6/03/2009

Governor Phil Bredesen's veto of the "guns in restaurants" bill overridden in House

From the Nashville Post:

The Tennessee House of Representatives has voted to override Governor Phil Bredesen's veto on the controversial "guns in restaurants" bill. The State Senate is expected to follow suit. The vote was 69 to 27, an increase of three votes from when it originally passed.

The bill was spearheaded in the House by State Rep. Curry Todd (R-Memphis) who prior to the override vote introduced executive director of the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action Chris Cox and other NRA officials on hand to witness the proceedings.

Last week, Bredesen flanked by over fifty law enforcement officials from across the state vetoed the legislation calling it "reckless" and that it "defied common sense." He did admit at the time that he believed his veto would be overridden but that he hoped legislators would reconsider.

Todd and a majority of the House obviously disagreed with Bredesen's assessment of the legislation and voted accordingly. Countering Bredesen's move on flanking himself with law enforcement, Todd did the same and was joined at the podium by members of the Tennessee House who are also law enforcement officials. . . . . .

Labels: ,

8 Comments:

Blogger Pundit said...

I don't have strong feelings about guns one way or the other. I think both sides trot out arguments that are pretty specious.

But on this, seriously, why is it so important to gun advocates that people be able to take guns into bars and restaurants?

This is not a snarky post. I'm really curious.

6/03/2009 6:35 PM  
Blogger John A said...

Pundit, it is not so much wanting to take them into bars and restaurants per se as what the heck are you supposed to do if you are carrying and want to eat? And then, YouTube has video testimony of a woman who locked her pistol in the car, then had to watch her parents [and others] be executed by a perp.

.


"Bredesen flanked by over fifty law enforcement officials from across the state"

Who were in the building for a meeting and were asked to leave it to meet the Governor. They apparently were not told why until they were with the Gov.

6/03/2009 8:02 PM  
Blogger The Right Guy said...

Why should we limit ourselves to where we can talk a gun at all? It's an incremental fight. Anti-gun politicians would like to see guns disappear altogether, so they pass legislation limiting the use of guns. People on the other side of the issue are trying to push back so law abiding people can carry guns anywhere. There is very little middle ground, and when you consider the right to bear arms is actually a constitutional amendment, there's more at stake than some states rights issues we here about lately. If only the ACLU were consistent, but that is another story.

That being said, where should I, as a lawful citizen, be limited in my right to protect myself? My answer is nowhere. Others think that the power to protect citizens lies with the government. I don't want to eat up John's bandwidth here as it is his blog, so may be he'd like to chime in.

6/03/2009 8:36 PM  
Blogger Martin G. Schalz said...

In my honest opinion Pundit, to create a situation whereupon a disturbed individual can freely operate without any fear of being stopped, simply invites disaster to the sheeple whom have no means of defending themselves.

The caveat of the bill, prevents those carrying arms from consuming alcohol. Rightfully so, I might add. Having been in the unpleasant situation of not being armed, and having to disarm folks under the influence of alcohol did not strike me as amusing.

With the above in mind, one simply must place the second Amendment into it's proper context...

If all are armed, there will be a remedy for all to rectify any improper use of arms. Be it government abuse, or personal abuse.

Such was the cause of the Second Amendment in the first place.

6/03/2009 8:43 PM  
Blogger BobbyBoxty said...

Do a search for the San Ysidro McDonald's massacre on Wikipedia and read about the 21 unarmed people that were shot to death if you want to know why gun advocates take this issue seriously.

6/03/2009 8:44 PM  
Blogger BobbyBoxty said...

Go read about the San Ysidro McDonald's massacre on Wikipedia and learn about the 21 unarmed people shot to death if you want to know why this is a serious issue.

6/03/2009 8:45 PM  
Blogger Pundit said...

Thanks for your comments everyone.

6/03/2009 10:22 PM  
OpenID FormallyDan said...

Let us pause to make a mental note of yet another example of anti-rights bigots being totally wrongheaded in their protestations.

No waiting periods? "Bloody massacres!" WRONG

Concealed carry? "Bloody massacres!" WRONG

Every single movement towards more constitutional gun laws is met with the same predictable idiocy, and is farcically denounced as "against common sense" - when the "common sense" provided by observing what actually happens in the wake of such movements, demonstrates otherwise!

It is all too easy, using my 'common sense', to predict what will happen in the wake of Tennessee's new law....

Absolutely nothing. As always.

6/04/2009 9:08 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home