TexasCHLforum.com

srothstein wrote:... We made many arrests for carrying weapons in parking lots. ...

These were arrests of people without CHLs ?

And in the parking lot of...what, places that served alcohol, places that only sold alcohol, both?

twomillenium wrote:... Since the vendors are not in control of the whole and 51% of the revenue of the whole is not from at the sale of alcoholic beverages sold and consumed on the premises then the 51% sign could not be legally displayed for the whole. ...

Actually it doesn't work that way. It is the revenue of the vendor holding the license that determines the color of the sign and where people can take their drink, not the revenue of the whole venue if there are different vendors. srothstein explains it here when explaining why the whole Majestic is subject to the 51% restriction even though the Majestic itself does not have an alcohol license: http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... 61#p692855.

larryeliz wrote:Is this legal given that the venue clearly derives the vast majority from services that are not related to alcohol. That said, if the vendor can legally post the 51% sign, could it be understood that one can not carry around or near the points where alcohol is sold? The 51% sign should not apply to the entire venue. Thoughts?

You will find a discussion of how this works at this thread: http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=56461

Note that member "srothstein" worked for the TABC, he has some pretty detailed knowledge. Pay attention to his posts.

srothstein wrote: ...
Technical correction, but the ATT center is owned by the County...

Yes, as I recall, the city got its nose out of joint when they were dickering with the Spurs over a new venue, and the County swooped in with a better deal on the land next to Freeman Coliseum. I am not much of a fan of using taxpayer money or concessions to get insanely rich sports team owners to do anything, but I got a laugh out of how the County snookered the City slickers on this one.