Guns In Bars Found Unconstitutional For Vagueness

18 Responses to “Guns In Bars Found Unconstitutional For Vagueness”

1. Henry Walker writes
   November 20th, 2009 1:20 pm

   ACK. I hope you can post the full opinion quickly. Chancellor Bonnyman is is a very smart, very conscientious, and well respected judge. I know I may be spitting in the wind but it would be refreshing if people could read her opinion before making all the inevitable comments about her politics and her reasoning, based on nothing but these few sentences.

2. Moderate Democrat writes
   November 20th, 2009 1:42 pm

   It doesn’t matter anyway. In fact, this will be good for the legislators who voted for it. They were not voting for this bill because they are so interested in the rights of gun owners. They were more interested in showing everyone that they were for those macho guys with guns, fighting against them wimpy ass city Democrats who want to take their guns away.

   Now they won’t have to be on the defensive when the inevitable barroom shootouts occur but the NRA still loves them.

3. Clayton Farlow writes
   November 20th, 2009 1:57 pm

   So, a law can be declared unconstitutional simply because Claudia Bonnyman is too stupid to know the difference between a bar and a restaurant? God help us all…

4. Tom Wood writes
   November 20th, 2009 2:36 pm

   Henry, I’d like for us to post the opinion as well. I just checked, though, and found that she issued this one extemporaneously from the bench. Folks involved with the case think a transcript will be available next week, and I’m hoping to get a copy and post it. In my experience, though, it usually takes a lot longer than a week to get the transcript from the court reporter.

5. Morris Berg writes
   November 20th, 2009 3:13 pm

   “So, a law can be declared unconstitutional simply because Claudia Bonnyman is too stupid to know the difference between a bar and a restaurant?”

   No Clayton, this is actually for the not-so-bright like yourself (”patrons”) who should have the right to clearly know whether what they are doing is a crime or not before they walk into an establishment armed. It is quite simple actually, unlike the legal distinction between a restaurant and a bar which is unnecessarily archaic and about which clearly you have no clue.

   If any reasonable law abiding citizen faces legitimate uncertainty [not pleading ignorance of the law generally, etc.] as to whether their behavior is or is not legal under the law then it is not a good law and is in fact not constitutional. You don’t have to be a lawyer to understand that. Change the law to make it clear and we can proceed with our inevitable shootout as planned.

6. The Second Chance Sheepdog writes
   November 20th, 2009 3:13 pm

   Clayton,

   You hit it on the head. Exactly, how much common sense does it take to tell a restaurant from a bar ?? If she can’t figure that out, why is she even on the bench ?? C’mon, man.

7. BluePyramid writes
   November 20th, 2009 3:36 pm

   Anyone who thinks vagueness = unconstitutionality needs to read more about law. Maybe vagueness = bad law, but that is a policy determination, not a constitutional one. We have a lot of vague laws but that doesn’t mean they are all unconstitutional.

8. Judicious1 writes
   November 20th, 2009 3:57 pm

   A criminal statute cannot be vague or it is unconstitutional. If you cannot clearly determine what you are doing is a crime based on the plain language of the statute, then it is unconstitutional. Simple as that. I love slow witted people, if they don’t know how something works, they blame the judge or the messenger, not the actual thing that is wrong.

9. Henry Walker writes
   November 20th, 2009 4:05 pm

   Thanks, Tom. I’m sure an opinion will follow eventually. On an issue of this much interest, it seems odd that she didn’t take the matter under advisement until she was ready to issue a written order. Perhaps the lawyers can explain if there was a reason for announcing the decision quickly and whether (and when) she intends to enjoin enforcement of the statute.

10. Albert writes
    November 20th, 2009 5:14 pm

    Say, Clayton, what is the difference between a bar and a restaurant? Not to be unfair, but use the Tennessee law definitions, not your own, in puzzling this one out.

