-
Staff Photo by Tim Barber Chip McKeldin, 30, owner of Deluxe Grill and Tap, leans on one of the tables in his Market Street establishment. Mr. McKeldin is concerned about who might be carrying a gun into his bar.
NASHVILLE — Gov. Phil Bredesen acknowledged Thursday he did little to deter lawmakers from overriding his veto of the “guns in bars” bill, saying that while he doesn’t like the measure, he didn’t want to put legislative allies on the spot because he has “bigger fish to fry” in getting the state budget passed.
“I guess the issue for me was it seems this would have taken a very difficult, all-out effort,” Gov. Bredesen told reporters after the Senate followed Wednesday’s 69-27 override in the House by voting 21-9 to override the May 28 veto.
Gov. Bredesen said such an effort “would have put a lot of my friends, I know, in a very difficult position. These issues with the budget and getting a good budget and getting a majority together to pass that budget ... I mean, they in my mind just dwarf everything else.”
When he voted House Bill 962 last week, surrounded by top law enforcement officials from across the state, the governor declared that “guns and alcohol do not mix.” But he also said lawmakers would “probably” override him.
His comments came after lawmakers said the governor, a Democrat, had done little to nothing to try to persuade House members or senators to sustain his veto. Most Republicans backed the override. So did many rural Democrats.
House Democratic Caucus Chairman Mike Turner of Nashville said he wasn’t sure the governor could have garnered the support to sustain the veto anyway.
“I think it (veto) was his way of making a statement,” Rep. Turner said.
Earlier in the day, Sen. Doug Jackson, D-Dickson, the bill’s sponsor, rallied supporters to override the measure, saying, “We believe law-abiding citizens should have the right to self-defense.”
The new law will take effect July 14. It allows the state’s estimated 222,800 handgun-carry permit holders to go armed in establishments that sell alcohol, provided they do not drink.
Businesses also can post signs banning guns that permit holders would have to obey. Critics question the enforceability of the restrictions.
Sen. Jackson spent 25 minutes defending the legislation and criticized news organizations for what he called unfair representations of the bill as “something sinister, something that would threaten the public safety.”
“Nothing could be further from the truth,” Sen. Jackson said. “We can’t find statistically significant evidence of a problem.”
Currently, 37 states have similar legislation.
Sen. Andy Berke, D-Chattanooga, was the only lawmaker on the floor to urge colleagues sustain Gov. Bredesen’s veto.
He said lawmakers “too often” hear only from people who feel “passionately” and “that is certainly the case with this legislation and a lot of legislation.”
“But what the governor did,” Sen. Berke continued, “I think, is not only did he use common sense in vetoing this bill, but he stood up for the middle, for the people who don’t always get excited.”
It was the General Assembly’s first override of a Bredesen veto in his six-and-a-half years as governor. Lawmakers’ last overrode then-Gov. Don Sundquist in 2001. Overrides, while rare, are easily done, requiring only a constitutional majority of the House and Senate, the same number it takes to pass the bill.
“I just think it’s an invitation to a disaster, and I wish they hadn’t done it,” Gov. Bredesen said Thursday of the bill, noting he had no regrets about the veto.
He said he remains undecided about another recently passed bill that allows permit holders to go armed in state and national parks and requires local governments to opt out local parks.
“I’ll have to say I don’t think it has the same severity in the sense, it’s not mixing alcohol with guns which is the really dangerous piece of it for me.”
Meanwhile, the Nashville Post reported that former Metro Nashville Councilman Adam Dread, an attorney, said he believes the legislation will not change or alter an existing law that grants local beer boards the power to regulate establishments selling beer.
Andy Sher is a Nashville-based staff writer covering Tennessee state government and politics for the Times Free Press. A Washington correspondent from 1999-2005 for the Times Free Press, Andy previously headed up state Capitol coverage for The Chattanooga Times, worked as a state Capitol reporter for The Nashville Banner and was a contributor to The Tennessee Journal, among other publications. Andy worked for 17 years at The Chattanooga Times covering police, health care, county government, ...
