link

Although I cannot agree with gun control of any kind, I can't really say I'm totally against this one.

Let me explain.  I do NOT agree that a person should be disarmed just because they choose to eat at a restaurant that serves alcohol. Let's face it, basicly all the good ones do. Yes I carry at Chop House, Ruby Tuesday's, Rafferty's and others. But on the other hand, I don't think people need to be armed at places such as Cotton Eye Joe's. A concealed weapon is to insure your safety when you are doing nothing to instigate it. If you feel you need to be armed to go into a bar, maybe you should reconsider going into it.

Flame on.

Terry

Well maybe one should not drink if one is carrying a legally CCW'ed firearm even though the establishment serves alcohol. It's not like the bad guys check their weapons at their car trunks before they walk in.

See, common sense trumps all............................

They tried a carry in restaurants that serve alcohol bill, a year or two ago, that would still prohibit carry in bars.  The bill was killed in committee, because the Tennessee liquor laws apparently make no distinction between bars and restaurants that serve alcohol.  Jimmy Naifeh, who was Speaker of the House at that time, called it "bad legislation" and explained his reason for that label by stating that it would require a complete rewrite of Tennessee's liquor laws.

So do we force the legislature to spend who knows how long rewriting those liquor laws, just to get a carry in restaurants bill?  Or do we go with a law that also allows carry in bars, but clearly restates the existing prohibition against drinking any alcohol while armed?

I know what is a bar and what isn't. I go to bars to drink, therefore I don't carry there. If some weirdo that goes to a bar to not drink wants to carry, I don't see a problem with that.

So if a guy is the designated driver and not drinking, and happens to be a Handgun Permit Holder (carrying concealed so as not to create any "issues"), why shouldn't he/she be able to carry?

Why does "because you choose to go to a "place of entertainment", and not drink, maybe because you enjoy the live band playing, mean you should CHECK YOUR RIGHT TO PROTECTION at the door.


As it has been already stated. BAD GUYS DO NOT FOLLOW THE LAW. Only the lawful follow the law.

Now will there be someone that screws up and drinks while carrying? Willing to bet it does happen. But I would also be willing to bet they did this anyway before the law became law, so they were still breaking the law.

Only change now, is it allows us that do follow the law to be safe and not be a target of the scum who wait outside in parking lots to rob/mug/kill and whatever else they intend.

Make the criminals fearful that they may get capped if they target the wrong person, and crime just might go down. What a concept?

Pardon me, but does the bill not state that you cannot carry into an age restricted "restaurant" i.e. a bar?

The version that got passed has no age restrictions or curfew.

10-4. I just thought the curfew got taken out,