-
Gov. Phil Bredesen signs a veto for a bill Thursday, May 28, 2009 in Nashville, Tenn., that would have allowed Tennessee handgun permit holders to take their weapons into establishments that serve alcohol. Behind Bredesen are law enforcement members from around the state. (AP Photo/Mark Humphrey)
At least three Hamilton County lawmakers say they plan to support an expected override attempt of Gov. Phil Bredesen’s veto of legislation allowing handgun-carry permit holders to bring loaded firearms into establishments selling alcohol.
“I would vote to overturn it,” Rep. Richard Floyd, R-Chattanooga, who supported House Bill 962, said Friday.
But Sen. Andy Berke, D-Chattanooga, and Rep. JoAnne Favors, D-Chattanooga, who voted against the measure, will not be backing the override either.
“I think the governor did the right thing by listening to the concerns of professionals in the law enforcement community and doing what we can to stop this bill from becoming law,” Sen. Berke said.
Sen. Berke said while he supports Second Amendment rights, “you just cannot say too many times that guns and alcohol do not mix.”
Flanked by some 50 police chiefs, prosecutors and other law enforcement officials, Gov. Bredesen, a Democrat, vetoed the legislation on Thursday, saying that while he normally backs Second Amendment rights, “this bill crosses the line of reason” and that “guns and alcohol don't mix.”
Gun-rights groups’ anger over Gov. Bredesen’s veto, just his sixth in 6 1/2 years as governor, continued unabated.
Tennessee Firearms Association Executive Director John Harris in an e-mail called on supporters to look at photos and videos of the veto event in order to “help us identify the police chiefs, officers, and district attorneys who stood with Bredesen on this.”
“We want to compile a list of their names, districts and supervisors,” Mr. Harris wrote, calling on supporters to post the information to the group’s online forum.
In a sharply worded response, Bredesen spokeswoman Lydia Lenker said “reasonable people can disagree” on the veto “but to launch a grass-roots effort designed to intimidate and retaliate against law enforcement clearly crosses the line of what’s appropriate.”
Meanwhile, the executive director of the National Rifle ’s Institute for Legislative Action, Chris Cox, in a statement accused Gov. Bredesen of having “betrayed” a “trust,” saying the governor during his 2006 reelection “had committed to supporting this legislation.”
Ms. Lenker provided a copy of the governor’s responses to the NRA’s 2006 survey. Asked if he would support legislation allowing “concealed handgun permit holders to carry firearms into restaurants that serve alcohol,” the governor checked a box that said, “Yes, I would support such legislation.”
But beside the question, the governor also inserted this: “I would support any such measures as long as they contained provisions to adequately protect the safety of the public.”
On another portion of the survey, Gov. Bredesen checked a box saying he would also support repealing a law that keeps otherwise qualified citizens, who had voluntarily sought residential mental health treatment, from obtaining a handgun.
In his veto, the governor said the legislation dubbed by critics as the “guns in bars” bill removes a long-standing prohibition against loaded guns in establishments selling alcohol in a manner he and “many law enforcement officers believe to be reckless and lacking basic safeguards to ensure public safety.”
The original House bill had banned guns in establishments after 11 p.m. and also banned them from age-restricted venues in an effort to keep them out of bars and nightclubs. The provisions later were dropped.
Chattanooga Police Chief Freeman Cooper, who attended Thursday’s veto event, did not respond to an e-mail request for an interview about Mr. Harris’ e-mail. He said Thursday he fully supported Gov. Bredesen’s veto.
Rep. Favors commended the governor for his veto.
“I certainly concur with the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms,” she said. “However, we also have a right to pursue happiness so you can’t just take one section of the Constitution out and craft 85 bills around that one section, and that is what I feel has been done.”
Rep. Vince Dean, R-East Ridge, a retired Chattanooga police officer, said he plans to back a veto override “unless I get calls and e-mails convincing me otherwise. I’m doing what my constituents tell me.”
Sen. Bo Watson, R-Hixson, said, “I supported the legislation for the past two sessions. I suspect I would support (the override).”
Rep. Jim Cobb, R-Spring City, said, “I can’t say just because I voted for the bill I would override the veto. He (Bredesen) asked us to reconsider, and I will.”
