TexasCHLforum.com

locke_n_load wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:I don't see how a fenced-in park could be considered "inside or part of a building" - per the "premises" definition in TPC chapter 46. Could you take a ride if you were found to be carrying? Sure, but I don't think anything could stick. But that is just my opinion.

The park isn't a "premises" as defined in TPC §46.035 and §46.03. However, it may be a 51%.

Chas.

But isn't the violation for carrying on the premises of a 51% location under 46.035, which defines premises in that section as a building or part of a building? It does not state on the property of a 51%, but the premises. Not arguing, just clarifying what I thought was my understanding. Any further clarification is appreciated.

Both from 46.035:

(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;
(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.

I agree with you and that's what I would argue in court. However, I haven't heard of a case where an alleged 51% violation was overturned because the defendant was outside the bar on the patio or elsewhere on the property. The argument pay carry the day, but I can't recommend giving it a try.

Chas.

locke_n_load wrote:I don't see how a fenced-in park could be considered "inside or part of a building" - per the "premises" definition in TPC chapter 46. Could you take a ride if you were found to be carrying? Sure, but I don't think anything could stick. But that is just my opinion.

The park isn't a "premises" as defined in TPC §46.035 and §46.03. However, it may be a 51%.

Chas.

Cities have the authority to ban firearm possession by non-LTCs in city parks via any sign that gets the message across.

One of our long-time Forum Members was a TABC agent and he explained that a 51% sign posted in these circumstances may or may not be enforceable, depending upon the type of liquor license held by the company selling alcohol. He gave a bowling ally as an example where the company running the bar was not the same company that owned the bowling ally. The licensee had an all-premises liquor license thus rendering the entire building off-limits to LTCs. I have no idea if this would work at an outside venue with or without a perimeter fence.

Chas.