Page 1 of 2
Is part of the 30.07 problem TABC?
Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2016 11:30 am
by chasfm11
I just visited a local taco shop this morning that has a 30.07. I know the owner and he is a strong 2nd Amendment supporter. I asked him about the reason for the sign.
He reported that he and his fellow franchisees were told that the exposure of an "incident" where police were notified of an OC and the resulting paperwork that TABC demands were too great of a risk.
Separately, I know of a black power gun incident that resulted from a hysterical woman customer at the same location . The police officer who responded to that call told me that he remained on the scene to deal with her so that the store owner would not have to. It is my assumption that the aftermath of that incident is playing a part in the 30.07 sign
I have no knowledge of the TABC rules and can only report what I was told. Given this report and the discussion on other threads about TABC holding store owners responsible for guns in their stores, I thought it was worthy of discussion. I find it in sharp contrast to the Wal-Mart that I visited immediately after the taco shop. Obviously, they sell alcohol, too, but I don't understand the difference between a license for on-site consumption versus the Wal-Mart wine and beer sales. The Wal-Mart had the sign about licensed handguns in addition to the standard TABC unlicensed one. Their lawyers must see then situation differently than the taco shop's corporate office.
As I see it, TABC is a big part of why Bass Hall in Ft. Worth and the Lewisville Western Days festival can claim 51% locations when logic should conclude that they are not. So my overarching question is whether or not legislative action is required to change TABC's approach to these matters or whether they could simply amend policy and get rid of some of these problems. I believe that we have to tackle problem areas one at a time and wonder if TABC should be the next on that list.
Re: Is part of the 30.07 problem TABC?
Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2016 1:20 pm
by Keith B
TABC is not an issue with 30.07. As long as the location is not 51%, then the 'licensed' possession of a handgun is totally legal and not against TABC rules. That means anyone carrying a handgun, open or concealed, with a license is legal.
Now, the issue with the black powder, long gun, or pre-1899 firearm is that it's not a 'handgun' which is what TABC prohibits if unlicensed. So, carrying anything other than a handgun in a non-51% location is not illegal by law, BUT, it is against TABC rules for the license holder to allow an unlicensed firearm to be on premises, and the license holder can lose their permit if they don't ask the person to leave.
So, there may be some confusion by the license holder on what is and isn't allowed, especially if they had a previous incident with what could be seen as a 'handgun', even though by law it legally is not.
Re: Is part of the 30.07 problem TABC?
Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2016 1:54 pm
by oohrah
The other issue though is what Walmart is doing. In their opinion, the vendor could be held liable by the TABC for allowing an "unlicensed" firearm on their property, hence the asking for an LTC. If this is a valid concern, their easy alternative is to post 30.07. So, one could argue, there is a tie-in between TABC Blue sign and 30.07.
Re: Is part of the 30.07 problem TABC?
Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2016 8:10 pm
by One Shot
Keith B wrote:TABC is not an issue with 30.07. As long as the location is not 51%, then the 'licensed' possession of a handgun is totally legal and not against TABC rules. That means anyone carrying a handgun, open or concealed, with a license is legal.
There seems to be a perception among alcohol sellers that they need to post. Not sure where that's coming from, but it sure isn't well informed. As to the need or the methodology. This is at a gas station.
Even HEB's lawyers seemed to get it wrong with their explanation that they had to post because they sell alcohol, that is if they were being sincere.
Re: Is part of the 30.07 problem TABC?
Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2016 12:50 am
by RicoTX
I would suggest the owner email or call his local TABC agent for guidance. My experience in the bar business has been that while TABC does require some paperwork for big stuff...usually an email to the local agent is sufficient for small incidents that have little to do with alcohol. Many owners or managers think that if LE is called for anything they must file an incident report...but my experience was our local agent just wanted an email if something like an argument turned into a shoving match but no one was seriously injured. Now someone gets killed or leaves in an ambulance you better call the agent AND submit an incident report. I had a great relationship with our agents...but many people are terrified of getting into trouble with them instead of working with them. They do pay much more attention to on premise consumption-bars than they do stores. I have never informed them of any incident in a c-store. The only contact I usually have is when they send a letter saying they sent a minor in and we didn't sell them beer
Re: Is part of the 30.07 problem TABC?
Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2016 6:45 am
by mojo84
Keith B wrote:TABC is not an issue with 30.07. As long as the location is not 51%, then the 'licensed' possession of a handgun is totally legal and not against TABC rules. That means anyone carrying a handgun, open or concealed, with a license is legal.
Now, the issue with the black powder, long gun, or pre-1899 firearm is that it's not a 'handgun' which is what TABC prohibits if unlicensed. So, carrying anything other than a handgun in a non-51% location is not illegal by law, BUT, it is against TABC rules for the license holder to allow an unlicensed firearm to be on premises, and the license holder can lose their permit if they don't ask the person to leave.