It seems to me that across most of the nation, gun control has become a losing proposition. This is in part due to failures of past gun control legislation to deliver results claimed by proponents. In other words, people are learning that the banning and restriction of gun rights not only does not reduce criminal misuse of guns, but that the restrictions come to bear only on those of us who abide the law.
Even in Illinois, home of the Joyce Foundation (probably the principle funding source for the anti-gun rights movement), gun control advocates cannot get traction. That says a lot.
And furthermore, it seems that the trend is a restoration of people's rights to lawful arms. Prohibitions on carrying protective arms are being repealed all across the nation. TN is a prime example ... the legislature this year has repealed the prohibition on carrying arms in establishments that serve alcohol, repealed prohibition on keeping loaded long guns in vehicles, repealed prohibition on carrying arms in parks, and, it seems ... repealed federal-type restrictions on guns made and owned inside the state.
College and university campuses are the next "gun free zones" that will be repealed.
"Currently, 37 states have similar legislation."
I think this says it all. My fellow Tennesseans are acting like this is something brazen and that we are the first state to allow permit holders to carry into restaurants where alcohol is served. Someone please prove me wrong and find stats where this has been a problem in the other states which allow it.
"College and university campuses are the next "gun free zones" that will be repealed."
Correct...we are working hard behind the scenes to get legislation enacted and keep it moving through the system.
For those of you who are interested, www.concealedcampus.com provides a wealth of information.
Sooner or later a Handgun Carry Permit holder will end a violent attack in one of these establishments, and then the sheep will wake up to realize that this legislation does make sense. People have the right to defend themselves and their family's from evil people. Carrying a gun is an awesome responsibility and HCP holders know this, we just choose to not be victims and have options if the unthinkable happens. Remember when mere seconds mean everything, the police are only a few minutes away. Police try to arrest the bad guys and clean up the mess... unfortunately very rarely to they stop an incident in progress.
People don't expect to get in a wreck when the leave the drive way in the morning, (or they would not go) but that does not stop the overwhelming majority of people from buckling their seat belts (just in case). Criminals commit violent acts at will and in random arbitrary manners, there are 2 choices stick your head in the sand think nothing bad will ever happen and or beg for mercy if the bad guy ever targets you for some reason. Or be prepared to take an active role in your and your family's defense of evil. Think nothing bad happens around you? Commit to watch the 6 and 11 news every day for 2 weeks straight and report back.
indian, just because someone has a permit does not mean they will refrain from breaking the law. How many licensed drivers get arrested for DUI or reckless driving? I don't think you can speak for the entire population of permit owners. Regardless of how many hours one spends shooting at a target range, it does not necessarily qualify someone to take the lives of everyone in the establishment into his/her own hands. What about the law abiding citizen who pulls out his firearm to help in a situation and is shot because he is believed to be assisting with the crime? What about the law abiding citizen who pulls out his firearm and the drunk/antagonist who causes it to discharge? There is a reason why we have law enforcement trained to deal with these situations.
Law enforcement are merely there to investigate. There is no way a police officer can protect me from someone trying to cause me bodily harm unless he happens to be in the right place at the right time. Even our chief of police Cooper said that they do not have enough officers in Chattanooga to protect everyone. I do not have a permit to protect the general population. I carry to insure that I have a better chance of protecting myself or my family. Typical Liberal BS..."what if" "what if" "what if". I have asked numerous times for statistics from the other 36 states who have laws allowing carry into establishments that serve alcohol and NO ONE can provide me with any stats showing that it has had any negative consequences. hcjn84, I'll be waiting...
huh, sooner or later a Handgun Carry Permit owner will end a violent attack. And sooner or later innocent people will be shot in the line of fire by a Handgun Carry Permit owner.
brandon, if by liberal bs you mean holes in the law, then yes, liberal bs it is. Why do you think police and establishment owners are questioning this?
Stats from the other 36 states please, hcjn84...
Check your facts hcjn84, look up how many HCP holders have committed ANY type of crime at all. One of the most law abiding citizen pools in the entire country.