During the House’s May 7 debate, Rep. Cobb said he had not supported the measure in the past but noted, “I’ve also heard an overwhelming response from my constituents and therefore I will be placing my opinion second to the will of my constituents and I will be supporting this legislation.”
Overriding a veto in the 99-member House and 33 member Senate takes only a simple majority.
Cliff has worked for the Times Free Press for five years and covers Chattanooga city government. He previously covered Rhea County, as well as transportation and growth and development in Southeast Tennessee. A native of Maryville, Tenn., Cliff graduated in 2003 from the University of Tennessee with a bachelor’s degree in communications with an emphasis on journalism. Before coming to Chattanooga, he was a crime reporter with Hernando Today, a supplement of The Tampa (Fla.) ...
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, ...
Obviously the emails, calls and pressure on these lawmakers will be great from the minority holders. The pressure from the majority non-permit holders won't be so great now because they haven't been involved in this process much. However, if the bill is overridden the majority will begin to realize that these lawmakers voted to mix alcohol and guns with their families while dining out.
How is it mixing alcohol and guns? It is illegal to consume alcohol while carrying already and I doubt many permit holders would risk losing their right to carry. I shop at the grocery store all the time while carrying and where alcohol is sold with no ill consequences. If I was allowed to carry into a restaurant where alcohol is served, I would not be drinking, not only because it is illegal, but because it is stupid. Criminals will continue to carry and drink where it is outlawed, simply because they do not care. This veto only exemplifies the fact that Bredesen does not trust the safest majority of law abiding citizens of TN. Also remember that close to 40 states already allow carry into establishments where alcohol is served with no ill effects.
Whooooo...now the illegal carriers' are gonna be scared and stop taking theirs into the bars...thanks for keeping me safe, Phil!
EaTn - since you seem to be everywhere, riddle me this. If you can show me where this has been a problem in the 30+ states that have this legislation, I'll shut up and maybe even switch sides. And I mean real, provable incidents not what somebody thinks might happen, something that shows an increase or trend upward. One occurrence out of 1 million restaurant visits does not constitute a problem. Go for it.
Sailorman- somebody has to be a voice for the silent majority, so today I guess it's me. The silent majority usually voice their opinion at the polls so I guess time will tell whether the lawmakers made decisions for all the people.
Read and heed
http://www.wcpo.com/news/local/story/...
"Based on data from the SEALE study, an analysis by TDI, and our own painstaking research, we are able to say definitively that most "active killer" shootings have occurred in so-called "gun free" zones. The experts who say they may be "invitations" are also John Benner and Ron Borsch who have six decades of law enforcement experience and training between them.
The Luby's Cafeteria shooting in Killeen, TX in 1991 took place before Texas adopted its Florida-style CCW law. In fact, that mass murder of 23 people was used as an example by those seeking to enact the CCW legislation.
It is accurate to say firearms were banned in Luby's at that time because there was no uniform concealed carry law in place in 1991. In fact, several victims and survivors had legally owned handguns in their cars at the time of the shooting.
While that shooting was not addressed in our story, it and others over the last 40 years were analyzed in our investigation.
As journalists, we are not interested in entering into the heated debate over gun control. We are, however, interested in reporting the facts. In this story, the facts point to the active shooters ignoring gun prohibitions and perhaps selecting those locations because they are "soft targets" where no resistance would be found."
OK so you're the voice - when will "the voice" answer my question?
i love it-- just because 30 other states have adopted this bill and allow guns in parks-Tennessee should too.I presonally do not like guns- I was robbed and shot 25 years ago- and I have no desire to be around a gun ever, Tennessee is really changing- Thought this was the great place to live- safe and all-- maybe I need to rethink that. How do you think the publis is going to feel knowing that people will be in the parks and dining places with guns-- i am sure a little uneasy-- Yes I know criminals carry guns -- but hell they carry guns everywhere-- Lets not add to the situation-- Please
My congratulations to Messrs Hightower, Sher, and Wilson for FINALLY referring to this bill for what it is -- to allow "firearms into establishments selling alcohol" instead of "bars".
