Bredesen Playing Politics with Gun Bill

Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen (D) claims he is waiting to make his decision as to whether to veto the revised bill that allows for handgun permit holders to carry in restaurants that serve alcohol (known to the media and other scared wittle bunny wabbits as the "guns in bars" bill). Folks, this is an absolute lie. Bredesen is waiting because the longer he waits, the more likely it will be that the legislature will not have time to override his veto.

It seems to me that an unbiased media that was doing its job would figure this out and say something about it.

Infuriating

Infuriating - that is what it is when a judge overrules the will of the People. Needless to say, I was infuriated to learn the a judge has ruled that the Tennessee guns in restaurants law is unconstitutional. Why am I not surprised to learn that the judge appears to have been a big contributor to the Democratic National Committee and is an appointee of Phil Bredesen?

Electing a Governor by Process of Elimination

Lovers of liberty in Tennessee can go ahead and eliminate Bill Gibbons from the governor's race. Apparently, Mr. Gibbons does not trust all you rednecks with your pistolas. AC Kleinheider asks whether you can win the GOP primary while talking smack against "guns in bars." If Mr. Gibbons doesn't trust me, why should I trust him? I've been allowed to carry a gun into McDonald's for many years, why shouldn't I be able to go into an Applebees? Because the demon alcohol might get "the better of [me]"? Mr. Gibbons, that is foolish talk and is no different from any other argument for gun control. How many times have we heard, as an argument against shall-issue permits, that having a gun "might get the better" of someone and they would therefore lose control and kill someone in a fit of rage? This is more of the same old tired rhetoric, repackaged to add the alcohol argument.

I haven't decided who I will vote for, but these guys are making it easier to decide the ones who do not have a chance.

Guns are Good

Phil Valentine weighs in on the carnage that Tennesseans have suffered at the hands of handgun permit holders after the passage of the restaurant carry bill. Money quote:

We really ought to make some of those [signs] up for the banks. I bet if we put some "No Firearms," or better yet, "No Bank Robbers" signs on the door, those criminals would just go back to their cars and go home.

I would submit to you that restaurants that post these silly signs are in more danger of getting robbed or seeing some kind of violence. Let's use some common sense for just a moment. If you posted a "No Firearms" sign in your front yard, do you think you'd be more likely or less likely to be robbed?

Tennessean Commentary Says Most Restaurants Prefer Keeping Guns Out

Well, if that is the case, why have so few of them posted their facilities? One would think that if, as Gail Kerr asserts, "It's clear in Nashville that far more restaurant and bar owners want to keep guns out than let them in" there would be a few more of them posting their facilities. So far, I have yet to see a list of postings in Nashville that reach into the double digits. I know the economy is bad, but does Nashville currently have fewer than 20 restaurants and bars?

Ms. Kerr would have all facilities "opt in" if they wanted to allow people to carry their handguns on their property and allow governments to opt in as to whether they would allow permit holders to carry guns in public parks. I wonder if she would be so quick to suggest that we let local governments "opt in" as to whether to permit free speech in their locality. (h/t Kleinheider).

Please Don't Post

The Tennessee Firearms Association has a card available to be left at establishments to let them know that you will not support businesses who oppose your rights. You can find the card here. According to TFA,

The purpose of the card is to provide a polite and non-confrontational means of communicating to businesses, including restaurants, that permit holder are or have been patrons and that we are requesting that they do not elect to post their properties against handgun permit holders. In the context of a merchant, for example, the cards can be left with the payment, left with a tip, handed to a host and/or the manager. It is not necessary to verbally debate the issue.

Where are all of the signs?

Here it is, July 15, and handgun permit holders can legally carry into restaurants that serve alcohol. While I have heard about a few signs in Nashville that prohibits the carrying of a handgun in the establishment, I have yet to see a single sign in this area. Bredesen and the anti-gun litigants would want us to think that there is a great public outrage against the passing of this bill, but so far I only hear crickets.

I've never drank a place before

But apparently some of the anti-guns-in-restaurants-nuts have.

Grasping at Straws

The anti-gun "coalition" has filed its lawsuit in opposition to Tennessee's recent legislation which permits handgun carry permit holders to carry their weapon into restaurants and bars which serve alcohol, provided that they are not drinking when doing so. This group wants the law overturned. I have a few thoughts on their lawsuit.

Anyone who would equate legitimate self-defense with vigilantism has a more than a few screws loose. The complaint (H/T Kleinheider) from the "coalition" fighting the "guns in bars" law cites to the law of the land of fruits and nuts (i.e., California) to make its point:

The Tennessee guns in bar [sic] law encourages breaches of the peace and unlawful vigilantism. The statute was actually intended by lawmakers to justify vigilante use of deadly force. This subjects Petitioners, employees, patrons and members of the public to the clear and present danger of vigilante shootings in contravention to law and the rights guaranteed by the U.S. and Tennessee Constitutions. “[When private citizens are encouraged to act as “police agents,” official lawlessness thrives and the liberties of all are put in jeopardy. Surely we should not now repeat the mistakes of a discredited era of our frontier past.” People v. Superior Court (Meyers) 25 Cal.3d 67, 88, 598 P.2d 877 (Cal., 1979).

You can't make this stuff up. This law does not encourage anything. If anything, it discourages breaches of the peace because now those who would be inclined to breach the peace may want to think twice about it because of the possibility that the victim of their unlawful aggression might be armed and able to fully defend himself.

The text accompanying the final footnote references a clause from the Constitution of South Africa (!!) which they apparently believe supports their position. It states that “everyone has the right to be free from all forms of violence, from either private, or public sources.” So, why not let me be free from the violence that could be inflicted on me, my family or others by allowing me to protect myself? After all, that's my right according to South Africa's Constitution!