More on the dumb restaurant lawsuit
WizardPC links up the actual complaint and notes some problems with it. My faves:
They state that no other state allows carry in “bars,” then in the footnotes list 23 states that do.
They falsely state that Carry Permit Holders can carry while drunk
Alrighty.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:05 pm
So it seems apparent, since the lawsuit has no basis in fact and actively presents falsehoods as arguments, that the primary purpose might be to sully the public impression of law-abiding, permitted handgun owners.
That is even worse than doing a lawsuit instead of doing something, that is a smear campaign.
Good luck with that, you bar-accredited lying sacks of cow excrement.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:07 pm
I’m not a lawyer but this drivel is easy even for a layman to pick apart.
The funnies start with the logic “Tennessee liquor laws do not differentiate between restaurants and bars” (para 3), yet “Tennessee law allows carry in bars” (para 4). How does the law allow or prohibit something that legally does not exist?
The footnote on page is also telling “22 other states have no prohibition related to carrying a gun where alcohol is served but states … take action under public nuisance laws…”. Yet on page 4, the action is explained as shutting the bar down, NOT forbidding guns in bars.
The same logic arguing a difference between a “bar” and a “restaurant” (a concept which under Tennessee law DOES NOT EXIST) continues through para 9.
Para 12 is more even funnier, it claims that TCA 39-17-1321 (which prohibits carrying a firearm while intoxicated) allows someone to enter a restaurant carrying while drunk, but the sole legal authority for this interpretation is a footnote pointing to an out-of-context quote from a Memphis bartender. Good grief!
Para 19 creates an imaginary “fundamental right to
be free from gun violence in sensitive public places” with no legal references or case law (or maybe it’s some orbital hyperbole of Heller).
Later on the suit goes on the “public nuisance” limb on and on but can’t quote any case law that would allow a presumption of public nuisance.
Some mighty fine lawyering, too bad it’s got no substance in the real world.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:31 pm
In the meantime, let’s have an “Open Carry Day in Hillsboro Village.”
Time and date TBD.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Will someone in TN file a bar complaint against him.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Amen to that ParatrooperJJ!
Someone also needs to file false light charges against the attorney for calling the State’s permit holders “vigilantes.”
Fals light: publicity which puts him/her in a false light to the public.
July 1st, 2009 at 5:13 pm
The court will hand him his head.
Almost every lawsuit involves differences of opinion and of interpretations of the law.
Most of them involve disagreements as to the facts.
Sometimes, though, the court buys such tripe (see Wickard v. Fillburn).
I certainly wouldn’t put my name on this drivel, even if I believed in the underlying allegations of fact and interpretations of the law.
This guy’s clients (and probably their counsel) need to move to a more “caring” state.
July 1st, 2009 at 5:13 pm
The court will hand him his head.
Almost every lawsuit involves differences of opinion and of interpretations of the law.
Most of them involve disagreements as to the facts.
Sometimes, though, the court buys such tripe (see Wickard v. Fillburn).
I certainly wouldn’t put my name on this drivel, even if I believed in the underlying allegations of fact and interpretations of the law.
This guy’s clients (and probably their counsel) need to move to a more “caring” state.