Search found 17 matches

by kauboy
Thu Dec 21, 2006 9:59 am
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Restaurants with bars. (Chili's etc)
Replies: 108
Views: 15895

txinvestigator wrote:He told you it is an administrative case, and the TAC and the TABC laws specify what adminstrative actions can be taken. That includes "punishment" even tough they are not penal code crimes.
I know what he told me, but after looking, I still can't find anything in the Government Code or Alcoholic Beverage Code that talks about a penalty for not displaying a required sign.
I really don't mean to sound like a jerk about this. I just want to see it in the Code so I have something to point to if a bar doesn't post it when they should. I don't like the idea that I have to magically know whether or not the Alcoholic Beverage Commission has determined whether or not they meet "51%".
by kauboy
Wed Dec 20, 2006 10:43 am
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Restaurants with bars. (Chili's etc)
Replies: 108
Views: 15895

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.
by kauboy
Tue Dec 19, 2006 5:03 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Restaurants with bars. (Chili's etc)
Replies: 108
Views: 15895

Thanks for the replies guys ;-)
by kauboy
Tue Dec 19, 2006 3:38 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Restaurants with bars. (Chili's etc)
Replies: 108
Views: 15895

Huh... I just remembered that my folks did this for me for an early Christmas present so I could go hunting. I wasn't old enough to buy it, so they did. Was that legal? They didn't use my info or anything.
by kauboy
Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:27 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Restaurants with bars. (Chili's etc)
Replies: 108
Views: 15895

I wasn't able to post earlier for some reason(was getting a server error, could have been local).

Anyways, the traveling thing is easy to understand from both sides of the argument. To us, if we meet the five criterion, we shouldn't have to prove anything else and should be sent on our way. However, to high and mighty DAs, they read the word "presumption" and refer to the description of it located in the Penal Code under the Burden of Proof chapter:
§ 2.05. PRESUMPTION. (a) Except as provided by
Subsection (b),
...
(b) When this code or another penal law establishes a
presumption in favor of the defendant with respect to any fact, it
has the following consequences:
(1) if there is sufficient evidence of the facts that
give rise to the presumption, the issue of the existence of the
presumed fact must be submitted to the jury unless the court is
satisfied that the evidence as a whole clearly precludes a finding
beyond a reasonable doubt of the presumed fact; and
(2) if the existence of the presumed fact is submitted
to the jury, the court shall charge the jury, in terms of the
presumption, that:
(A) the presumption applies unless the state
proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the facts giving rise to the
presumption do not exist;
(B) if the state fails to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that the facts giving rise to the presumption do
not exist, the jury must find that the presumed fact exists;
(C) even though the jury may find that the
presumed fact does not exist, the state must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt each of the elements of the offense charged; and
(D) if the jury has a reasonable doubt as to
whether the presumed fact exists, the presumption applies and the
jury must consider the presumed fact to exist.


This is interpreted to mean that only a jury can make a decision based on the presumption, not an officer. So the officer should still haul you in and let a jury decide your fate. At least this is how attorneys read it.
by kauboy
Mon Dec 18, 2006 2:27 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Restaurants with bars. (Chili's etc)
Replies: 108
Views: 15895

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".
by kauboy
Mon Dec 18, 2006 11:49 am
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Restaurants with bars. (Chili's etc)
Replies: 108
Views: 15895

Good work propellerhead!!!
by kauboy
Thu Dec 14, 2006 2:18 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Restaurants with bars. (Chili's etc)
Replies: 108
Views: 15895

Odin wrote:It's not unlike the "travelling" clause, which was recently amended but still is in contention from palce to place regarding enforcement. It would be nice to have these things actually cleared up as much as possible in the penal code.
Uh oh, traveling, my old nemesis. Upon further inspection of the traveling thing, the problem arises when you look at the PC's definition of "presumption". It only refers to a jury being given instructions base on the presumption, which implies that it can only be settled in court even if you meet all of the criteria in the law. It really needs to be re-written to properly reflect the author's intent.
by kauboy
Thu Dec 14, 2006 11:47 am
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Restaurants with bars. (Chili's etc)
Replies: 108
Views: 15895

Odin wrote:But life is full of choices, compromises, and calculated risks.
Unfortunately, your calculated risk can affect more than just yourself. That is why the law steps in to protect the public that you are interacting with. I do agree that a standard should be put in place, but I don't object to the current version being in place as opposed to no mention at all.
by kauboy
Thu Dec 14, 2006 11:24 am
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Restaurants with bars. (Chili's etc)
Replies: 108
Views: 15895

