TexasCHLforum.com

kauboy wrote:

srothstein wrote:

kauboy wrote:

Braden wrote:Not to get this thread back on topic or anything silly like that, but my understanding is that a business that gets more than 51% of its revenue must, by law, post the sign. If they do not, we have absolutely no way of ever knowing what percentage of their revenue comes from the sale of alcohol. What are we supposed to do? Go ask the manager how much alcohol he has sold that day?

Yes, they are required to. But, there is no penalty for them if they don't post it. We still have to use the divine wisdom that a CHL apparently grants us(:roll:) to know whether they meet 51% or not. If they do, and you carry, regardless of sign presence, you will still be charged if "made".

I just wanted to correct a persistent misunderstanding of the laws. A permittee who is required to display a 51% sign can be punished for failure to do so. TABC has the authority to take action under an administrative case (civil action) for failure to post or improper posting of any of the required signs. Just call the local district office to file a complaint on the permittee. The agent's have 30 days to make an initial visit and 60 days to complete the handling of any complaint.

Most of the time, they will try for voluntary compliance and give the guy the right signs. Repeated refusal to post properly can result in fines, suspension of permit, or even revocation of the permit. But, I have to admit that this is probably not going to be seen as a high priority for building a case.

Its not a misunderstanding. The law gives no punishment for not posting a required sign. The TABC may take it into their own hands, but Texas law does not address a punishment.

Odin wrote:

srothstein wrote:And while I am posting on clarifying laws, there are well established rules for public intoxication. While seeing any of the normal things can constitute suspicion and further investigation, probable cause has been ruled to require three of the following:

1. Bloodshot or glassy eyes
2. Unsteady on the feet or swaying
3. Slurred speech
4. An odor of intoxicants emanting from the person (not the clothes).

What case law is this information derived from? I don't recall reading a specific case that established those parameters.

Odin wrote: I'd like the "intoxicated" and the "travelling" parts of the weapons statues to be cleared up to the point that 10 random (literate) people could read the code and a majority of those people would come to the same (and correct) concluson about what the law was specifically saying. Right now, we don't have that in either area (and probably other areas that I'm not aware of). ]

Odin wrote: a person with average intelligence should be able to read the penal code in plain English and be able to comprehend it. .

seamusTX wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:Having a BAC under .08% is not a walk and not a pass in the sense that you state. A person CAN be convicted of DWI with a BAC below .08%. The state simply needs to show that the person met the other definition.

I know that and should have stated it more clearly.

In the scenario that is being tossed around, someone who had one beer and smells like beer is going to have a BAC well below 0.08 and isn't going to show signs of being drunk such as staggering or slurred speech. I just can't see that being prosecuted successfully.

- Jim

srothstein wrote:I was asked by a friend to respond to this thread because I currently work for TABC. This was in response to the original question about bars within restaurants, but seeing how the thread has changed slightly, I will try to respond to both main questions.

seamusTX wrote:It is illegal to be intoxicated in public, whether in a bar or walking down the street.

seamusTX wrote:[
If the person is driving, they can take a breath test and pass (BAC under 0.08). I can't see the DA's office trying to press an intoxication charge when DWI wouldn't stick and the person was not otherwise doing something illegal.

Odin wrote:

Mike1951 wrote:What bothers me is that anyone considers 2 or 3 beers acceptable.

For me, the decision is already made since I won't drive after drinking. If I'm anywhere that I would be carrying, I would have to have driven to get there.

But I can see an argument for having ONE beer with food or ONE drink with dinner.

But I don't want anyone, no matter how well they think they can handle themselves, driving or carrying after two or more drinks or beers!

If you feel the need for two beers, leave the gun at home and let someone else drive.

I'm not saying that I condone drinking 2 beers and drive or carry, but I will say that each individual person is affected by alcohol differently. I can drink 2 beers and feel absolutely no effect of the alcohol. I'm not saying that the alcohol doesn't affect me, but it's not a noticeable effect. I have a friend who would be acting loopy after 2 beers.

http://www.ou.edu/oupd/bac.htm
The figures on the BAC calculator obviously will vary somewhat for different people, but they are a close apporximation.

