extensive legal research
In this post here on alleged extensive legal research, Les comments:
The problem with the analysis Rau cites is that the analysis in no way matches the premise. Here’s the first paragraph of Rau’s article:
“So, do 37 other states have laws similar to the one Tennessee’s legislature passed this month allowing guns in establishments that serve alcohol?”
The analysis he cites only considers states that have shall-issue concealed carry permits.
Here’s why the analysis fails. There are states (like California) that are may-issue but that allow guns to be conceal carried in restaurants that serve alcohol. Likewise, there are states (like Montana) that allow guns in restaurants that serve alcohol if the guns are carried openly, rather than concealed.
Also, Pol says:
I have only looked at the laws that pertain to restaurants that serve alcohol, not bars, in other states, and there are 41 that currently allow carry. I would suspect that many of those states have ‘bars’ defines under law and prohibit carry there.
So, yeah, this story is almost certainly bogus.
June 18th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
Retard statement of the day:
“The ultimate victory, if it would ever happen, would be for the court to recognize a constitutional right to be free from gun violence, public or private,” Smith said.
“Constitutional right to be free from gun violence”? And this guy is an attorney? Maybe he should also defend the “constitutional right to not be shot in a robbery” and the “constitutional right to not be a victim of home invasion” and… good grief, which part of TCA 39-17-1359 does he fail to understand?