Bredesen To Veto Guns In Restaurants

Gov. Bredesen will veto the guns in restaurants bill.

“This is not a right-to-bear arms issue. It’s about creating a problem for businesses when there was not one before,” Baker said.

The legislation, he added, shifts the burden from the individual to the business owner. Baker anticipates business insurance will go up as well as the number of lawsuits filed.

While businesses can post a sign prohibiting guns in their establishment, Baker asked, “How welcoming is that?”

My friends who own establishments in Hoots, it appears your voices joined others and was heard and this is of the good.

10 comments for “Bredesen To Veto Guns In Restaurants

  1. May 28, 2009 at 2:12 pm

    Well, howdy. Philbert showed some spine? Finally? Smack my butt and call me granny.

    He’s still all about the pro-bidness, but at least this benefits the rest of us, too. The rest of us who MIGHT GET SHOT EATING OUR SALADS AT OUR NIECES’ BIRTHDAY PARTIES.

    What? Overreacting? Certainly I am. I know that no self-respecting carry-permit possessor is coming into a restaurant intending to shoot it up like an old-time Western. (Insert “looking for the man who shot my Paw” joke here.) But many self-respecting people don’t come into restaurants intending to get as drunk and stupid and ignert as they sometimes do, either.

    Why risk the combination? There’s no need. Nobody’s rights are being infringed upon by telling them that no, you don’t need to be carrying your gun to supper with all the rest of us. Thank you, gub’nor, for seeing that, at least.

    /off soapbox

  2. May 28, 2009 at 2:26 pm

    In addition to the hat tip I should have given you and your Hoots entrepreneurs, I should also have left this completely unrelated but completely fabulous link for you, you penguin-loving woman.

  3. Shane
    May 28, 2009 at 3:00 pm

    Symbolic, but nice anyway.

  4. newscoma
    May 28, 2009 at 5:13 pm

    I thought so too. :)

  5. May 29, 2009 at 5:33 am

    Since, under the bill, establishment owners can choose whether to allow licensed carry in their own places, it appears that your “friends who own establishments in Hoots” only want to make sure other establishment owners don’t have that choice.

    Also, the Tennessee legislature has now decided that restaurant and bar owners can choose whether to allow patrons to legally carry guns but cannot choose whether to allow patrons to legally smoke cigarettes in their establishments.

  6. May 29, 2009 at 11:42 am

    “Well, howdy. Philbert showed some spine? Finally? Smack my butt and call me granny.”


    Amazing. Bredesen finally kissed our ass instead of the Republican’s for a change.
    Guns are prohibited in my business unless it’s mine, and that wouldn’t change no matter what law is passed. And I can and will enforce it.

    I fully support the 2nd Amendment, but stupid is stupid.
    Nobody should be carrying guns in crowded places like that. If a place is dangerous enough or in a bad enough neighborhood that someone feels they need to sit down and eat with a gun, WTF are they doing there in the first place?

    It’s a coward’s law and should die a slow and painful death.

  7. May 29, 2009 at 9:37 pm

    I’m of two…or maybe three…. minds on this. Any business can post a sign stating no guns allowed. Alcohol and guns don’t mix. Let’s face, people are their brightest when they have tippled. Then, I remember Luby’s in Killeen all too well.

    Responsible gun owners won’t typically carry a gun in a no gun zone, but then bad guys don’t give a flip about laws.


  8. newscoma
    May 30, 2009 at 2:51 am

    Most of the folks I know have permits. You are right in so many ways, and of course, this will most likely be overridden but I’ve been talking about how several of the bar (not necessarily restaurant) owners here weren’t happy with it.

    They didn’t feel like they had a voice in it.

    A lot of my complaint has been with they didn’t feel they had a voice and they were very concerned about liability.

    Kate, I can ask you this because you are cool about it, but why did we need this when laws are in place in the first place?

  9. May 30, 2009 at 12:06 pm

    News: I’m not Kate (obviously), but I was wondering if you could help me understand your question a little bit. As I understand it, under the current law, most property/business owners have the option of allowing or not allowing legal carry on their property/in their business. A simple posting by those folks can make carrying on their premises illegal. This bill extends that option to businesses that sell alcohol.

    Also, I had missed reading several of your latest entries due to a rather harried schedule. l’m very much saddened by your changed circumstances. Yours is one of those blogs I regularly check out (when I can check out any). I often don’t agree with your positions, but appreciate your ability to express them clearly and reasonably with a real desire to discuss rather than just bomb throw. Bomb throwing is easy. I know. I’ve done it.

  10. newscoma
    May 30, 2009 at 8:33 pm

    Thanks MichaelnotMike.
    Very well said, I think that all of us on every aisle need to have a conversation, not a bomb throwing.

    You are so right.

Comments are closed.