I was not surprised to hear of the ruling from a female judge in
Nashville who said the recently passed bill to allow guns in bars was
unconstitutional. This judge is not only wrong but apparently also uneducated in the U.S. Constitution she swore to uphold. The 2nd Amendment says directly that "the right of the people to
keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The only restraint
indicated in the Constitution is when a person is held for a crime
under the 5th Amendment.

This judge shows her liberal bias moreover by ignoring the fact that those who are allowed under this bill to carry weapons in bars have gone through background checks. We certainly have an element within the judicial community within this state and country that are imbued with a certain degree of judicial imprudence.

Mark Albertini

* * *

Mr. Albertini,

You do realize she is referring to the Tennessee State
Constitution?

Jeffrey Martin

* * *

I wish the police department or news media would tell the people how many of the shootings that seem to happen every day are commited by the good guys with carry permits. I think the reason they don't tell the public is because the answer would be zero, and the ones against gun permits would loose a lot of public support.

Ken Bowman

* * *

Mr. Albertini,

Your post shows how little you know about jurisprudence and politics.
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not at all relevant
to this case. Only certain parts of the Federal Bill of Rights apply
to the state governments, and the second amendment is not one of these
parts. The notion of “incorporating” parts of the Federal Constitution to the States is a highly contentious issue, and Federal law ought not to be invoked where state law will do.

In 1938, Justice James Clark McReynolds, writing for the U.S. Supreme Court, specifically declined to apply the Second Amendment to the several states--a dictum that has been upheld in subsequent cases as recently as 2005.

The chancellor in this case was not considering the Second Amendment,
but Article I, section 26 of the Tennessee Constitution. In its
entirety, this section reads: "the citizens of this state have a right
to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature
shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view
to prevent crime."

Additionally, this particular law was struck down not out of some sort of bias, but because the law was just too
vague--too many restaurant owners across the state were simply unsure
of how this particular statute applied to them. The ball is now in
the legislature's court, which must decide if they wish to leave that
statute as a dead-letter or rewrite it to clear up the ambiguities.

Next, time try to remember that a judge who rules against something
you favor is not necessarily biased; even if that jurist is--gasp--a
woman.

Regards,

Lucas S. McNeeley
UTC Graduate Student in Public Administration and
responsible firearms enthusiast

* * *

From the Tennessee Constitution, Article I, Declaration of Rights:
Section 26. That the citizens of this state have a right to keep and
to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent
crime.

So it might, in fact, be that Davidson County Chancellor Claudia
Bonnyman just might need to brush up on our Tennessee Constitution.

The Tennessee legislature has determined that under certain, specific circumstances a weapon owner who is properly licensed, and has passed the required background checks, may carry a sidearm into a restaurant where alcohol is being served so long as he consumes non himself.

An additional requirement of the statute is the property owner, the owner of the restaurant or other establishment, must allow packing a weapon on his premises. Any property owner who wishes may restrict possession of a weapon on
his premises.

It would seem this places the decision of weapon possession where it
belongs, the property owner.

What Sunset Grill owner Randy Rayburn of Nashville wishes to do is
force other restaurateurs to follow his wishes and demands rather than
what is their right, to determine what legal activities may or may
not be performed on their property.

It's kind of like smoking. Smoking is a legal activity. If I wish to
allow smoking on my property and someone doesn't like it the choice is
easy. Don't patronize my establishment.

What's next? Restrictions on eating beans? Or will the government
require we carry corks.

Surely there must be a better way to waste taxpayer dollars.

Royce E. Burrage, Jr.
Royce@Officially Chapped.org