TexasCHLforum.com

ScottDLS. I am not aware of how the licensees are licensed at the Fair, nor the specifics of the zoos. Places like the fair usually get temporary licenses that are good for just the dates of the fair. This is especially true if it is just the vendors.

The zoo has two separate possibilities. The first is that the license is actually held by the zoo or the zoo society. If this is true, I find it hard to believe that 50% of their income is from the alcohol. Dues and admissions count as much as the food does. If it is a vendor, then it is possible that it really is 51% and the license covers the whole zoo.

The trick on both of these is that the license may cover the entire grounds and the permittee may still post signs restricting alcohol to certain areas. Those are owner rules though and not the law.

As for the definition of premises in 46.02, that is new since the addition of the MPA. As I pointed out, I am not aware of arrests since then because most people leave their guns in their cars. I agree that it might make a difference in the way the court looks at the case. I guess I should have mentioned that, in addition to the specific facts of the case, the quality of the attorney will make a difference. He has to be good enough to look at these differences and argue that they make the old case law not apply to his case.

There have been several posts about my post and I do not want to clutter up the thread with a response to each individually. Here is my general answer to the posts.

The first and most clear one is the question about other buildings in the zoo. If the alcohol is sold in one building but the license covers the hole zoo, I would think that any court would say it covers every building in the zoo. The definition in 46.035 does not say the premises where sold. The section says on the premises that are licensed. If the license covers the whole zoo, then it covers all buildings in the zoo even if alcohol is not sold there right now.

The second clear one was who and where arrested. Yes, I am referring to non-CHL people when I say we arrested them in the parking lot. Too be precise, I am referring to parking lots of places with a TABC license or permit. This includes people before the CHL law and to non-CHLs after the law until the MPA was passed.

The third is a little less clear. I am NOT saying that it is clearly legal or illegal to carry on the sidewalk of a zoo that has a 51% license covering the whole zoo. I am saying that it could be taken either way by the courts. I am aware of the changes in the law, at least the statute law. I am not able to keep up with every case to know all of the case law out there. There may be a case that has decided this that I am not aware of.

But, in the area of case law, I am aware that courts tend to rule on the basis of a principle of stare decisis. This means they tend to follow previous case law. It has been called a fancy way of saying that because we were wrong once, we will continue to be wrong. This is not quite true because the courts always look at new laws to see if they changed things. Sometimes they specifically say the old case law no longer applies and sometimes they say that it applies, but slightly differently because of the new law. I have always seen court cases where I think the court ruled incorrectly, especially in the search and seizure area where the Constitution is intentionally vague on what is required.

One of my career goals was to make sure my name never appeared on a Supreme Court case. I recommend this as a guiding principle for most people. There is an old saying that if a case gets to the jury for a decision, it is really a crap shoot on how it will go. I have been surprised by juries several times. I think this also applies to appeals courts. As a general rule, I can see what I think they will rule because they tend to rely on the exact wording of the law. But there is a problem with this if the law is vague or contradictory or if the plain interpretation would make no sense. Then they try to read the legislature's mind and guess what the intent was.

This last part is important in this case. The law is clear that TABC is allowed to define the premises to include the sidewalks and in a fenced in area, this makes sense. Banning firearms in a bar (51% location) also makes sense to any. Saying that the ban does not apply to the open parts of a bar appears to make no sense and contradict the intent of the clause banning carry there. How the courts will decide is a real wild card on this, and I am going to suggest that it strongly depends on the specific facts of the case that gets to the Court of Criminal Appeals.

Let me give you two scenarios that show exactly how much of a difference the specific case facts will make a. First scenario is a zoo where there is a contract vendor. The vendor only sells alcohol and has a license that includes the whole zoo. A person is caught with a pistol and a CHL inside the zoo and has not been drinking. Say he is caught by the wind blowing a jacket open and someone else sees the pistol. In a case like this, I think the court would probably agree with us that the sidewalks are not included. There is no guarantee of that though.

Second scenario is a nightclub that has a open, uncovered patio area. The patio can be accessed from the parking lot through a fence or from the inside of the club through a side door. There is also a front door to the club. The person with a CHL has not been drinking and is dancing. He is his group's designated driver so he has had no alcohol at all. As he is dancing he bumps into another patron who is intoxicated. The drunk starts a fight over his drink being spilled by the dancer. The CHL tries to de-escalate the situation and is unsuccessful. It eventually builds to his shooting the drunk in self-defense. In this case, I think the court would probably rule that the open area is covered by the license and is part of the premises. It may also cause trouble with the self-defense claim. Again, there is no guarantee but the court would look at the expectation of encountering a drunk and getting into a fight, which is why the ban was put into effect.

I tend to agree that the open areas are not covered, but I am not confident that it would be held that way by the court. As a result I counsel caution and not carrying there. It will take a court case to be sure and people on the bleeding edge of criminal law tend to get cut.

ScottDLS wrote:They are not going to be able to make the whole zoo 51% because regardless of the ABC definition of the licensed premises, the 46.035 definition doesn't include the walkways, parking areas, etc.

I think this is an interesting case that will take the courts to decide. The problem is that there are two different definitions of premises. One is in the Alcoholic Beverage Code and covers the license and the signs. Under this law, the premises includes all physical property. This means the signs are properly posted at the entrance to the zoo. But, the law for carrying defines premises as we are all familiar. It clearly says it is the buildings only.

There are two possible scenarios for this. The first is that the sign is properly posted at the zoo entrance, as the license and law requires. If you are caught inside a building inside the zoo, I do not see any possible defense for you. Sorry, but I do not see the court saying it has to be on the building too.

The second is the same postings but you are caught carrying while walking around the grounds. I can see a strong defense here based on the Penal Code definition. Unfortunately, I am aware that there is a fairly extensive case history that applies the ABC definition to the parking lots. We made many arrests for carrying weapons in parking lots. I do not know if the passage of CHL has changed this in case law. I am pretty sure I would not want to be the test case and I am sure there will need to be one if the legislature does not act.

Alcoholic Beverage Code, Sec. 11.49. PREMISES DEFINED; DESIGNATION OF LICENSED PREMISES. (a) In this code, "premises" means the grounds and all buildings, vehicles, and appurtenances pertaining to the grounds, including any adjacent premises if they are directly or indirectly under the control of the same person.

artx wrote:As others have said, it is posted. However, I believe it is owned by the city, so non-sporting, non-school events would be OK regardless of posting.

That said, about 2 years ago I tried to find definite, concrete proof of who owned the ATT Center (I wanted to print this out in advance of going there for a concert). I wasn't able to find anything concrete about who owned it. The address doesn't show up in the county appraisal district, which matches with it being city/county owned. (After all, if a private business was that large, they'd want the property tax revenue right ? )

I still hope to find this info eventually, but am at a dead end now.

Technical correction, but the ATT center is owned by the County, along with the Freeman Coliseum and the rest of the grounds it sits on. Construction was paid for by a sales tax on hotel rooms and rental cars, with a good chunk kicked in by the spurs, who have a very favorable lease there (they get a portion of the admission and all the parking from ANY event held there other than the stock show and rodeo.

BTW, the CAD records do not appear to be correct, but I think property ID 398016 is the AT&T Center and 398015 is the Freeman Coliseum and the rest of the grounds. It lists the first as the community arena on 27 acres of land, but has no value and no improvements. The second is listed as the expo park on 142 acres of land, again with no improvements and no value.