Picture this a gunman, heavily armed, walks into the restaurant you are enjoying dinner with your family and just starts shooting the place up, everybody he sees. No demands, no hostages, just targets. Your lame hope that he runs out of bullets before he kills you and your family is foolish. Think it does not happen, watch the news. This exact scenario played out in Texas a few years back. If the recent mass shootings prove nothing else it is that anything can happen any time HCP holders are not a danger to society criminals are. If you want to wonder around thinking that you will never win the S. hitting the fan lottery and be a helpless victim if it does, that's your call, and that is just fine.
I don't carry a gun to be a cop, I don't even really have an interest in stepping into the fray in a bad situation. I love my family and if I ever need to defend them, or myself for them (so that I can come home instead of to a funeral home) I will do so. If you think a HCP holder is going to make a bad situation worse why don't you ask the parents of the students at VT, or the families of all of those slain in cold blood in Binghamton NY, or the victims of the recent shooting in Alabama or the families of the 23 that died at Luby's Cafeteria in Texas that day while a permit holder's gun sat in her car because of a similar regulation to the one we just changed left her unarmed. Some like you say that if Suzanna Hupp had had been able to have her gun with her that day she would have just made things worse, just how could she have made it worse? Was she gonna make the shooter angry? 23 people died that day and she would have made it worse....please, please.
If she would have been able to stop that SOB after his first few shots, people like you would be vilifying her for not trying to talk the shooter down, or not waiting for the police. Who knows maybe 20 or so lives could have been saved, including her parents but we will never know because she obeyed the law; George Hennard did not, and her family paid the ultimate price for that law. Make it worse.... how does it get worse than 23 dead.
Check this out and see for your self Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog: http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html might be a bit hard for you to swallow. Armed citizens defending themselves everyday.
I pray for your sake that if you are ever unfortunate enough to encounter that bad, dark day that a HCP holder is near by you and can save you. Although, if you like you can tell them that you would prefer to be shot before they stop the action.
"Although, if you like you can tell them that you would prefer to be shot before they stop the action".
By the bad guy of course. Just thought I'd close that loop before you tried to jump through it.
hcjn84 - you're a bit late to this discussion - why don't go back and read the hundreds of posts over the last week or so the media has been stirring this pot. If there's anything new you'd like to contribute go for it. otherwise as fans of the Big O are wont to say: We won - get over it.
quote by hcjn84: "huh, sooner or later a Handgun Carry Permit owner will end a violent attack. And sooner or later innocent people will be shot in the line of fire by a Handgun Carry Permit owner."
How about we compare the stats of that vs. people shot by criminals the numbers are so staggering your argument is barely worth mentioning. Statistically speaking it just does not happen, I can not remember an example right now and I'm a news junkie. If you know of so many please enlighten us.
I am highly disappointed in the Tennessee Legislature for overriding the Governor's veto of the Hand Gun into bars and other Ahlocol drinking places. This is tradegies awaiting to happen and it will, whether in Tennessee or other states with this crazy law. WAKE UP VOTERS, especially in my hometown of Chattanooga and Hamilton County, we have enough DUI's in this country as is, we don't need this period. I also want to commend our MAYOR, Mr.RON LITTLEFIELD, for his fine leadership and all the fine work and improvements and progress I have witnessed over the years. Although I am not a resident of our wonderful city and county, I make it a point and priority in my daily schedule in checking TimesFreePress Website and EMail, keeping in contact with friends and classmaTES ON THE happenings,both Politically,Business,and Community Service by tghose who's responsibility it is to see that Chattanooga and Hamilton County continues to progress. Other than the MAYOR, another GENTLEMAN, POLITICAL LEADER and the finest Hamilton County Court Clerk that Chattanooga ever produced, Mr. William F. Knowles. Not only one of the great office holders of my time and YOURS, but a devot CHRISTIAN of which I am proud.
In ending, may I congratulate our citicens for all the support given in making Chattanooga and Hamilton County one of the "FINEST CITIES AND COUNTIES IN AMERICA.
Keep Looking UP and Forward because you can see forever, looking down, you can only see concrete. GOOD DAY and LOVE TO ALL.
