Dumb Restaurant Lawsuit Official
ACK lets us know that the lawsuit has been filed. Also, Nate Rau continues to publish complete bullshit:
“I would not file a lawsuit that I did not think had merit,” said Smith, whose legal research showed proponents of the new state law quoted faulty statistics regarding guns in bars policies nationwide.
Nate Rau continues lying about the supposed extensive legal research (see here, here, and here). Odd, though. Claims that the stats are bogus probably won’t be an issue in a court case. I think it’s just another opportunity to parrot their made up research.
And this lawsuit having merit will come as a shock to anyone I’ve talked who is remotely knowledgeable of Tennessee law. Still, I’m glad they’re doing this instead of something.
July 1st, 2009 at 12:24 pm
One would think that a law restricting the State from violating an enumerated RIGHT in the Tennessee Constitution’s DECLARATION OF RIGHTS would not be subject to legal challenge. Otherwise the State enforces the choice of an establishment owner to ban those exrcising their Article I, Section 26 RIGHT to armed self-defense from their establishments.
What else could they want????!!!
July 1st, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Funniest part? They say no state allows carry in bars, then list 23 states that do.
http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2009/07/restaurant_carry_legal_challen.html
July 1st, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Smear campaign, apparently, against legally permitted, law-abiding gun owners.
Yawn, this has been going on for decades and the pro-rights side has been steadily winning both in public opinion and in legislatures and courts.
And lawyers wonder why the public has such a low opinion of the practitioners of their profession.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:17 pm
I don’t think the logic or statistics presented in favor of the new law were flawed. However, let’s say for the sake of argument they were completely, 100% flawed.
So what? A flawed rationale for a law isn’t a basis for challenging the law in court.
If legislators in the two houses approved the bill and the governor didn’t veto it then it’s the law. Arguments made on behalf of the bill by its promoters are irrelevant to the courts.