. Basically, if you carry a gun without a permit, and you end up shooting someone in a justifiable self-defense situation, the state cannot charge you with illegally carrying.
Interesting how that guy from the Tellico Plains shooting still does not have any charges filed against him… This is not to say he never will, but it is still interesting.
Furthermore, given how Randy is treating this shooting as a bad thing, would that not already indicate how little criminals care about the law? Assuming the Tellico Plains shooting was illegal, the shooter did not have a carry permit. He was illegally carrying a firearm in a restaurant. So explain to me how barring actual permit holders from carrying in restaurants is going to stop criminals…?
Regarding Randy’s allegations concerning handgun carry permit holders shooting people in restaurants, I searched the Knoxville News-Sentinel‘s webpage, and came up with nothing. Given how Randy pimps out his webpage later in the editorial, you would think he would have provided a link to substantiate his claim, no? If anyone else manages to do Randy’s work for him and digs up the news report, feel free to let me know.
Valentine also restated a common fabrication: that there are “37 other states with similar laws.” Go to [website link redacted] for the facts on all 50 states’ laws where alcohol is served. Because bars, saloons, nightclubs and restaurants with bar areas are notorious for fights, assaults and breaches of the peace, carrying loaded guns is expressly prohibited in bars, nightclubs or bar areas serving alcohol in 24 states. Tennessee, unlike the other 14 states that permit “restaurant carry,” does not distinguish between bars and restaurants. In none of the 14 states can a concealed, loaded weapon be brought into a bar area.
Five of the 14 expressly preclude permit carriers from entering the areas primarily devoted to drinking (the bar). All bars in Tennessee are licensed as “restaurants” by the Tennessee Alcoholic Beverage Commission. There are more than 110 classifications of liquor licenses — no bars.
You know what, Randy, you are absolutely correct – no other state has the exact same law Tennessee does concerning carrying firearms into restaurants that serve alcohol. But that is because no other state has the peculiar arrangement that Tennessee does – namely, as you mentioned, the complete lack of a legal definition of a “bar”.
But, simply put, that is completely immaterial to the debate at hand. Forty-two states currently allow law-abiding, licensed (if necessary), trained (if necessary), background-checked citizens to carry their firearms into restaurants that serve alcohol (that map actually needs to be updated, now that Arizona is part of the team). Much though the media, anti-rights advocates (but I repeat myself), and you have tried to frame this debate as “guns in bars”, that was never the primary driving purpose – instead, the goal of this law was to allow law-abiding citizens like myself to go to Outback and have a dinner without having to render ourselves defenseless. And no matter how you try and twist the laws, Randy, in 42 states, I can now walk into an Outback carrying my firearm. In two states, it would have to be in plain sight, but the fact remains.
Now, if your beef is that there is no legal definition of a “bar” in Tennessee, then I suggest you start lobbying your duly-elected representative to create one. But trying to call other people liars over your own particular, twisted, narrow, illogical interpretation of state laws, in addition to abridging people’s rights based on the same? Yeah, that is just all manner of despicable.
Although that is enough, my concern goes beyond the unconcealed threat to my customers’ and employees’ safety as potential unintentional victims on my property. Do my property rights as a business open to the public unreasonably limit your Second Amendment right to carry weapons on my property?
You know, this may completely shock you, Randy, but I firmly believe that if you want to put up a cute little sign indicating that firearms are not welcome at your establishment, you should be able to. And, guess what? Under Tennessee state law, you are allowed to prohibit firearms on your property. Funny how that works.
However, the very second you start trying to prohibit firearms on all restaurant’s property, then you are, quite simply, in the wrong. If you have driven yourself to being irrationally afraid for your safety around handgun carry permit holders, then feel free to impose whatever restrictions you want on your property – but the simple fact is, not all restauranteurs share your illogical fear. If you were actually advocating for allowing restaurant owners to decide for themselves whether or not they will allow firearms on their premises (which they already can do), I would have no complaint with you at all… but we both know that is not what you are trying to argue. So who, exactly, are you to determine what goes on in other people’s restaurants?
Last year, in Heller v. District of Columbia, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his majority opinion that, while rejecting the limitations on restrictions on guns in residences, the court reserved the right to place restrictions in “sensitive” areas. Courthouses? Jails? Airplanes? Bars? Parks?
What is this? An exercise of “Which of These Do Not Belong?”
A Tennessee weapon carry-permit holder must only pass a four-hour classroom course, four hours on a firing range, fingerprinting and a background check. Research by The Commercial Appeal of Memphis shows that the background check by the Tennessee Department of Safety has not been a National Crime Information Center investigation since 2006.
How cute. An anti-right activist, being published in one of the most anti-firearms newspapers in Tennessee, also quotes another newspaper that is ragingly anti-firearms. Did not expect to see that coming…
Oh, and it looks like good old Randy is intentionally and maliciously misleading the reader again: the Tennessee Department of Safety lost its access to the national background check database from September 2006 until March 2008. That hardly counts as “since 2006″. Furthermore, the Commercial Appeal article that released this information said exactly that: “For a year and a half — from September 2006 to March 2008 — the state lacked the ability to run background checks when renewing permits because of a snafu involving access to a crime database.”
So, Randy, who is “restating common fabrications” now?
Am I trying to minimize the problem that this lapse in background checking represents? Of course not. But this lapse is a reflection upon the state, and not the 220,000+ law-abiding citizens who have handgun carry permits.
Elected officials need to know that the law has had the unintended consequences that Gov. Phil Bredesen addressed after his veto was overridden. It has already had a negative impact on our tourism, hospitality, group and convention business, according to industry professionals. Our competitor cities’ hotels and tourism professionals have used our laws on parks and bars to help persuade groups not to choose Tennessee.
Again with the lack of citations, supporting documentation, links to the information in question, or any manner of subsetantiating anything. Who are these “industry professionals”? How do they know there has been an impact? How do they know that impact is directly tied to the “guns in restaurants” bill? Where are the hard numbers? Where are the reports? How are your “competitors” using this new law as leverage, when so many states have similar laws? Are you completely full of gos-se? (Do not worry, I already know the answer to the last question.)
Will our competitors in economic-development recruitment use this against us? You betcha!
Yeah, because the thought of law-abiding, peaceful, private, aware citizens taking steps to protect themselves and their families is just plain horrifying. That must be why so few states have concealed carry permits, and why so few states allow carrying in restaurants that serve alcohol, and… oh… wait…
Will current and future Nissan or Volkswagen companies still pick Tennessee to relocate, given our new business/recreation environment? What will be the difference in perception by relocation consultants and company officials between this law and the recently defeated “English-only” legislation that impacted only Nashville?
What new environment? You mean an environment where criminals are no longer guaranteed that customers are disarmed, defenseless victims at restaurants that serve alcohol? You mean an environment where an individual’s right to self-preservation is respected and preserved? You mean an environment where restaurant proprietors can decide what goes on in their establishments, rather than having it dictated by the government?
Or do you mean something else, Randy?
And do not even get me started on the logical fallacy of trying to compare the “guns in restaurants” legislation to the “English-only” legislation…
Phil: “IT’S THE ECONOMY, STUPID” — NOT JUST PUBLIC SAFETY!
*headdesk* Randy, I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
For those interested, Oleg Volk has a listing of the restaurants and establishments that Randy Rayburn owns (The Cabana, Midtown Cafe, and Sunset Grill, all in Nashville, I believe). Randy has made it quite clear that he does not want the business of law-abiding, safety-conscious citizens, and I humbly propose we oblige him.
recent comments