TexasCHLforum.com

denwego wrote:
And the zoo makes me think of something I hadn't ever noticed before: let's say something like the Waco Zoo is licensed, actually encompasses the whole property, and is 51%. The Waco Zoo is more or less entirely outdoors, composed of footpaths and the like; §46.035 defines "premises" as "a building or a portion of a building", so... a genuinely Red location that's entirely outdoors should be technically OK to carry with a LTC, eh? Felony violations are a heck of a razor's edge, but that's the plain language as I read it...

Therein lies the rub. Per the definition of TABC, 'Licensed Premises are any premises covered by permit or license issued by the Commission', so is not the same as 46.035, it is whatever is defined by the TABC and the owner as the area where alcohol can be consumed on premise. For example, at a restaurant they may actually define the area on the sidewalk as part of their premises if they have a couple of outside tables where they serve food and alcohol. Those are usually surrounded by a short wall of barrier, but may not be. That area for a 51% location would be off-limits even though it was on a sidewalk if the TABC officer used the premises definition by TABC. They should use the definition in 46.035 which says ' "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.', but they may not, so it would take a lawyer and judge to get charges dismissed or find you not guilty due to where the offense took place.

MeMelYup wrote:They are saying that the zoo makes over 51% of its money from alcohol? If so they must sell a lot of booze.

No. They are saying that the Cameron Park Zoological and Botanical Society, who holds the liquor license, makes more than 51% of their revenue from the sale of alcohol at their functions. The revenue amount is based on the holder of the liquor license.

A couple of other examples are the Kimbell Art Museum in Fort Worth. The vendor who holds the license makes more than 51% of their revenue from sale of alcohol for on-premise consumption. The TABC has the whole museum as the defined 'premises', so that makes the whole place off limits per TABC.

The same issue exists at a couple of bowling alley's where they have a lounge owned by someone else. That company only sells liquor, so they are off limits. Bass Performance Hall in Fort Worth is the same way.

That rule needs to be changed so these little 'shell' businesses can't make the whole place off-limits.

MeMelYup wrote: That is something Texans need to look into. You go to a firearms show and they have a vender there that sells alcohol. Does that make the entire show 51%?

Only if the TABC shows the 'premises' as the whole location and the vendor makes more than 51% from sale of alcohol for on-premise consumption, then it could be 51%. They should have a sign if it is.

MeMelYup wrote: Ft Worth Zoo, a vender sells alcohol there and uses the zoo address. Does that make the entire zoo 51%? They have a train ride, does that make them an amusement park? They teach groups of kids on school outings about the animals, does that make then an educational institution?

For the 51%, it is the same as above. The Waco Zoo actually has that issue. The liquor license is held by the Cameron Park Zoological and Botanical Society and it is a RED license. The premises is the whole zoo. I called the TABC and they said they reviewed the license and it was valid for the sale percentage.

As for the amusement park, they would have to meet the other requirements to be an amusement park (size, days open, etc.) and then prove that the train was an amusement ride.

They are NOT an educaitonal institution as they are not a 'school'.

locke_n_load wrote:
Keith, I thought the theater was on city property, so no 30.06 or verbal warning carried any weight, except in this instance, the address is 51%, so no carry anyway?

Oh, didn't realize it was owned by the city. But as you stated if it's 51%, then off limits anyway.

sho4020039 wrote:I just called the theater and asked specifically if they had any signs posted outside or at the bar prohibiting concealed carry. The person I spoke to said no but said as private management company she is verbally letting me know that weapons are not allowed. My question is, can they prohibit concealed carry when no signs are posted?

Yes they can, and you have now been verbally given notice, so you can't carry there now.

alphonso wrote: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?

There is one business at 701 Bowie St that is in the tower, Chart House Resturant, and it shows to have a blue sign. You can search for these yourself at http://www.tabc.state.tx.us/PublicInquiry/Status.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

alphonso wrote: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.

Might be more sensible, but the law states that the company who sells the alcohol must hold the license. That is TABC administrative rules.

Here is the license for the venue:

License #: MB418155
Trade Name: SPECTRUM
Owner: FACILITY CONCESSION SERVICES INC.
Location Address: 224 E HOUSTON STREET
SAN ANTONIO , TX 78205
Mailing Address: PO BOX 7130
THE WOODLANDS , TX 77387
County: Bexar Orig. Issue Date: 9/3/1997
Status: Current Exp. Date: 9/2/2013
Wine Percent:
Location Phone No.: 2813630900 Gun Sign: RED
Subordinates: CB,LB,PE
Related To:

If you go here http://www.tabc.state.tx.us/PublicInquiry/Status.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and search for owner FACILITY CONCESSION SERVICES INC you will find they are a concession vendor for a lot of places.

Bottom line, you may like to believe your conspiracy theory about the city figuring out how to prohibit CHL's from entering, but it all has to do with money and business management, not CHL's and guns.

alphonso wrote: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...

I will disagree with you, they are not that smart. They are not going to just go out and try to contract a company to sell alcohol just to keep CHL's from carrying. it has to do with management and operations only.

Bowling alleys, mu serums, theater, ball parks, etc very commonly use another company and vendors for their food, soft beverages and alcoholic beverages. The vendor MUST hold the alcoholic beverage license if they are the ones who are selling the product. If the Majestic themselves ran the food business an sold the alcohol, THEN they would be listed on the license. Otherwise they aren't going to be the ones listed. And, since the vendor DOES make more than 51% of the revenue off of the sale of alcohol for on premise consumption, THEY MUST POST A 51% SIGN and it covers all areas they want people to be able to drink at.

For the restaurant, if they contracted out the bar to another company, and that company only sold alcohol, then your restaurant would be off-limits also. It has nothing to do with the presence of the alcohol, it all has to do with how much percentage of money is made by the person or company that holds the liquor license for that location.

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.

alphonso wrote: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.

I don't think this is done to purposely keep out guns (aka I don't think they are that smart.) It is strictly a loophole that just happens to catch us CHL'ers. A good example is the Kimble Art Museum in Fort Worth. It is a 51% location. The reason being, the business who provides the food service for the museum is contracted. They DO make over 51% of their income from alcohol. They hold the liquor license, so when the TABC looks at the revenues, it is based on the owner of the liquor license. As srothstein says, the license goes with the whole building (unless they specifically limit where the alcohol can be taken when they apply for the license), so the whole building becomes a 51% location by default.

alphonso wrote: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.

City Owned buildings are NOT exempt from being off-limits with a 51% sign, just 30.06. TABC requires 51% sign if the premise is licensed as 51%, so that is one way a government building CAN be restricted and off-limits to a CHL.