So, there may be some confusion by the license holder on what is and isn't allowed, especially if they had a previous incident with what could be seen as a 'handgun', even though by law it legally is not.
I am having trouble reconciling this comment of yours to your comment in the Wal-Mart thread about this being a "cop-out" on the part of Wal-Mart. It appears to me TABC needs to update their rules to better fit with the new open carry law.
Re: Is part of the 30.07 problem TABC?
Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2016 7:01 am
by chasfm11
RicoTX wrote:I would suggest the owner email or call his local TABC agent for guidance. My experience in the bar business has been that while TABC does require some paperwork for big stuff...usually an email to the local agent is sufficient for small incidents that have little to do with alcohol. Many owners or managers think that if LE is called for anything they must file an incident report...but my experience was our local agent just wanted an email if something like an argument turned into a shoving match but no one was seriously injured. Now someone gets killed or leaves in an ambulance you better call the agent AND submit an incident report. I had a great relationship with our agents...but many people are terrified of getting into trouble with them instead of working with them. They do pay much more attention to on premise consumption-bars than they do stores. I have never informed them of any incident in a c-store. The only contact I usually have is when they send a letter saying they sent a minor in and we didn't sell them beer
Your description sounds the closest to what I heard from the owner. It was not his opinion alone but apparently was the collective information from the corporate office AND a number of the franchise holders. This particular one has multiple locations. He specifically told me that they believed that the time to file whatever report was necessary was onerous so his perception may be that he doesn't have a great relationship or perhaps even any relationship with his agent. If this is dependent on individual relationships, there is the possibility that some agents may be more authoritarian than others.
Re: Is part of the 30.07 problem TABC?
Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2016 9:45 am
by VMI77
No signs posted at Specs yesterday....the one in south Austin off Slaughter.
Re: Is part of the 30.07 problem TABC?
Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2016 10:20 am
by Keith B
mojo84 wrote:Keith B wrote:TABC is not an issue with 30.07. As long as the location is not 51%, then the 'licensed' possession of a handgun is totally legal and not against TABC rules. That means anyone carrying a handgun, open or concealed, with a license is legal.
Now, the issue with the black powder, long gun, or pre-1899 firearm is that it's not a 'handgun' which is what TABC prohibits if unlicensed. So, carrying anything other than a handgun in a non-51% location is not illegal by law, BUT, it is against TABC rules for the license holder to allow an unlicensed firearm to be on premises, and the license holder can lose their permit if they don't ask the person to leave.
So, there may be some confusion by the license holder on what is and isn't allowed, especially if they had a previous incident with what could be seen as a 'handgun', even though by law it legally is not.
I am having trouble reconciling this comment of yours to your comment in the Wal-Mart thread about this being a "cop-out" on the part of Wal-Mart. It appears to me TABC needs to update their rules to better fit with the new open carry law.
See my reasoning here
http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... 0#p1040672
Re: Is part of the 30.07 problem TABC?
Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2016 10:28 am
by mojo84
Keith B wrote:mojo84 wrote:Keith B wrote:TABC is not an issue with 30.07. As long as the location is not 51%, then the 'licensed' possession of a handgun is totally legal and not against TABC rules. That means anyone carrying a handgun, open or concealed, with a license is legal.
Now, the issue with the black powder, long gun, or pre-1899 firearm is that it's not a 'handgun' which is what TABC prohibits if unlicensed. So, carrying anything other than a handgun in a non-51% location is not illegal by law, BUT, it is against TABC rules for the license holder to allow an unlicensed firearm to be on premises, and the license holder can lose their permit if they don't ask the person to leave.
So, there may be some confusion by the license holder on what is and isn't allowed, especially if they had a previous incident with what could be seen as a 'handgun', even though by law it legally is not.
I am having trouble reconciling this comment of yours to your comment in the Wal-Mart thread about this being a "cop-out" on the part of Wal-Mart. It appears to me TABC needs to update their rules to better fit with the new open carry law.
See my reasoning here
http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... 0#p1040672
My response here.
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=81532&p=1040680#p1040680
Re: Is part of the 30.07 problem TABC?
Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2016 12:17 pm
by chasfm11
Keith B wrote:mojo84 wrote:Keith B wrote:TABC is not an issue with 30.07. As long as the location is not 51%, then the 'licensed' possession of a handgun is totally legal and not against TABC rules. That means anyone carrying a handgun, open or concealed, with a license is legal.
