Aler: Cafe Express Uptown park 610 51% posting

[Doug.38PR]

I went to eat at Cafe Express at above said location yesterday. I just happened to turn around to look behind me after entering the door and saw a 51% posting. 1) Is being posted at people's back as they walk in a "conspicious manner clearly visible to the public? 2) I don't think Cafe Express makes that kind of money on the sale of alcohol. They primarily serve food.

I just E mailed TABC

[WarHawk-AVG]

Was it a red or blue 51%?

[CWOOD]

Remember that the 51% sign carries no legal authority on its own...it is advisory only.

It is the nature of the business and NOT the presence or absence of the 51% sign that matters.

By that I mean, if a place recieves more than 50% of its revenue from the sale of alcohol for ON PREMESIS consumption , and you enter armed using your CHL...you are in violation whether the sign is there or not.

On the other hand, if the place does NOT recieve more than 50% of its revenue from the sale for on premesis consumption, and you enter armed using your CHL, then you are NOT in violation whether the 51% sign is there or not.

Hope this helps.

[CWOOD]

Red = 51%
Blue + less than 51%

Was it a red or blue 51%?

[XDguy]

Remember that the 51% sign carries no legal authority on its own...it is advisory only.

It is the nature of the business and NOT the presence or absence of the 51% sign that matters.

By that I mean, if a place recieves more than 50% of its revenue from the sale of alcohol for ON PREMESIS consumption , and you enter armed using your CHL...you are in violation whether the sign is there or not.

On the other hand, if the place does NOT recieve more than 50% of its revenue from the sale for on premesis consumption, and you enter armed using your CHL, then you are NOT in violation whether the 51% sign is there or not.

Hope this helps.

Are you sure about this? Without the sign, how would we know how much revenue is derived from the sale of alcohol. I thought that it was a required posting.

I just looked it up, and you might want to re-read 411.204 which states that a business that derives 51% or more shall prominently display the red 51% sign at each entrance. That leads me to believe that it's more than just advisory, it's mandatory. If I'm wrong about this, I would definitely like to know.

[RaginKajun]

we were explicitly told in class saturday that the burden of judgement is on the carrier...absence of a 51% sign does not permit one to carry (as would an improperly signed 30.06 establishment).

[tarkus]

Are you sure about this? Without the sign, how would we know how much revenue is derived from the sale of alcohol. I thought that it was a required posting.

It's like if you meet a girl at a bar and take her home. You can be prosecuted if she's 15 even though you thought she was 21 because she was drinking at a bar.

[srothstein]

And just to emphasize, the actual sales do not matter any more than the sign does. The law (PC 46.035) says gets 51% of income "as determined by" TABC. Thus, how TABC determines it is the real overriding factor on whether or not you can be charged, even if TABC is wrong in its determination.

To help though, I did a quick check on this in our public inquiry system. One of the interesting things you can learn is that certain subordinate licenses mean certain things. For example, a place with a mixed beverage (MB) license can get a food and beverage (FB) license as a subordinate if they sell more food than alcohol. So when you check the inquiry system, the FB under subordinates is a sure sign that it is not 51%. This owner has several similar locations with MB's and most also have an FB. This specific one does not have an FB.

Now, the lack of an FB means nothing in and of itself (it is not required). But, if the same owner gets it for several places and not for one location, I think it would be indicative that this one location really is 51%.

Of course, you can check the license to be 100% positive. It tells you what type of sign they are required to have.

[Doug.38PR]

I just got an E mail from TABC thanking me for my inquiry and stating that Cafe Express is indeed a business that primarily sells food to the public and they are going to notify Cafe Express about putting up a proper weapons sign

[Tactical_Texan_CHL]

Cool. Nice to see the system work.

[nedmoore]

Good Job Doug, thanks for the effort. We go to Cafe Express quite a bit, I have not checked signage though.

[Doug.38PR]

Something else just came to mind and I already replied to the TABC representative asking this. The only reason I noticed the signs in question is because I turned around to walk back outside for a second. The signs were located to my BACK after I entered the doors. They are just inside the doors to your back. Aren't weapon notice signs (30.06 or otherwise) supposed to be in a conspicuous place clearly visible to the public. Seems to me that would mean visible to the public as they are entering, not as they are leaving.

[jnkirk1974]

Wow, I go to this particular Cafe Express all of the time. I'm going to look for it tomorrow. If I see it, I'll take a picture.

[htxred]

doug i go to cafe express in river oaks off w. gray all the time and have never noticed ANY signs. maybe its just that location, the area is busy, im sure some hot shot attorney probably passed some words along to management, just so happened to be incorrect words.

[Doug.38PR]

The TABC auditor E mailed me again and told me he met with the Cafe Express manager yesterday and gave him a new set of correct signs