TexasCHLforum.com

Deltaboy wrote:Unless the property was properly posted the case needs thrown out and the Officer needs retrained.

Im guessing you have not actually read the thread?
After posting this thread, and the polite discussion and information shared in several responses came to light.. It's clear that while some may not like what the officer did, it does in fact seem to be supported by current laws and was a proper search, contact, arrest, and likely will be a successful prosecution.

Keith B wrote:

E.Marquez wrote:

Keith B wrote:

priusron wrote:The guns were in plain sight.

Yep, that was established earlier, hence the arrest.

And then the note from Chas... , implying arrested for what? What was the crime committed? The required elements don't seem to fit the event.. But as we all know, you may beat the wrap, but still take the ride.

It boils down to premsises. For Texas ABC code premises includes the parking lot if part of the licensed area per the TABC drawing by the licensee. For Texas Penal Code premises is defined only as the building. The article said they were arrested for possesion on licensed premises, so if the parking lot was a 51% location, since the guns were in plain sight, they may be charged under TABC code vs. 46.02 which requires it to be 'on or about' the person.

ok good point, thank you.

Are these drawing available in the TABC web site? If so, I have not seen them linked or attached.. but will go look.
If not... we truly are still at the mercy officer (ADA, DA, Judge) whim and "feelings' personal "understanding"...of not knowing if we are legal or not even NEAR a bar or place that sells alcohol..
Heck I thought I was reasonable well informed.. and wrongly understood.. If it was a red 51% location, that was the building.. not a parking lot outside the building..
I could see if the parking lot was gated off, roped off, restricted in some way, to check for ID's and or serve on the parking lot.. that it to might be part of the off limits area indicated by a red 51% license.

It never occurred to me that an open parking area might somehow be included in the off limits area, even though it's not a controlled, restricted lot.

Truly, I have not been in a stand alone bar, in.. well more then 20 years I guess.. bars part of or inside other business yes, sports bars, yes, But just a bar ,, no

Keith B wrote:

priusron wrote:The guns were in plain sight.

Yep, that was established earlier, hence the arrest.

And then the note from Chas... , implying arrested for what? What was the crime committed? The required elements don't seem to fit the event.. But as we all know, you may beat the wrap, but still take the ride.

Keith B wrote:The parking lot of a club may be off-limits for a CHL holder if the club is 51%. However, MPA should cover the gun IF they keep the gun covered.

Parking lot ??? How is a parking lot covered by a liquid license (51%) issued for the club?

RPBrown wrote:

xb12s wrote:Does a firearm have to be concealed under MPA? I don't know the answer to this. I'm not sure if the answer is different in the parking lot of a club. I guess a club could be private property and the parking lot could be posted however? They said "licensed premises". Usually premises is reserved for buildings...

Yes it has to be concealed

Yup I was reading on phone and missed that part.
I understood the plain view and was just thinking it was mistake with the statute and premises deal
The article made it sound like the issue was gun and bar premisise ... Not just unconcealed under mpa

http://m.kdhnews.com/news/crime/men-acc ... 0f31a.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
2 men accused of having guns in cars outside club
Since when is the parking lot of a club statutorily off limits to a weapon?

What am I missing here?