I'm not concerned with the other 36 states. I'm concerned with Tennessee's legislation and the ability for the law to be enforced. More guns in crowded areas does not make them safer, it adds to the law of probability that if more shots are being fired more people are at risk.
Police Chief Freeman Cooper did say this will be a problem for law enforcement and for citizens, which is my concern. (http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2009/jun/04/video-debating-guns--bars-bill/?localvideo-news). Police and their liberal agendas, I suppose.
This is provision number 3 of the new law: "The person is in an establishment that is open to the public, serves alcoholic beverages, wine or beer and is not an establishment that restricts admission to persons who are age 21 years or older by checking patrons' identifications."
So a classic "BAR" or Night club was and is off limits. So the medias constant referencing of this as the "Guns in Bars" bill was a gross misrepresentation of the facts. If you are worried about enforcement, there is really not much to enforce. The only violation is if a permit holder is drinking while carrying. I promise you that will not happen very much, we go through way too much trouble to have our permit to loose it over having a beer. If we are going to drink we will not carry. If someone does not have a permit and carries they are breaking the law to begin with now and before this law. Criminals do not care about the laws....this only effects those of us who do care about the laws. This only effects places such as Chili's and such. Not an actual BAR.
huh, I'm not worried about the responsible owner. I'm sure most permit owners are responsible, but like I said, a permit doesn't make someone responsible. I'm worried about the rowdy drunk at the sports bar (for ex. buffalo wild wings, 18 and up est., other all ages est.) or restaurant that causes a disturbance and ends up causing a gun to be discharged, or, several responsible owners trying to help in a situation at the same time. We aren't equipped with "good guy" radar, so once one shot goes off, who's to say who's the assailant and who's the victim? If three responsible owners decide on their own to go after an assailant from three different positions in a room, it quadruples the amount of shots being fired within the establishment. No doubt that in a perfect situation an assailant would be subdued immediately and with as little gun fire as possible, but it's not like there's going to be a "permit" only section in which methods of action will be discussed before dinner is served. Yes, massacres do happen. This law will not be a deterrent considering many assailants turn the gun on themselves.
indian, I support your right to protect yourself and your family and your right to bear arms. I have the right to free speech, but I don't go cussing up a blue streak at Toy's R Us because it's irresponsible. I wouldn't stand outside of a church when it lets out and blaspheme because it's irresponsible. Those actions affect the people surrounding me.
When you bring a gun into a crowded room, it's no longer about you. Your actions can have dire consequences to the people surrounding you. We aren't talking about your home, your car, or even for personal protection when hiking alone in a public park. We're talking about crowded areas. Unless you're constantly watching the door to see if a criminal walks in and starts firing, the likelihood of a single concerned citizen stopping a situation from escalating is very low.
And what about the 278 permit holders who had their permits revoked last year (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-tc-nw-briefs-0604-06055jun05,0,6328257.story)? They obviously weren't law abiding citizens.
If you feel so unsafe in your city that you have to bring a gun with you, maybe you're the one who should stay at home. I'll take my chances with the criminals. I don't frequent establishments where I feel unsafe. I do, however, feel unsafe in an establishment where anyone who has $115 and can pass a safety course can sit next to me with a gun. Maybe I should get a gun, despite my poor aim and arthritis, that way I can defend myself too. I have the right, $115 and am certain I can pass a safety course.
hcjn84 You should get a gun and a permit, there are plenty of options that your hands could handle. If you think armed citizens do no good please go here Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html. Happens every day armed citizens fending off vicious attacks by criminals who care not about any laws. As for the 278 permits revoked, you should do more research to see just how many of them were revoked for anything that has to do with a gun last I checked 2. Which also means that over 225,000 of them were not revoked or suspended. They can be suspended for most any violation of the law and the fact that number is so low should show you something. We know the laws, we obey the laws. Far more deaths come via car accidents than guns but I don't hear you or anyone else shouting from the Mountain tops to tighten restrictions on drivers licenses. Trust me making drivers prove, vision, reaction time and sheer competence would save infinitely more lives than any gun control law you could imagine.
Trust me, I've been the victim of someone who had no business on the road but he was......there are much bigger fish to fry in society than this right now.
Or login with:
New Account