Search found 2 matches

by locke_n_load
Wed Jul 05, 2017 2:29 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: City did it again...or did they?
Replies: 21
Views: 6146

Re: City did it again...or did they?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
locke_n_load wrote:I don't see how a fenced-in park could be considered "inside or part of a building" - per the "premises" definition in TPC chapter 46. Could you take a ride if you were found to be carrying? Sure, but I don't think anything could stick. But that is just my opinion.
The park isn't a "premises" as defined in TPC §46.035 and §46.03. However, it may be a 51%.

Chas.
But isn't the violation for carrying on the premises of a 51% location under 46.035, which defines premises in that section as a building or part of a building? It does not state on the property of a 51%, but the premises. Not arguing, just clarifying what I thought was my understanding. Any further clarification is appreciated.

Both from 46.035:
(1) on the premises of a business that has a permit or license issued under Chapter 25, 28, 32, 69, or 74, Alcoholic Beverage Code, if the business derives 51 percent or more of its income from the sale or service of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption, as determined by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission under Section 104.06, Alcoholic Beverage Code;
(3) "Premises" means a building or a portion of a building. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.
by locke_n_load
Wed Jul 05, 2017 2:01 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: City did it again...or did they?
Replies: 21
Views: 6146

Re: City did it again...or did they?

I don't see how a fenced-in park could be considered "inside or part of a building" - per the "premises" definition in TPC chapter 46. Could you take a ride if you were found to be carrying? Sure, but I don't think anything could stick. But that is just my opinion.

Return to “City did it again...or did they?”