Restaurant owner to file lawsuit against 'Guns in Bars'

[Moderator]

http://www.wkrn.com/global/story.asp?s=10622129

Restaurant owner to file lawsuit against 'Guns in Bars'
Posted: Jun 30, 2009 7:22 PM EDT
Updated: Jun 30, 2009 11:57 PM EDT​

Randy Rayburn, lead plaintiff in lawsuit NASHVILLE, Tenn. - A group of Nashville restaurateurs are hoping a judge can put a hold on the so-called "Guns in Bars" bill that goes into effect July 14.

Randy Rayburn, owner of three Nashville restaurants-- Sunset Grill, Midtown Cafe and Cabana, has been a very outspoken opponent of the bill and has posted signs outside the restaurants telling customers weapons are not allowed.

Rayburn is also the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit that will be filed Wednesday morning.

With the lawsuit, he hopes to get a temporary injunction to stop the legislation from going into effect, saying it's "just not good public policy."

"The proponents of this claim that it has no potential problem, and I'm not concerned about the 99% of gun permit holders," Rayburn said. "I'm concerned about the 2% who aren't always as legal and responsible as they should be."

Tuesday, restaurateurs and business owners met behind closed doors for a board meeting of the Tennessee Hospitality Association.

They were briefed on the lawsuit and the potential of getting an injunction.

Rayburn said, "Under the Nuisance Laws, historically throughout Tennessee in court cases for decades, they've ruled that guns and alcohol are an inherent public safety problem and safety issue, and the Courts have upheld the cities' rights to be able to enforce public safety."

The group filing the lawsuit says while it will like to see the legislation overturned, it will settle for an opt-out clause similar to the "Guns in Parks" bill.

"We think cities and counties should have the right to be able to do that just as they've done in parks."

Some lawmakers say the group's lawsuit is unnecessary considering the bill allows bars and restaurants to post signs banning guns in their establishment.

Both the "Guns in Bars" and "Guns in Parks" laws are not only getting national attention, but worldwide attention.

The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), based out of Great Britain, was in Tennessee producing a story about the gun legislation in our state.

 

[MasterShinken]

I'm concerned about the 2% who aren't always as legal and responsible as they should be.

Sooooo... If they arn't always as legal as they should be... what makes you think they'd follow a law allowing them not to carry in a bar?

 

[Admin]

Sooooo... If they arn't always as legal as they should be... what makes you think they'd follow a law allowing them not to carry in a bar?

That's a concept liberals just can't grasp and never will.

 

[Gadsden]

That's a concept liberals just can't grasp and never will.

Nope, but hitting him in the pocket book is probably something that he would grasp. Hopefully all the CCW supporters there will organize a boycott.

 

[salesman]

"The proponents of this claim that it has no potential problem, and I'm not concerned about the 99% of gun permit holders," Rayburn said. "I'm concerned about the 2% who aren't always as legal and responsible as they should be."


Liberal math....they do that when they count votes, too.

 

[Kicker96FS]

"The proponents of this claim that it has no potential problem, and I'm not concerned about the 99% of gun permit holders," Rayburn said. "I'm concerned about the 2% who aren't always as legal and responsible as they should be."


Liberal math....they do that when they count votes, too.

Count? 99 and 2 is a little more than 100%. I say he can't count! OH! yeah, liberal math! Kinda like the global warming math!

 

[EZEKIEL 25:17]

Love the liberal math.

Also, instead of filing suit, these owners could make the conscious decision to ban guns from being carried into their private establishments, but of course they would never want to have to man up an put that position out there as it would probably crush their business.

Don't need a law, they are free to make a choice.

 

[Mike-Mike]

99+2 = 101

 

[seanc]

I am not understanding this. Is the law written in such a way that the business/ property owner has no say over firearms being allowed/ not allowed in their place of business?

 

[pdm]

57 states!

 

[BBQ.Uncle]

What a tool. I hope concerned gun owners picket outside his friggin establishment 24/7.

 

[drew]

I wonder if he carries or uses a firearm to protect himself or his establishment???

 

[drgrant]

I don't see what the problem with the law is. If they really don't want guns in their bar they can buy a f*cking metal detector and pay for a bouncer, like any of us would have to do if we wanted to do the same thing. Of course, they would never do this, because they would look like morons for doing it. I'm all for private property rights, but binding signage and that kind of thing is pure and utter crap. A property owner should not get the force of law to
apply special persecution to gun owners. That concept is bullshit.

-Mike

 

[maee]

That's a concept liberals just can't grasp and never will.

I don't understand, are you trying to say that if they pass a law making it illegal to carry a concealed weapon into a restaurant, that criminals (or just regular people) will still do so? How is this possible? I mean, how am I to overcome the power and force of law and actually transport a concealed weapon into a place that is off-limits??

 

[terraformer]

The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), based out of Great Britain, was in Tennessee producing a story about the gun legislation in our state.

And we should all care what they think...

 

[KMaurer]

Sooooo... If they arn't always as legal as they should be... what makes you think they'd follow a law allowing them not to carry in a bar?

There you go again, trying to bring rational thought into the discussion. Why won't you people stop trying to interfere with people's feelings and insist that they actually think? What are you, some kind of extremist?

Ken

 

[Bill Nance]

In defense of the bar owner, I understand his concern. It's not about the permit-holders, it's about what happens when otherwise rational law-abiding people have a few too many.

He's within his rights to not allow guns in his establishment. It's his private property and his fears are not entirely baseless. But using the law as a club is another matter entirely.

Someone needs to sit him down and explain that state coercion which interferes with anyone's rights is wrong. It would be wrong if he was forced to allow people to carry in his private establishment and equally as wrong for him to demand the state prevent it.

 

[MountainBear]

What a tool. I hope concerned gun owners picket outside his friggin establishment 24/7.

I'm not sure they would understand that. Better make it 25/8.

 

[namedpipes]

oy

 

[Zappa]

What a douchenozzle. More people are killed by drunk drivers and other alcohol related problems each year than by gun violence. Why dosen't he bulldoze his parking lot and not allow anyone with a valid drivers license inside?
If he's really concerned about "public safety" how about NOT SERVING ALCOHOL PERIOD.

 

[TomH]

When the 2% are in his bar anyway, robbing the place, because they don't care about being legal, he'll wish he had the other 98% on his side. Or 99%.

 

[codenamepaul]

I would treat him as I do my employer. By denying me my right to self-defense, he takes the burden for my safety upon himself and is therefore liable in failing to do so if I am injured in a situation. In the case of my employer, this includes the trip to and from work.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I would treat him as I do my employer. By denying me my right to self-defense, he takes the burden for my safety upon himself and is therefore liable in failing to do so if I am injured in a situation. In the case of my employer, this includes the trip to and from work.

You can declare that all you want, but the chances of such an assertion being accepted where it counts (the courts) are about as close to zero as one can measure.

The chances a court (at least in MA) would hold an employer liable for an injury as the result of failure to adhere to the standard "no guns" policy are far greater than the chances an employer being held liable for failing to let you carry a gun at work.

 

[Jose]

Who cares? People will do as people will do.