TexasCHLforum.com

WTR wrote:KVIA NEWS......search TABC

Thanks!

I'd google for it if I knew what station, but is that available online? I'd be interested in watching it.

Edit: this article has the following statement from the TABC:

The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code does not contain language specifically requiring businesses to check the License to Carry of patrons who choose to carry handguns into a TABC-licensed establishment. However, under Sections 11.61(e) and 61.71(f) of the Code, businesses could lose their liquor license or permit if an unlicensed handgun is brought onto the premises. Ultimately, how business owners choose to verify the licensed status of a person carrying a handgun is up to them.

http://www.fox7austin.com/news/local-ne ... 9627-story

(the statement "businesses could lose their liquor license or permit if an unlicensed handgun is brought onto the premises." is probably literally true because it could happen if the business knowingly allowed it, but the fact that this statement is omitting the knowingly is kind of weird)

mojo84 wrote:I'm done arguing with you guys here that want it the way you want it. You can contact TABC yourselves to set them straight.

Really, seriously, not trying to argue. Your question to them had "knowingly" in it, so I think you are taking their response within that context and assuming that their response has an implied 'knowingly' - but it is possible that their response is literally their response, and their response says nothing about knowingly.

So, yes, if you take their response to say "in context" that there's an implied 'knowingly', then they're not saying anything about mere discovery that it happened at some time. They could in fact be implicitly taking your statement of "knowingly" into account in their response. But their response does not /explicitly/ say knowingly, it just says discovered, so they could also be ignoring your context statement of "knowingly". If they'd written "knowingly" explicitly there'd be no question.

(I think they would probably get slapped down pretty quickly by Wal-Mart lawyers if they tried to push a cancellation for merely discovering it happened without Wal-Mart knowing about it - and it may in fact be that TABC wouldn't start a proceeding merely because it was discovered that someone carried onto a TABC licensed premises without having a license to carry - but in the real word, it is *not* the case that government agencies have never forced people into court to fight against something the government agency shouldn't have been doing, so I don't think it's an unreasonable thing to point out)

mojo84 wrote:There is no need to go on a limb based on a far fetched scenario. Let's discuss this in context. The TABC person responded within the context of my question which was based on the context of this thread.

Do you agree that the the following two statements impose different requirements on Wal-Mart:

"If it is discovered someone carried without a license into a Wal-Mart, TABC has to initiate license/permit cancellation proceedings"
"If it is discovered that Wal-Mart knowingly allowed someone to carry without a license into a Wal-Mart, TABC has to initiate license/permit cancellation proceedings"

To me, the first statement is a /much/ lower bar than the second - that's all I'm trying to say.

mojo84 wrote:

Solaris wrote:

mojo84 wrote:For those of you that think it is a copout, excuse or up to the TABC agent's attitude or mood, here is the response to my direct email inquiry to TABC. I hope you find this post edifying.

Hello Mojo84,
 
Under Sections 11.61(e) and 61.71(f) of the Alcoholic Beverage Code, TABC is required to begin permit/license cancellation proceedings if it is discovered an unlicensed handgun was brought onto the premises of a licensed/permitted business. This being the case, retailers should make arrangements to verify the License to Carry of anyone who possesses a handgun on their premises. Ultimately, how each business chooses to fulfil this requirement is up to them, but TABC is required by law to begin cancellation proceedings if a violation is found.

Notice it says they are required to begin permit/license cancellation proceedings if it is discovered and unlicensed handgun was brought into the premises.

No it does not say that. Here is what it says:


11.61(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 firearm in a building on the licensed premises.

61.7(f) Except as provided by Subsection (g) or (j), the commission or administrator shall cancel an original or renewal dealer's on-premises or off-premises license if it is found, after notice and hearing, that the licensee knowingly allowed a person to possess a firearm in a building on the licensed premises.

Huge difference between knowingly allowing something and not.

Can you expound upon your post as I am having trouble getting your point?

I think he's trying to point out that what TABC stated and what the law actually says may be two different things.

Consider the following situation:

Someone carries into a Wal-Mart, concealed, without a CHL/LTC. Nobody at Wal-Mart sees or knows about it. The person who did this then brags about it on, say, Facebook, and someone at TABC sees it.

If the law actually were "TABC is required to begin permit/license cancellation proceedings if it is discovered an unlicensed handgun was brought onto the premises of a licensed/permitted business", then in the above situation, TABC would have to start permit/license proceedings against the Wal-Mart - because a) someone without a CHL/LTC carried onto the premises and b) that this happened was discovered.

With the law quoted saying 'knowingly', then Wal-Mart has to allow it while knowing both that a) the firearm was carried onto the premises and b) that the person carrying doesn't have a CHL/LTC, and in the above situation Wal-Mart knew neither (a) nor (b).

I think that's why metal detectors were mentioned, if they're on the hook for a cancellation proceeding just because it happened and was discovered, then they would reduce their risk of getting their license cancelled by trying to actively ensure no guns were carried into the store without a CHL/LTC.

Or, for a TL;DR: I think the TABC response may be asserting more than the law actually says.

Heh - I'm less than two pounds over but I dropped 40+ pounds in the last year