The courts must take the definition in the section that contains the prohibition. Local definitions control over global and 64.035 has it's own definition of "premises." So the courts must take the definition in 46.035 that includes only buildings. 46.02 does not have its own definition, which is why courts can use the TABC's definition of "premises licensed or issued a permit by this state for the sale of alcoholic beverages." It's possible that some district court will apply the TABC map, but it would be clearly wrong to do so.srothstein wrote:That is correct. Whatever is listed as the premises on the license is what is the premises for the law. A good basic rule for you to follow is that the licensed premise is anywhere they will let you take the drink. That is why they leave these large defined premises on licenses.Photoman wrote:Bennies wrote:What constitutes as the 51% premis in that situation.
It was explained to me by TABC that whatever is mapped out on the license is what counts.
The other big gray area is what counts as a premise. In the Alcoholic Beverage Code, it is clearly shown to include the parking lots, and this has applied to the Penal Code for years for the basic unlawfully carrying upgrade. But for a CHL and the 51% rule, the Penal Code specifies that premises means buildings. I honestly cannot say which definition the courts would take, especially for a licensed premise that does not include a building, such as a party in a park.
Of course, under the heading of "you can beat the rap but not the ride," the more important question is which definition the cop is going to use.
ETA: the language of 46.02(c) and 46.035(b)(1) is also subtly but significantly different. Compare "on any premises licensed or issued a permit . . ." to "on the premises of a business that has a permit . . ."
The usual disclaimer applies: If you need legal advice, hire a lawyer, because this isn't legal advice and your situation may vary.