<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Let&#8217;s talk specifics, shall we?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2009/11/lets_talk_specifics_shall_we.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2009/11/lets_talk_specifics_shall_we.html</link>
	<description>defending our rights from the ramparts</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 19:20:42 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: wizardpc</title>
		<link>http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2009/11/lets_talk_specifics_shall_we.html#comment-3845</link>
		<dc:creator>wizardpc</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:52:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wallsofthecity.net/?p=2246#comment-3845</guid>
		<description>Vance,
You&#039;ve illustrated perfectly why the law was struck down. I (and the authors of the legislation if you want to review the floor debate) take it to mean they have to make most of their money on food. &quot;Most&quot; meaning more than 50%. You take it to mean something else. Who is right? It&#039;s a matter of opinion, and therefor the statute violates due process because the standards are subjective.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Vance,<br />
You&#8217;ve illustrated perfectly why the law was struck down. I (and the authors of the legislation if you want to review the floor debate) take it to mean they have to make most of their money on food. &#8220;Most&#8221; meaning more than 50%. You take it to mean something else. Who is right? It&#8217;s a matter of opinion, and therefor the statute violates due process because the standards are subjective.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Vance Dennis</title>
		<link>http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2009/11/lets_talk_specifics_shall_we.html#comment-3844</link>
		<dc:creator>Vance Dennis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 01:28:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wallsofthecity.net/?p=2246#comment-3844</guid>
		<description>You seem to be measuring &quot;principal business conducted&quot; with an arbitrary percentage of revenue.  I could be wrong, but I don&#039;t recall any specific percentages of gross or net revenue being used anywhere in the existing Code to establish the principal business of an establishment.  Given the different costs and profit margins of food vs. alcoholic beverages, I think it would be difficult to use a percentage of revenue to ascertain principal business.  I do not believe that it was ever the intent of the legislature to require a percentage of revenue analysis; I believe that most legislators understood the intent of the bill was to allow permitted carry in any establishment that has a liquor license, since the establishment has already proven itself to meet the statutory definition of restaurant, which is identical in all substantive respects in both sections of the Code, in order to obtain the liquor license.
There are several ways to the fix the problem  if the Court of Appeals, and possibly the Tennessee Supreme Court, happens to concur with the Chancellor&#039;s decision.  However, we won&#039;t really know the best way to develop a politically feasible solution until the appeal is resolved.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You seem to be measuring &#8220;principal business conducted&#8221; with an arbitrary percentage of revenue.  I could be wrong, but I don&#8217;t recall any specific percentages of gross or net revenue being used anywhere in the existing Code to establish the principal business of an establishment.  Given the different costs and profit margins of food vs. alcoholic beverages, I think it would be difficult to use a percentage of revenue to ascertain principal business.  I do not believe that it was ever the intent of the legislature to require a percentage of revenue analysis; I believe that most legislators understood the intent of the bill was to allow permitted carry in any establishment that has a liquor license, since the establishment has already proven itself to meet the statutory definition of restaurant, which is identical in all substantive respects in both sections of the Code, in order to obtain the liquor license.<br />
There are several ways to the fix the problem  if the Court of Appeals, and possibly the Tennessee Supreme Court, happens to concur with the Chancellor&#8217;s decision.  However, we won&#8217;t really know the best way to develop a politically feasible solution until the appeal is resolved.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve in TN</title>
		<link>http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2009/11/lets_talk_specifics_shall_we.html#comment-3843</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve in TN</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:43:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wallsofthecity.net/?p=2246#comment-3843</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;You&#039;re open carrying, because that&#039;s how you roll.&lt;/i&gt; A point against open carry, perhaps?
More generally, the solution is to write the HCP carry laws to match the exemption for LEOs with businesses ability to post, one would think.  I.E., if you don&#039;t imbibe, you&#039;re cool.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>You&#8217;re open carrying, because that&#8217;s how you roll.</i> A point against open carry, perhaps?<br />
More generally, the solution is to write the HCP carry laws to match the exemption for LEOs with businesses ability to post, one would think.  I.E., if you don&#8217;t imbibe, you&#8217;re cool.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

