TexasCHLforum.com

You only have to read of people's interaction with officers who misunderstand the law, to know why the laws should be simplified. (One comes to mind, where the poster was told by a LEO that it was flatly illegal to carry anywhere alcohol was sold.)

If the law was so plain and simple as TXI says, there would be no need to take a lawyer with you to court.

Keep ranting, Odin.

The answer that is obvious to almost everyone is not to "fix" the laws, but to eliminate 99% of them. At least to start with... after that, we can go back and see which (if any) of the remaining laws are really needed.

Kevin

srothstein wrote:I was asked by a friend to respond to this thread because I currently work for TABC.

Thanks, Steve!

I hope you'll stick around and join in on the general discussion. This is a great forum, and over the years I've come to really respect you through your posts on tx.guns and the forums at policemag.com.

All my comments are offered with an explanation: I don't drink in public as a general rule, but on very rare occasions, I've had a beer with dinner, or as many as two beers with dinner and snacks over the course of two+ hours while watching a movie at our local restaurant/cinema (perhaps five beers total outside my home over the last five years). I'm not concerned that I'm going to get in trouble; I'm only asking because I don't like laws that don't have very explicit, indisputable parameters.

If the permitted premise is a hotel, all bets are off and almost anything can happen. The hotel rules have gotten fairly complex and allow things that are not allowed elsewhere.

Thanks for doing a great job of summing up the mess created by the legislature through the years.

To me, the solution is simple: eliminate "51% establishments" from the list of places off limits. Make it about the CHL and his/her behavior and/or intoxication, not about a maze of rules.

If the bar is in a hotel, it should be posted by the doors to the bar if they are going to have the 51% rule.

That's a mighty big "should be", since the CHL is in violation whether or not the establishment is posted with the proper TABC 51% notice.

In answer to the second main question, the law is clear on what constitutes carrying while intoxicated.

The law is. But the application is just as confusing --and potentially unjust-- to people on the street.

For any officer to arrest you for unlawfully carrying by a CHL, based on the carrying while intoxicated law, he would need to be able to show either

1. a factual alcohol concentration (blood, urine, or breath test) OR
2. A. that you were not in possession of the normal use of physical or mental faculties AND
B. that this lack of use was due to the introduction of an intoxicant.

That "or" and "and" lie at the heart of people's concerns, especially your 2.B., because "normal" must relate to the subject's physical or mental faculties, comparing and contrasting them to how they act while "drinking" versus "non-drinking".

Many sports fans behave outrageously, whether or not they're drinking. I have no doubt that an officer with an agenda could testify that I didn't have "normal" use of my faculties, if he watched me rooting for the Razorbacks.

The officer can show this by giving a field sobriety test or by simple testimony of your actions. It is important to note that the law does not require the use or possession of YOUR faculties, but of normal ones.

One of my close friends has multiple sclerosis. It's not bad, and he has a high level of function. But even when completely sober, he staggers and limps a bit and looks generally wobbly. I've also seen him full in his cups, and I can tell you that the difference in his "motor faculties" would be indistinguishable to anyone who didn't know him very well.

This is much easier, since all I need to do then is show that you were not acting in a socially acceptable and normal fashion.

This is the really scary part of the standard.

Then I need to show that this is because of the intoxicant.

Without a BAC or proof of the amount of alcohol consumed, how do you show this?

One great example of this was the arrest of a woman in a bar for P.I. because she was standing on the table top, taking her blouse and bra off, and screaming that she would have sex with every (not any but every) man in the bar. This was probable cause that she was intoxicated since this is not considered to be normal use of mental faculties.

Just out of curiosity, was her BAC checked, or was there any evidence offered as to the amount of alcohol she had consumed? I ask, because that behavior is not "acting in a socially acceptable and normal fashion", and yet I have known women who acted that way because they were ramped up in "party mode", even without having any significant amount of intoxicant.

Her defense could be that it was not due to the alcohol but due to her being manic. I have yet to hear anyone admit to behavior like this in court as being normal or caused by anything other than intoxicants though.

A charge of PI isn't a big deal to most people. Given the choice of admitting on the record that they're sluts at heart, or that it was the fault of intoxication on the demon rum (i.e., three sips of a cooler), it's obviously better to blame in on alcohol.

But, CHLs have much more at stake. Do you know of any CHLs charged with carrying while intoxicated? Especially if the charge wasn't secondary to DWI (with definitive evidence of BAC), but simple PI with nothing other than the officer's observation of behavior outside "socially acceptable and normal fashion".

*snork*... I just flashed on nudists, who are certainly outside "socially acceptable and normal" behavior when stone cold sober, but they might have trouble carrying concealed. They can be "public" at Hippie Hollow, too.

Thanks for chiming in, Steve. I'm not trying to bust your chops; as I said, you're a Texas LEO for whom I have the highest regard. You're a true Peace Officer, rather than an "enforcer of laws".

Kevin

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

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.

Bars and restaurants are licensed differently. I can't imagine having separate licenses for each part of the same business.

That said, it's conceivable that a local option somewhere in Texas has things set up so that beer and wine can be served in the restaurant, but liquor is restricted to the bar, which has to have its own separate license, possibly as a private club. Improbable, but possible.

Liquor laws in Texas don't make much sense. Texarkana recently voted on two measures. They passed the ordinance eliminating the private club requirement for restaurants to serve alcohol, but defeated the ordinance that would have allowed beer and wine to be sold in grocery stores.

You can sit at the bar of Texas Roadhouse and drink hard liquor all night long, but you can't pick up a six-pack at Wal Mart, to enjoy safely at home.



Kevin