A person my size would have an approximate BAC of 0.02 after drinking 2 beers in 1 hour. It would take 5 beers in one hour to put me at the 0.08 BAC standard for DUI. I would never drink 5 beers in 1 hour and drive (I'd never drink 5 beers in 1 hour period). If I went out over a period of 4 hours it would take 8 beers in that 4 hour period to put me at the 0.08 BAC. 8 beers is a lot of beer.

I think the BAC for DUI could stand to be lower, and I think the BAC for concealed carry should match that of a driver.

Odin wrote:The way the law is curently written a police officer can charge you with carrying while "intoxicated" even if you have had nothing to drink, and there is no BAC test that the police are required to allow you to take to prove your innocence. Even if you were arrested and you requested to take a breathalyzer test, the police are under no obligation to accomodate your request. It is completely up to the discretion of the officer, based on the officer's observations, to decide if a person is "intoxicated". The officer does not need to give a person any "tests" to make an arrest for intoxication. It will be your word against the officer's word in court. Good luck with that one if you plan on disputing the charge. In my opinion, that leaves too much gray area for a serious offense that would cost you your license.

I think there should be an established BAC for carrying a firearm that matches a "level 1" BAC offense for driving (lower than the current 0.08), and a "level 2" BAC (maybe back to the old 0.1 for this level) for driving at a higher level of intoxication and carries increased penalties and restrictions on future driving.

Odin wrote:I live in McKinney. The city of McKinney doesn't allow "bars" in the city, meaning no establishment can derive 51% or more of their income from alcohol sales for on premises consumption. McKinney does allow businesses to allow on premises consumption, and even has places that I would consider "bars" (McKinney Tavern, Hank's Texas grill, etc.) but they sell more food than booze on the books so they aren't technically bars in the 51% sense.

I know that there are several other area cities that don't allow 51% "bars". I assume it's safe to carry in any establishment in those cities unless posted with a 30.06 sign.

I'm still not clear on the whole "carrying while intoxicated" part of the law. The way intoxicated is defined in the law I would read that if you have consumed any amount of alcohol that you could be considered intoxicated at the discretion of a police officer. In my opinion, that area of the law leaves a big gray area that could result in someone getting hit witha carrying while intoxicated deal even though they only had 1 or 2 beers. I think that part should be cleared up in the law with a BAC requirement or something.

KBCraig wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:

KBCraig wrote:No matter what class of license they have, any restriction applies to the entire licensed premises. You don't know the limits of the premises without seeing more paperwork than they've got posted on the wall.

You are correct. However, for TABC licensing, a business inside a presmises CAN be individually licensed.

Yes, that's my point: the individual licensee inside will have its own "premises description" within the license, which might or might not extend to a portion of the larger premises.

Case in point: you can (theoretically) have a bar in a mall. The licensed premises will not be the entire mall, and there will probably be signs at the bar exit, warning customers that they can't carry drinks past that point.

Whatever those "licensed premises" limits are where drinking is allowed, are the same boundaries that CHLs must observe.

Kevin

KBCraig wrote:

propellerhead wrote:Let's continue with the Chili's example. Let's assume there are no 30.06 signs....

So if the bar's license only applies to the bar, then it most likely falls in the 51% category, which means I could not carry at the bar. The restaurant part would be ok. The "unlicensed possesion" sign would typically be posted at the bar. On the other hand, if the license covers the bar AND restaurant as one, then most likely they do not fall under the 51% category, which means I can carry anywhere in the restaurant. The "unlicensed possesion" sign in this case would typically be posted at the main entrance. Does that sound about right?

No matter what class of license they have, any restriction applies to the entire licensed premises. You don't know the limits of the premises without seeing more paperwork than they've got posted on the wall. While you should never say never when it comes to the crazy-quilt Texas alcohol rules, a general rule is that you cannot leave the licensed premises with a drink.

propellerhead wrote:Let's continue with the Chili's example. Let's assume there are no 30.06 signs....

So if the bar's license only applies to the bar, then it most likely falls in the 51% category, which means I could not carry at the bar. The restaurant part would be ok. The "unlicensed possesion" sign would typically be posted at the bar. On the other hand, if the license covers the bar AND restaurant as one, then most likely they do not fall under the 51% category, which means I can carry anywhere in the restaurant. The "unlicensed possesion" sign in this case would typically be posted at the main entrance. Does that sound about right?