TexasCHLforum.com

Sroth,

Very illuminating post. Thanks. I think I'm gonna have to go to law school to understand my CHL.

Do you happen to know how the SA Tower is posted?

A good example would be if I contracted to sell alcohol at a function and held th license for that location, if all I sold was one beer for a nickel and nothing else, it would not matter if the other business made a billion dollars off of their tickets, food, souvenirs etc, the place would still be off-limits.

This is my point exactly. Why should the alcohol vendor at the function you mention above hold the license for the entire enterprise? If the other parts of the enterprise (tickets, food, souvenirs, etc) make much more money and are the primary purpose for the whole event, it seems much more sensible to me to have them hold the TABC license and classification.

3dfxMM wrote:The restaurant and the theater are not the same case at all. In the case of the restaurant, the alcohol business and the non-alcohol business are the same business owned by the same entity. In the case of the theater you have two businesses owned by two separate entities. They just happen to be sharing the same space.

Good point--up to a point

It makes a lot more sense to me for the TABC to license the building red or blue based on the primary nature of the business--in this case an entertainment venue. To view the entertainment venue by an ancillary service that just happens to operate in the same building seems to me to have the tail wagging the dog.

A hypothetical: If a restaurant that had both a bar and a dining area was owned by the city would they determine the 51/non 51% of the entire restaurant based only on the operation of the bar, or of the operations of the entire entity?
Would they create two different business, one for the bar and one for the kitchen, and put the whole operation under license through the bar? If they did, it would be contrary to how all other restaurants are determined to be red or blue.

I suspect that the city would choose to have the tail wag the dog. I say that because that's what they are doing with the theater and museum that came up as examples in this thread.

In other words, they would post 30.06 if they could. Since they can't, they found a way to prohibit CHL anyway.

We do not have to agree, and I've enjoyed the chat we are all having, but I continue to think the city is simply playing a shell game with my rights...

Keith,

We probably will never know, and probably will never agree.

The mere presence of alcohol does not prohibit CHL. I suspect that they intentionally classify the entire building via TABC through the vendor who is 51% specifically to keep legal guns out of the whole establishment. If they wanted I'm sure the TABC could classify the building to its actual owner, and just acknowledge that there is a 51% business that operates on part of the building.

Again, I can CHL in a non 51% restaurant with alcohol all around me.

In other words, I think "they" are that smart. Wrong headed, but smart nonetheless.

This will be my last trip to the Majestic--tickets are too expensive anyway...

Keith,

Right you are. My objection is that the revenue for the whole building is not used to calculate the 51% status of the whole building.

The fact that they want people to be able to take drinks to their seats doesn't seem relevant to me. When I am at a non 51% restaurant, there are drinks all around me and often even at my table. As long as none of them are mine, there is no issue.

It seems to me that the city and the theater managers found a somewhat slimy way to keep guns out simply because they wanted them out.

Sroth,

Thanks for the informative answer. I think you have it right.

I spoke to the "manager" of the theater and he hardly knew a thing about the law, the theater's policies, or the signs that were/were not posted. When pressed, he finally told me that no guns were allowed to respect the wishes of the artists.

Sounds to me like putting the 51% on the whole place, which is as you know, owned by the city is just a slippery trick to abridge my 2nd amendment rights and cause me to walk around downtown unarmed.

The bowling alley analogy is helpful to understand the situation, but unless the bowling alley is city or state owned, not completely relevant.

OP here.

There is nothing on the Majestic website about guns. I called a manager and he said "no guns" and that they had signs at the door and that the whole place was 51% (which simply can't be true). I asked him if he was posted 30.06. He didn't know what that was. He promised to take a look at his no gun signs and call me back. So far, no call back.

When I explained to him that he wasn't allowed to post a city-owned building he said he'd never heard of such a thing. Also that the management company that runs the theater made the rules.

I cannot find the Majestic listed on the TABC site.

Just a guess, the TABC has the Majestic listed under the name of the management and is allowing a city-owned building to be posted in violation of the law.

Do we have a lawyer(s) here who want to look into the situation? I'll help...

Anybody know if the Majestic Theater in San Antonio is posted?

It's not shown on 30.06.com. There are some threads here about it, but none too recent.

Thanks in advance...