When conjecture becomes news: how TN media pursues agenda
February 15, 2010

by Joseph P. Tartaro
Executive Editor

The fight over a recent Tennessee law allowing licensed gunowners to carry for defense in saloons and restaurants that serve liquor, provided the gunowners do not consume alcoholic beverages, appears far from over—at least in the newsrooms of major Tennessee newspapers.

The newspapers in Nashville, Memphis, Chattanooga and other cities had opposed the measure when it was first introduced in the Volunteer State’s legislature. They editorialized against the wisdom of such a measure and their news pages were loaded with stories suggesting that the majority of the public opposed the bill.

Their theme then was that allowing people who had been previously scrutinized and carefully licensed by the authorities to carry concealed firearms on their persons while in restaurants where liquor was available was dangerous and a threat to public safety. In spite of media opposition, the bill advanced and was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support by legislators who are traditionally scrupulous of their own concerns for public safety.

When the governor vetoed the bill, the media was delighted. However, when the legislature overrode the veto—by an even bigger margin of victory than its original passage—the editorials literally snarled over what they considered an affront to editorial board wisdom.

Even though the bill allowed restaurants to post their private property to prevent carry on their premises, the media and other anti-gunners continued to pursue and shape safety concerns.

A court challenge was filed even though the state’s attorney general found no flaws in the law. And, as a result of a ruling by Davidson County Chancellor Claudia Bonnyman faulting the law over “vagueness” the law has been mothballed.

But the chancellor’s ruling did not end the debate. On Jan. 27, state Sen. Doug Jackson (D-Dickson), who co-sponsored the bill that passed last year, has filed new legislation that he says will address Bonnyman’s concerns about the law’s “vagueness.”

The media obviously knew that the debate over the bill was not over week’s earlier when they found a new way to pursue their agenda of preventing legal carry by licensees, which is not surprising because they opposed the state’s right-to-carry when it was passed about 12 years ago.

The anti-gun media’s new approach is that carrying in restaurants discouraged tourism, a major industry in a state with Nashville, Pigeon Forge, Gatlinburg, Memphis and other major attractions.

The new anti-gun theme: Tennessee tourism executives blame guns-in-bar law for loss of revenue.

The state’s restaurant and bar owners have made no secret of their opposition to the state’s guns-in-bars law, saying the prospect of armed patrons, or a sign keeping guns out of an establishment, is bad for business.

Now, according to the Nashville Tennessean, the leaders of the Nashville and Memphis Convention and Visitors Bureaus are saying the law has hurt local tourism efforts, claiming that other cities are using the guns-in-bars measure to lure visitors away from Tennessee.

“It’s probably the single biggest issue people write and talk about when they’re considering coming here,” said Butch Spyridon, CEO of the Nashville Convention & Visitors Bureau, according to The Tennessean.

“We had international press, and we have gotten letters from visitors who literally have canceled plans to visit,” he said, according to the newspaper.

What’s more, Sypridon said competing cities have used the new guns law against Nashville in trying to attract conventions.

“As the economy (took a turn) other cities and hotels used a lot of different tactics, negative sales tactics,” Spyridon said. “Without question some cities, some hotels, will utilize whatever tactics are at their disposal.”

The Tennessean reported that Kevin Kane, president of the Memphis visitors bureau, said it had experienced a similar response.

“Other cities have used it as ammunition against the state of Tennessee, namely Memphis and Nashville, talking about how unsafe it is,” Kane said.

The newspaper reported that Spyridon and Kane declined to point to specific examples, and convention bureaus from other cities, including rivals areas such as Portland, OR, and Indianapolis, IN, refused to comment about the state’s guns-in-bars law.

There may be a reason why there has been no specific examples of evidence to support the claims of the anti-gun crowd.

In a phone conversation with Sen. Jackson, who was familiar with the claims being made by the newspaper, he told Gun Week that repeated requests for hard evidence that the law had discouraged tourism had failed to reveal any.

Perhaps the tourism loss angle is just the latest stratagem for those who oppose carry-in-bars as well as right-to-carry laws in general. Certainly a lack of actual hard evidence suggests that the whole issue may be one of conjecture.

Jackson pointed out for Gun Week that Tennessee is a border state, surrounded by nine states, all of which have right to carry laws. All but two of those states allow licensed gunowners to carry in restaurants and other establishments that serve alcohol.

“All of them have had such a law a lot longer than Tennessee,” said Jackson, “and so far none of them has reported any special problems caused by the law—either crime or business loss.”

The senator went on to suggest that the only people who would be looking for, or even aware of signs, posting against carry in an establishment would be the law-abiding gunowners who would not want to break any law.

Jackson also cited Florida’s right to carry laws which have been in force for over 20 years as yet further proof that licensing for concealed carry poses no danger to the law-abiding public. Further, he noted, a state like New York, where licensing is more difficult and discretionary, has allowed licensees to carry in saloons, bars and restaurants for almost 100 years with no record of problems.

“Members of the legislature are just as concerned about public safety as any newspaper,” Jackson noted. “We take our responsibilities very seriously.

“But we are going to debate and pass the revised bill this year,” he predicted.

As part of its reliance on conjecture to support its agenda, The Tennessean reported that Preston Lam of Memphis-based River City Management said that the sign-posting option doesn’t sit well with the tourism industry, either. River City Management owns several establishments on Beale Street in Memphis, where visitors must pass through a security checkpoint and a wand-search for firearms.

“You’re kind of damned if you do, damned if you don’t. You put the sign on the door, but somebody coming in says, ‘Gosh, is it dangerous around here?’

“You want to prevent the gun from coming in, but that also has a negative message that you send to a patron who is innocently walking up and down the street.”

The newspaper claimed that a poll of registered voters commissioned by the state’s tourism industry last year showed broad opposition to allowing guns in places where alcohol is served.

The law has been put on hold after a Nashville judge ruled in November that it is unconstitutionally vague. But the battle between pro-self-defense legislators and anti-gun newspapers appears far from over.

Nashville Rep. Gary Odom, leader of the House Democratic Caucus, said he wants state tourism leaders to describe the impact it has had on the industry for state lawmakers, according to The Tennessean.

Jackson and others would like to hear that testimony and review any evidence.

Odom supported the measure last year but now believes that one aspect overlooked by the legislature was how it might impact tourism.

Meanwhile, the state attorney general has filed a notice to appeal Bonnyman’s ruling.
Return to Archive Index