Odin wrote:
kauboy wrote:
Odin wrote:I think that part should be cleared up in the law with a BAC requirement or something.
I think its pretty clear. Don't drink while carrying, period. It just makes sense to me.
I disagree with that sentiment. Just because a person chooses to have a drink or two with dinner or go out for a beer or two should not mean that the person forfeits their right to self defense.
I agree. You shouldn't forfeit your right to carry in order to drink. You should forfeit your privilege to drink in order to carry. This is my opinion of course. I don't like the idea of anybody having a few beers and then having access to a car, or a gun. I personally believe that the legal intoxication limit is too high. There is only one reason to drink alcohol. To get to some degree of "buzzed". Don't tell me that people drink because its refreshing. You can drink a Sprite and get that result. And if you like the taste, whats wrong with the non-alcoholic version? The same gross taste, and no "affects". Then you don't have to worry about a BAC limit or whether or not you should be carrying.
Sorry for that. I didn't mean anything personal by it.[/RANT]
by kauboy
Wed Dec 13, 2006 7:07 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Restaurants with bars. (Chili's etc)
Replies: 108
Views: 15895

Odin wrote:I think that part should be cleared up in the law with a BAC requirement or something.
I think its pretty clear. Don't drink while carrying, period. It just makes sense to me.
by kauboy
Tue Dec 12, 2006 12:02 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Restaurants with bars. (Chili's etc)
Replies: 108
Views: 15895

Correct! If a hospital does not post a proper 30.06 sign, you are free to carry. The antiquated law about posting the "51%" sign (less the 51% lettering) used to be enough for a hospital, but now only the 30.06 sign can affect you.
by kauboy
Tue Dec 12, 2006 10:01 am
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Restaurants with bars. (Chili's etc)
Replies: 108
Views: 15895

Lucky45 wrote:According to PC 46.035 Unlawfal Carrying of Handgun by CHL (i).... Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply if the actor
was not given effective notice under Section 30.06.

(b)(4) is on the premises of a licensed hospital or nursing home.

So if they do not post on a hospital then you can legally carry there. A bar does not have to post.
I already knew that. What part of my post were you responding to? I was talking about the "51%" sign that could be posted at hospitals. TXI already pointed out that it was an old law that is no longer enforceable. Only a properly posted 30.06 sign can restrict carry within a hospital.

And technically, a bar does have to post, assuming 51% is met. Whether they do or not is their problem, but we must still know whether they meet the 51% law and we must act accordingly.
by kauboy
Mon Dec 11, 2006 1:45 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Restaurants with bars. (Chili's etc)
Replies: 108
Views: 15895

What TX means is that if they have a license to sell alcohol, then they must have the "unlicensed weapons" sign. It also means that the entire restaurant is covered by it. Now, if the either, or both, sides of the establishment generate a combined 51% of sales due to alcohol, then you cannot carry there.

However, if they have the "unlicensed weapons" sign, and you are positive that they do not meet the "51%" req, then yes, you are "golden".
by kauboy
Mon Dec 11, 2006 10:53 am
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Restaurants with bars. (Chili's etc)
Replies: 108
Views: 15895

txinvestigator wrote:
kauboy wrote: What really puzzles me is that subsection(b) says that a hospital "shall" display as well. Does this follow the same logic as "we should know it even if they don't show it"? Even if a hospital doesn't display this sign, can we still carry there? I know that 30.06 says we can't if a proper 30.06 sign is present, but why include this section here?
Because hospitals were once off-limits completely, so the sign was required. It appears than when the exception for hospitals were listed under 30.06, that they forget to delete subsection (b) of TGC 411.204.

Just remember that 411.204 is not enforceable on YOU. 411.204 does not make crimes or penalties for carrying handguns anywhere.

The crimes and penalties are in the Penal Code. The Penal Code is what you are subject to.
By your use of "you", you mean an individual, right? As in, not a business entity?

Also, I haven't been able to find where in the Penal Code it enforces the "51%" rule. Could you point me to the section?

EDIT: Nevermind, 46.035 ;-)
Holy jeez! Its a third degree felony if you're found guilty of this. :shock: I think I'm gonna be extra cautious about these separate bar/restaurant places from now on.

Of course with as much as Chili's charges for chips and salsa and a stupid dish of cheese, I'm pretty sure they're getting their big bucks from oinkers like me.

Return to “Restaurants with bars. (Chili's etc)”