Skip to main content
Thursday, November 12, 2026Nov 12

Let ‘guns-in-bars’ veto stand

Gov. Phil Bredesen justifiably vetoed legislation on Tuesday that would allow more than a quarter of a million handgun-carry permit holders in Tennessee to go armed in restaurants, bars, museums and other establishments that hold licenses to sell alcohol for on-premises consumption. If the action sounds familiar, it is. The governor vetoed similar legislation last year, but legislators quickly and irresponsibly overrode the veto.

The 2009 law, though, was tossed out by a judge, who called it unconstitutionally vague because it allowed guns in establishments meeting certain food service requirements that permit holders could not reasonably be expected to determine. That setback didn’t deter lawmakers. They passed another bill this year that they say clearly defines the issue.

The new legislation would let permit holders go armed in any establishment that sells alcohol for on-premises consumption provided they do not drink and the establishment does not post signs banning guns. The action found ready acceptance. The Senate approved the updated gun bill on a 23-9 vote. The House approved it 66-31.

Those numbers suggest that Gov. Bredesen’s veto is more a statement of principle than political act. Tennessee requires only a simple majority to re-pass vetoed legislation. Given the majorities with which the bill passed in the legislature, it seems almost certain that sponsors will muster the 17 votes in Senate and the 50 votes in the House required for an override. The gun bill sponsors — and their National Rifle Association backers — are confident they can do so.

That’s likely true, but that does not make the “guns-in-bars” good legislation. It merely means that the gun lobby succeeded in its single-minded effort to recklessly expand the parameters of gun carry permits in Tennessee and elsewhere. Legislators who extoll the bill say it merely gives “Tennesseans the same rights under the Second Amendment that have been given to millions of citizens across the country.” No so. Mr. Bredesen’s veto message was far more truthful and to the point.