I still don't understand why we can't make it the decision of the restaurant/bar owner whether or not guns be allowed in their establishment. Seems like even if there's a law on the books and I am a complete gun hating pacifist I should be allowed to deny entry to patrons packing heat. Personally, I feel there's nothing wrong with allowing firearms anywhere as long as a mutual agreement has been made with gun carrier and property owner (ie bar/restaurant owner). Then again they call me crazy for believing in freedom and liberty.

The last link is to NewsChannel5, not WSMV. Still, it's odd that the most Republican county in Middle TN would oppose gun rights. I like their logic, but it seems like Williamson would be a place that supports this bill wholeheartedly.

Thanks for the catch!

Freedom? Liberty? Pffft… I'd rather have a false sense of security. :)

I like your idea about leaving it up to the owner of the establishment. However, I'd imagine most of these weapons are concealed, meaning the only way an owner could enforce their rule is with pat-downs on entry.

Again, up to the owner to have a pat down of every patron, or even having metal detectors at their entrance. Should the patrons of that establishment demand it, the owner would either provide or fear losing the business of said concerned patrons. There is absolutely no need for the government to come in and blanket the entire industry and force their idea of safety upon us.

I agree with you about the government. However, metal detectors and/or pat-downs would probably make me a lot less likely to patronize a given restaurant.

Exactly! No one wants that. So if you, the patron know that a restaurant allows gun their establishment you make a choice to go or not go. You then go to restaurant number 2 that doesn't allow guns because it makes you feel safe. The owner of the original restaurant gets sad because no one goes to his restaurant anymore and to compete with restaurant number 2 he decides to make his property gun free. The free market at work!

I'm not sure I follow you. The ONLY way for an owner to truly enforce a “no guns” rule is pat-downs/metal detectors. And as you said, no one wants that! But it is the only way he can have a restaurant that “doesn't allow guns”. (Putting a sign up in the window that says, “No Guns” wouldn't do anything to stop somebody from bringing in a weapon.) Thus, these potential patrons have a choice to make. Do they want to go to the restaurant that didn't treat them like criminals when they walk in the door, even if the restaurant couldn't guarantee that someone in the room doesn't have a gun on them? Or would they prefer a TSA inspection before they can order their bacon cheeseburger, with a guarantee that no one will kill them before their second bite? I don't think we can say for sure.

I went to Israel about five years ago, and they have metal detectors EVERYWHERE. We had to pass through one to get in the mall, even. I was a little freaked out for the first week, but after that it kind of made me feel safer. When I got back to Nashville and didn't have any kind of weapon inspection, I was actually MORE frightened (having adjusted to the gun culture).
I don't think we'll handle gun rights in quite the same way as Jerusalem, though. If you were active military (which was everyone 18-21, male or female), you could carry your AK-47 around with you anywhere. Then again, they have a bit more of a need for them there than you do on Broadway in the country/western bars.

That would make sense except they won't let establishment owners decide whether to allow smoking or not either. As someone who is pro civil rights, I believe anyone should be allowed to carry, but I respect someone's property rights, and will be a patron to those establishments who realize that the law didn't actually stop people from carrying who want to carry, and without making the patrons feel uncomfortable, they can't stop them either.

Yes, but this is TN where Democrats help increase gun rights, and the Williamson co. republicans are neo-cons as opposed to conservatives. Its basically a feel good law that won't stop anyone.

Ya, I'm not sure you are following me. Who is enforcing the “no guns?” I don't think it's the government's place to do that, so it is up to the restaurant owner. There is no government enforcement via police or anything else in my scenario. It is an agreement between people. An owner of a restaurant and his/her patrons. Should you think there was a possibility of guns being allowed in a restaurant that has been set up by the owner as “no guns” you simply do not go to this restaurant. Its a choice you are making to go or not. You have to trust that if a restaurant owner is saying there are no guns in the restaurant, that they are truly enforcing this policy themselves, either via a pat down or metal detection at entrance. There can be no other way that would allow everyone's rights to be observed. I completely agree with you that people who are going to bring guns with or without a sign saying “no guns” will do so anyway, which is why in all honesty this new law means absolutely nothing. People who wanted to bring guns before the new law allowing them to do so did already and will continue to do so despite what law is on the books. (Correct me if I'm wrong about the text of this new law, as far as I knew that was the legislation being discussed)