TexasCHLforum.com

NotRPB wrote:TABC versus Government owned buildings

Another example at Verizon Theater city owned building? with 51% red sign in Grand Prairie http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic. ... 4#p1068274

In this case, it WOULD be in the 'premises', so this one might stick.

dhoobler wrote:

Keith B wrote:

dhoobler wrote:Would a person with a LTC charged with violating a 51% sign be charged under TPC 46.035 or TABC code?

It would be a 46.035 charge, but not valid. TABC code does not have any criminal penalties in it, so they have to charge a person under Texas Penal Code. The only penalties in TABC code pertain to a licensee and the suspension or revocation of a license for violating the administrative rules.

If an LTC holder were to be charged with an offense under 46.035, I would expect that the definition of premises from 46.035 would apply:

(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.

If the courts can mix and match the law and pull the definition of premises from another section of code, the law becomes impossibly ambiguous.

What I should have said was 'arrested'. The prosecutor probably would drop the charges once it was realized that 'premises' as defined in 46.035 was not met due to not being a building or portion of. The issue is, who wants to be the test case? It may have to go to that level unless we can get an AG opinion in the favor of 46.035 and get TABC to change the wording in the rules so the TABC officers get the same definition in their rules as 46.035.

dhoobler wrote:Would a person with a LTC charged with violating a 51% sign be charged under TPC 46.035 or TABC code?

It would be a 46.035 charge, but not valid. TABC code does not have any criminal penalties in it, so they have to charge a person under Texas Penal Code. The only penalties in TABC code pertain to a licensee and the suspension or revocation of a license for violating the administrative rules.

mr1337 wrote:

jmorris wrote:Why do you think it's an AG issue? It's not an invalidly posted 06/07, it's an invalidly posted 51%. It should go to TABC first.

If they are trying to prohibit LTC-holders from entering with a firearm where they are not prohibited from entering, it's an AG issue. The anti-30.06 law isn't just for 30.06 signs, it's for any sign or notice that communicates that license holders can't bring their legal guns into.

The 'premise' discrepancy needs to be corrected in TABC language, but getting them to change it themselves would be nearly impossible. This is the time to use the AG invalid signage rule to fix not only the 30.06/30.07, but the 51% signs on 'premises' so it is clear there is no violation unless the LTC enters a building (46.035 defined 'premise').

Jusme wrote:
The entire premise cannot be 51% posted if the gross profits are not from alcohol sales. it is the same in a restaurant, they may serve alcohol anywhere in the restaurant, but if their gross revenues from the sale of alcohol are less than 51% it can't be a TABC posted 51% premises.

Actually, yes it can. The TABC does not require the entire amount of the proceeds from the venue, just the proceeds from the company that holds the liquor license. A good example of this is the Kimbel Art Museum and Bass Hall in Fort Worth. The concession company holds the liquor license for those locations makes more than 51% of their revenue from sale of alcohol. The patrons are allowed to drink in any part of the building, so the whole building is the 51% 'premise'.

EDIT TO ADD: Here is a link from our resident expert on a vendor or other license holder causing a whole location to be off-limits http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... 1&p=903684

jmorris wrote:Wouldn't the proper thing to do, especially if 51% signs are posted at the gates, be filing a complaint with TABC? I would but I'm not in the area so couldn't verify anything.

https://www.tabc.texas.gov/LicensedLocationComplaint/

Actually, the whole location may legitimately be under the TABC premise. If people can take their drinks out of the location and drink anywhere on the fair grounds, then the whole grounds will be defined under the 51% license. The problem would be if a TABC officer decides you are in violation of carrying on a 51% location, even though 46.035 defines premise as the building or portion of, then you may end up taking a ride until they realize that there is a discrepancy in the statutes vs. TABC rules on the definition of premises.

46.035 says

(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;

TABC defines premises as the area listed on the license for consumption, so their 'premises' could be the whole fair. 46.035 says 'building or portion of building'. So, there is a major conflict on the 'premises' definition. Because there is no case law on this, you may beat the rap, but not the ride and cab fare in this one.

Best bet is if it's government owned, to try and report it to the AG and get an opinion from them.