11. Jackie writes
    November 20th, 2009 6:15 pm

    THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A “BAR” IN TENNESSEE!!!!!!!! I cannot believe the dumb judge doesnt know this…every “bar” in TN has to be a restaurant to get a liquor license - this is a glitch in our system but one the liquor lobby for some reason does not want to change…so unless you are a resort or a hotel -every other place that one goes into to eat or drink is a RESTAURANT! (even tootsies is supposed to serve food and have that food sale be a certain percentage of their total profit - its just that if they dont abide they have not been penalized from it)

    I hope someone can tell this to Bonnyman since she just ensured we spend more TIME ON GUNS NEXT YEAR - man and to think we could have tackled other issues, now she just pissed off people like Mae Beavers and Doug Jackson and they are gonna bring even stricter bills that are not “vague” next year

    plain and simple - post a sign and no guns allowed…man that is sure vague

12. frankj writes
    November 20th, 2009 9:18 pm

    That is a great legislative move by the well respected Chancellor Bonnyman. But, tragically, this is too late for the hundreds, if not thousands, of Tennesseans who died from random bar shootings in the months since this was put into law.

13. Bulletbillsr writes
    November 21st, 2009 12:53 pm

    This is pure and simple dog in the manager tactics by a small group of restauranteers who have most likely already posted their property with “NO GUNS” signs.

    It’s been 4 months since the law became effective and I haven’t seen a single article in the paper or TV about a carry permit holder being arrested for misuse of his/her sidearm in an establishment serving alcohol. Permit holders are supposed to know the law as it pertains to carrying their sidearms and, I believe, there is an old saw about “ignorance of the law is no excuse.”

    This is not only dog in the manager tactics on the part of those who don’t like guns, it is judicial activism on the part of the judge. If you read the law it is pretty clear that the establishment must have a kitchen, staff and serve at least one meal a day under the law. The general public doesn’t need to know this, but carry permit holders do.

    Further, I don’t know of any permit holders in the many classes I have taught, who would go into a place that serves only alcohol and offers pickled eggs and slim jims for your dining experience.

    I don’t know Judge Bonnyman but it does seem to me she’s barking up the wrong tree on this one and I hope the state will appeal her decision quickly.

14. TNVolunteer73 writes
    November 21st, 2009 3:35 pm

    FrankJ????

    Intersting, How many shootings have occured by the hand of CCL permit holders.

    OH WAIT NONE…

    How many Crimes nationwide were stopped in progress by armed citizens 2,500,000….

    Stopped by police <10000.

    If you should be attacked one night. You Neigbor is 25,000 times more likely to come rescue your but, than an armed police officer.

15. dontcallmemikey writes
    November 21st, 2009 3:48 pm

    I think it is fascinating how little respect TNVol73 has for law enforcement.

16. TNVolunteer73 writes
    November 21st, 2009 3:56 pm

    DontCallmemikey

    I have great respect for Law enforcment.

    I have Greater Respect for the Truth.

    which apparently you would rather untruthful.

    It is not disrespect of Law enforcement, it is reality that police cannot be everywhere.

    Mikey, that post shows you are not ignorant (just lacking knowledge) but you lack the ablity to think.

17. Carter writes
    November 21st, 2009 4:22 pm

    Once again, this thread is stupid…read Jackie’s comment….the ruling was stupid not because of anything dealing with guns, permits, etc…it was dumb because the stupid judge did not know that there was no such thing as a “bar” in tennessee…

18. CoverBothSides writes
    November 23rd, 2009 10:45 am

    Henry Walker, consider this one of those inevitable comments…the judge probably had this case decided before she ever heard it. This is an issue that falls squarely on party lines. A conservative judge would have found no reason to overturn it. But, now I imagine it will be appealed (I don’t know, can that be done?) and the fight will go on.

    As a handgun carry permit holder (note: in TN you do not have to conceal, so it is not a CCL), I think this is ridiculous. For the process you have to go through to get the permit in the first place - classes, background checks, fingerprints, standing in line, paperwork, etc. I seriously doubt those folks are the real threat. The stupid and criminally stupid who carry guns illegally will continue to do so. Yes, it is stupid of them, but those people were too stupid to follow the rules in the first place.

    I give FrankJ the nod for comment of the week on this post.