Restaurant carry lawsuit live blog

I got Internet, and there’s other people with laptops here, so here we go. Refresh for updates.
1004 – Nikki Goeser and Mary Purcell are here in the gallery with me. We’re waiting on the judge to come back in. Adam Dread notes “He’s not here. I guess the NRA check didn’t clear this month.” Not sure who Dread is referring to here.
1006 – Bonnyman comes in. Says she expects to rule today. Plaintiffs start by asking to add the State of TN be added to the lawsuit.
1013 – David Raymond(?) is first plaintiffs attorney to speak. Says he’s a criminal defense attorney speaking on behalf of all carry permit holders because they might be arrested for violating the law cuz it’s vague. Makes an argument that the law is void for vagueness. Argues that we cant wait for a permit holder to get arrested to challenge the law. Says he has an affidavit from the Cheif of Police saing that he WILL arrest permit holders that go into restaurants that don;t meet the 50% food requirement
1018 – Raymond argues that the 1359 signs are irrelevant to criminal culpability. Basically says that the 1359 signs are meaningless. Arrives at that conclusion based on the AG opinion for guns in parks. Says that its better for permit holders to be banned from all restaurants that serve alcohol than to be possibly arrested for getting arrested by Serpas
1021 – Will Cheek speaks for restaurant owners. Notes that hotels that serve alcohol miight be prohibited places. Argues that latino restaurants are mostly in violation of their liquor licenses. Kinda blanket racist statement. Bonnyman chides Cheek for calling things bars, when theres no such thing. Cheek argues that Beer and Coca Cola can be either food or alcolhol, depending on how served.
1025 – Cheek argues that the restaurant definition is too vague. What’s an “adequate kitchen?” What is “suitable food?” If the food is crappy, is it unsuitable? There are 2 definitions of restaurant–one for liquor and one for food. Law is a mess and should be voided for being unconstitutionally vague
1030 – David Randolph Smith is next atty for plaintiffs. Brings up hotels again. Brings up 1359 signage again being unnecessary and irrelevant. Argues you can’t have an opt-out (1359 signage) because the TCA is a Public Safety Chapter
1035 – Atty for Melrose is up next. didn’t catch his name. Says the law chills first amendment rights of restaurant owners (WTF?). Says that that the section of 1359 that does not limit liability for posted properties requires restaurants to get additional insurance agains permit holders who violate the 1359 sign. That’s not what it says, but that’s how they read it. Cites heller, saying restaurants are “sensitive places,” like federal buildings. Says that since people go to restaurants to talk politics, speech is chilled because they never know if they’re arguing with someone who is armed.Asks Bonnyman to send it back to the Legislature “to clean it up.”
1036 – Michael Meyer is the state atty. Argues jurisdiction and procedural issues only. Says Chancery court can’t rule on criminal statutes. Someone needs to be charged with violating 39-17-1305. Argues the plaintiffs can just post a damn sign. Permit Holders can raise vagueness as a defense in criminal court, and that is the proper remedy in this case. The plaintiffs case is based entirely on speculation of what MIGHT happen. Serpas is not “going to go down restaurant row and pat down everyone looking for guns.” Servers are protected by 1322 from permit holders drinking, so it’s not the server’s fault if they serve alcohol to a permit holder. “There’s a really long line of ifs that have to happen for any of these bad things to happen.” The permit holder argument is counter to what they say they’re asking for. “We want to be able to go into a restaurant without fear of being arrested for carrying, so we think you should ban carrying.”
1042- AG Sanders argues the merits. (She also looks like she graduated last week). Says the plaintiffs argue that citizens can tell what a restaurant is. Plaintiffs have to show that you can’t tell what a restaurant is, but they also say they are restaurant owners. How would THEY know, if no one can tell? HCP Plaintiffs can just not carry if they’re confused, and this is permissible under law. Bonnyman interupts and asks about 1305 saying “serving of food shall be the principle business.” How does an ordinary person decide if that is the case? Use your own common experiences as a consumer. Consumers know the difference. It’s fairly easy to know.
1051 – Sanders on 1359 signage for parks. The AG opinion deals with PUBLIC parks, 1359 deals with PRIVATE facilities, and the signage are the only legal remedy for prohibing otherwise legal carry. Unlawful delegation argument: There can be no unlawful delegation without legislative action. Case plaintiffs site (American Chariot) involves public land used for private purposes. This is about private property owners making their own decisions about guns on premises. Cites caselaw that is pretty near EXACTLY the circumstances here, where its not unlawful delegation.
1102- My system went kaboom. Lost all the Plaintiff’s rebuttal notes Basically DRS argued that Chancery Court does have jurisdiction, and people can’t possible know if a place is a restaurant or a bar. Bonnyman asks for clarification on this, and he cites a club downtown only open 4 days a week (in violation of liquor laws).
1105- Bonnyman says she will rule later today. Oddly, she says most of her ruling was already written. Says she won’t address standing in a meaningful way.
My netbook is dying and there aren’t any wall outlets. May be a while before an update.