Now, the issue with the black powder, long gun, or pre-1899 firearm is that it's not a 'handgun' which is what TABC prohibits if unlicensed. So, carrying anything other than a handgun in a non-51% location is not illegal by law, BUT, it is against TABC rules for the license holder to allow an unlicensed firearm to be on premises, and the license holder can lose their permit if they don't ask the person to leave.
So, there may be some confusion by the license holder on what is and isn't allowed, especially if they had a previous incident with what could be seen as a 'handgun', even though by law it legally is not.
I am having trouble reconciling this comment of yours to your comment in the Wal-Mart thread about this being a "cop-out" on the part of Wal-Mart. It appears to me TABC needs to update their rules to better fit with the new open carry law.
See my reasoning here
http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... 0#p1040672
I read your response on the other thread. It does not square with the business owner that I spoke with. He is otherwise a strong 2A supporter and carries himself. We probably cannot get the Wal-Mart people responsible for their sign and ID request on the phone to determine the cause but having that information might be helpful going into the 2017 Legislative session. I completely understand that there are a lot of misconceptions out there as evidenced by the links on the "Texans respond to open carry" thread. But if otherwise rational people who do support carry rights are concerned enough to put up a 30>07 sign, I'm thinking that it is more than a mis-conception.
I'm going back to ask some follow up questions. If I can come up with something of substance, I'll post it. Again, he specifically talked about reporting after an incident and him not wanting to have to go through that. Is there any public information on TABC incident reporting or is it only shared with liquor license holders?
Re: Is part of the 30.07 problem TABC?
Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2016 12:24 pm
by LSUTiger
Those who use 30.07 as an excuse that the are being required by law because of selling alcohol are simply pandering to hoplophobes and the PC.
Like HEB, for example, if TABC was an issue how could they not post 30.06 or worse 51%?
It's all baloney. Just admit the truth and move on instead of using the "but we had to, sorry!" excuse.
Re: Is part of the 30.07 problem TABC?
Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2016 1:00 pm
by mojo84
I find it interesting how the argument is being made that because something is legal, the liquor licensee cannot or will not be held liable by TABC. Just because open carry passed, doesn't mean TABC won't hold the establishment accountable.
Here is a press release from a couple years ago addressing how an establishment can be held responsible even though the open carry of long guns is legal. The TABC rules just do not line up with what some want or seem to think the way it should be.
http://www.tabc.state.tx.us/home/press_ ... 130906.asp
I do not like Wal-Mart's position but I'm not going to condemn them for it until TABC changes their rules. TABC wields substantial power and authority over licensees.
Re: Is part of the 30.07 problem TABC?
Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2016 3:01 pm
by MeMelYup
Here is the TABC requirement.
"ABC §11.61. CANCELLATION OR SUSPENSION OF PERMIT.
(e) Except as provided by Subsection (f) or (i), the commission or administrator shall cancel an original or renewal permit if it is found, after notice and hearing, that the permittee knowingly allowed a person to possess a rearm in a building on the licensed premises. This subsection does not apply to a person:
(1) who holds a security officer commission issued under Chapter 1702, Occupations Code, if;
(A) the person is engaged in the performance of the person’s duties as a security officer,
(B) the person is wearing a distinctive uniform; and
(C) the weapon is in plain view;
(2) who is a peace officer;
(3) who is a permittee or an employee of a permittee if the person is supervising the
operation of the premises; or
(4) who possesses a concealed handgun the person is licensed to carry under Subchapter
H, Chapter 411, Government Code, unless the person is on the premises of a business
described by Section 46.035(b)(1), Penal Code.
---
Last amended by Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 1302 (H.B. 3142), Sec. 2, eff. June 14, 2013."
Re: Is part of the 30.07 problem TABC?
Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2016 3:20 pm
by mojo84
2013 > Press Release
TABC Press Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE September 6, 2013
Reminder: "Long guns" prohibited in TABC-licensed businesses.
With the recent publicity surrounding the open carrying of rifles and shotguns, the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) would like to remind the public of the following:
Although an individual may have the legal authority to openly carry certain firearms in public, a business that is licensed to sell or serve alcoholic beverages is prohibited by state law from allowing rifles or shotguns in the building.
Specifically, Section 11.61(e) of the Alcoholic Beverage Code says that TABC shall, after the opportunity for a hearing, cancel a permit if the permittee knowingly allowed a person to possess a firearm in a building on the licensed premises. There are some exceptions included in this law, including licensed concealed handguns.
If an individual does choose to carry a rifle or shotgun into a TABC-licensed business, the individual is placing the business owner's TABC license at risk. Also remember, a business owner may ask a patron to leave the premises. If the patron refuses, that individual may be subject to criminal trespassing charges under Texas Penal Code Section 30.05.
We ask that Texans, while exercising individual rights, please respect the obligations of business owners under state law.
Contact: Carolyn Beck, Director of Communications, 512-206-3347