Thank you, gentlemen. Accuracy in reporting has always been my demand of any news media...once again, the TFP has gotten the word.
Red Lobster, O'Charlies, The Bonefish, and so forth are NOT "bars". They are restaurants that sell alcohol as a minor sideline and not as their main purpose.
On the other hand, the Fox and Hounds IS a bar...food is a sideline and patrons must be 21 years of age to enter.
Eatn, just once I would like you to make a statement based on fact and research and not the narrowminded, brainwash liberal jibberish some other brain dead demacommie told you.
brandon83, you are wasting your time in using logic against the anti-gunners here. In general, they do not recognize logic; they don't even see it. To them, all who even own a gun are slathering fools who twirl their six-shooters like some TV idiot idol. Further, they think those who DO own one and think to carry it outside are even worse because they want to line up the little kiddies and pick them off as shooting gallery tin ducks, laughing all the while.
enufisenuf & Sailorman-- you want facts? Fact is that all these issues are based on emotions. You have emotions that guns should be carried at whim; I have the emotions that guns have their limitations in public places just like any other deadly item. The second amendment gives the right to bear arms- but what is the definition of arms? Does that mean I have the right to carry a live grenade? If I want to interpret for my whim it does. Would you feel comfortable dining with your family next to someone with a live grenade? So facts in these discussions are always questionable.
EaTn says, "You have emotions that guns should be carried at whim.."
You could not be more wrong, much training and forethought are involved for most people I know.
Live grenade=explosive device. Not covered under the right to bear arms. Nothing like a gun.
EaTn - you crack me up - still didn't answer the question. Would love to stay and chat but I'm off to gun show at Camp Jordan - care to join me?
Also I would like your take on the study I posted the link to.
Sailorman- all I got was a link to WCPO in Cincinnati but an error for the particular page. It may have been moved.
As for the gun show- enjoy- I do. Bought a couple myself at shows.
If you feel the need to take a gun to restaurant or bar, maybe you have bigger problems than a permit.
http://www.wcpo.com/news/local/story/When-Seconds-Count-Stopping-Active-Killers/_yls0jTxAkK8QJR1NKbePA.cspx
Sorry about the link try this one
Eatn, sorrt to try and have a battle of wits with and you were unarmed, as usual. I dont donfuse fact with emotion, two VERY DIFFERENT TOPICS. You with a firearm is the risk the lawmakers are trying to prevent, not me or the others who disagree with your fluid dribble, it dosent even qualify as an arguement.
Sailorman- read the link and it does make some eye-opening points(filed it in favorites for future reference). We all agree that the police can't be everywhere, but I guess a major point of question is does a few hours class and target shooting qualify a person to be a pseudo-lawman? Does he/she provide more of a benefit than a danger to others in a crisis? Should more advanced training be required of those who wish to carry in more restricted places? These are issues beyond the basic right to bear arms.
I have to admit that there are those who probably don't take the responsibility as seriously as they should in terms of ongoing training. I can only rely on experience to date which indicates the "pseudo-lawman" doesn't exist. Yes I recognize there are always exceptions but so far they have been very rare. I wouldn't expect allowing those same law-abiding people in the Olive Garden is going to change that.
And EaTn thank you for the cordial response. It's nice to have civil discourse :)
On the pseudo-lawman topic, EaTn, it takes very few miles of driving on our freeways until one can spot those same kinds of "lawman" wannabes holding up traffic...and causing unintended deaths of frustrated people.
There are a lot more of those than permit holders.
I guess all those years in the military that I spent with weapons doesn't make me qualified either. Think EaTN is a gun hater so good luck with that. Oh, and I have never acted as a lawman. I guarantee you that noone has ever known I was carrying a weapon, ever. I have never pulled anyone over, wrote someone a ticket, arrested anyone, stopped a fight, etc. I have only had my permit for over 10 years so wondering when I am supposedly going to act as a "lawman". Oh, and impersonating a police officer is a felony so a permit holder would only have the opportunity to do that once.
Rolando - usually I'm tracking right with you but this time you lost me. Who are the pseudo-lawmen you're talking about? The speedtrap guys?
Or login with:
New Account